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

Request to lift a hastily placed block

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

---

Per this incident, Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) was accused of violating his interaction ban between himself and the filer of the report MaxBrowne. First, the evidence given for IBAN is this edit . Ihardlythink so was blocked 12 minutes after this incident was reported, and while Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne are under an IBAN to be sure, this post doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne, although he refers to the IBAN itself. Further, this block is contested by Giano, Ne Ent , GoodDay and myself.

As there is no credible evidence that Ihardlythinkso was actually referring to MaxBrowne, I would request an unblock. Obviously, no investigation can be made as to whether or not MaxBrowne actually broke the IBAN by actually referring to Ihardlythinkso, since this would be an exception to the ban. I have notified the above mentioned users about this posting, I have also notified blocking sysop Spartaz and closing sysop Chillum. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The posting "doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne"? Bollocks. He was talking about him, as was crystal-clear from his description of that specific incident – anybody who remembers the incident knows that it was M.B. who was the other party in it. Whether he names the name is completely irrelevant. People who knew the event (and there are many of them out there) know who he meant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It was clear that the person who was referred to was MaxBrowne. There is also evidence that this is a repeat offense. - Knowlegekid87 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• on the subject of hasty! don't you think it's a bit hasty to raise this here before having a discussion with me first or does your AGF not extend to admins? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose(I was one of the closers) This was already reviewed and was also closed by 3 different administrators(including myself) with the same conclusion. If the matter is not apparent to you then it is likely because you are not familiar with the case.

  It was not hasty because it was not a ban discussion, it was a case of administrative discretion based on an already existing ban. There is no need to have a protracted debate when the conclusion is obvious to the acting admin.

  There was also a similar incident where IHTS was warned that this sort of gaming would not excuse him. Chillum 20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am going to ping @Doc9871: as this admin also closed the discussion. Chillum 21:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't make unsupported statements about about other editors, Doc9871 is not an admin [1] NE Ent 22:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do not think Chillum knew that, it is common that editors close discussions but some have so many info-boxes it is hard to tell if they are admin or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake, thank you for pointing that out. Chillum 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no admin and have never claimed to be one. Per IHTS:

"I am unable to tell any of the abusive treatments because any reference direct or indirect will be interpreted as IBAN violation with the offending user, who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed where he used the abusive name-calls. So effectively now, I have a sock stuck down my throat, and am unable to voice any complaint about the incidents without receiving an escalated block."

Who here does not think that the one "who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed" was Max Browne? Anyone? And is the "immediately" thing meant to throw suspicion on this "offending user" for filing it so quickly? It looks like it to me. Max Browne filed the request for IBAN, did he not? A thread that was then open for 8 days. It's quite obvious that IHTS fully knew he violated the IBAN when he said, "If WP:NPA policy can be ignored, allowing a user to repeatedly be abused with "classic narcissist" name-call, then please tell me a rational/reasonable argument why WP:IBAN policy is to be respected!"[2] This thread is just wikilayering to get a buddy out of the trouble he made for himself. Doc talk 04:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The IBAN prohibits discussing the other party, either directly or indirectly. You don't have to mention the other guy's name in order to have enforcement come down on you. When it's clear who the guy's talking about, to those familiar with the case, the IBAN has to be enforced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware the Ban prohibits direct or indirect discussion. It's not clear that Max Browne is being discussed. Ihardlythinkso mentions his IBAN, but given no detail, nor really any indication that he's talking about MaxBrowne, bear in mind, I'm currently under a TBAN "Broadly Construed" so I'm well aware that a ban typically means no talk to or talking about whatever the subject of the ban is, anywhere on Wikipedia.

Also, I wasn't the sole user that objected, as I noted three others did as well. Spartaz , I've been down that road before. I've actually spoken with sysops and have had consensus in my favor only for the sysop to just flat ignore it, so I no longer think it's the thing to do, to be honest. I believe in consensus, and if consensus says you're fine, then so be it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of how bans go. If it's clear to those "in the know" that the ban was violated, then the violator and his buddies have to accept the block. Trying to wikilawyer around it is not acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be closed, it was already as pointed out by Chillum closed by 2 different admins, 3 after this. I think the WP:STICK should be dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to "drop the stick" is to stop arguing about the close, which is a practice thing, not any sort of policy. So, anyway, it's not unreasonable to conclude IHTS violated the ban because he mentioned the editor who called him a narcissist. However, the context of the comment was replying a post by Jimbo Wales (also an admin) following up a discussion on Wales' talk page, and the primary thrust of the comment was that an admin not-named-Max-Browne whom IHTS does not have an interaction ban with also called him a narcissist, so I don't see it as a violation, especially as IHTS did not mention MB by name. So perhaps a refactoring could have been asked for, or maybe a shorter block. Anyway, the most important thing is IHTS has not posted any sort of unblock request, so perhaps we should wait and see what he has to say about it. NE Ent 22:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways an editor can slip a hint about another editor hoping to draw attention to that person but thinking that it is not enough to get themselves caught. The point is that MaxBrowne picked something up in it. It could very well be a misunderstanding but seeing the evidence of past things like this that Ihardlythinkso has done It becomes harder to trust the editor. In addition 2 admin have weighed in on the matter and all have considered it a closed discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs I'm hardly one of Ihardlythinkso's buddies. He doesn't know me from a hole in the ground, to be quite honest, so if that comment was directed to me, it's not true and you should strike it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning you by name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock - Much has been made of User talk: Jimbo Wales being a "community noticeboard" rather than an individual user talk page. Much like ANI; users go there to air their grievances, demand action, demand justice or otherwise opine for change. Of late, that has involved extensive interaction with Wales himself, subsequent to a demand (here) for an interaction ban between Wales and an editor. IHTS's comments should be seen in that context - ongoing discussion of an interaction ban proposal while he himself was subject to an interaction ban. He tried to give a full account of that ban in the context of that discussion and went as far as to describe certain things. Did he technically breach his ban in doing so? Yes. Does it serve any real purpose to block him for it? No, not really. Does anyone think MB's editing here was impacted by IHTS's giving an account of how the interaction ban came to be (in his view)? I... (sorry for this in advance) ...hardly think so. The issue here was the technical breach - there was no melodrama on MB's part. I don't think MB or the blocking admin were wrong (they called it as they saw it and I don't think it was "hasty") but a broader reading of this suggests a block is fairly pointless and obviously punitive rather than preventative. It also had the unintentional impact of disallowing IHTS's involvement at User talk: Jimbo Wales which, again, editors have come to accept as a legitimate venue for broader discussions. I suggest the block be limited to "time served". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• So you are saying he should get a get out of jail free card for breaking an interaction ban on Jimbo's page? No, it shouldn't be okay and it is not okay. I quote the WP:IBAN policy "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;". if you want to propose a change to the policy with "With an exception to Jimbo's talkpage" then feel free to do so. Jimbo's talkpage though is a part of Wikipedia just like all other user-pages are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact the IBAN violation was made on IHTS's own talk page Want to think again? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're absolutely right - it was on his own talk page in response to a comment from Wales which was a continuation of an ongoing discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. And I'm not suggesting an exemption or a get-out-of-jail free card. Only that it should be looked at in context. From memory, I supported the original IBAN, so I certainly endorse its enforcement. I just wonder what point it serves to enforce what looks like policy wonkery given the intention doesn't seem to have been to break the ban but to explain it. My question, which applies equally regardless of location, is whether he would have been blocked had he posted the same here in asking for the ban to be reviewed? I'm thinking possibly not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let me ask a silly question. If blocks are supposed to be to prevent disruption (not to punish bad behavior) and the disruption in question is a comment the user made on their own talk page, how is that goal achieved by blocking them from every page on Wikipedia, except for the one page where the disruption (allegedly) occurred? --B (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Under WP:BLOCKDETERRENT I feel that this falls under #2 and #3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- I'm not sure why MaxBrowne feels the need to patrol Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Whether or not IHTS's comment amounts to a violation of the topic ban, this continued hostile scrutiny could easily be seen as baiting and I'm not sure we should be rewarding it. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In any kind of limited ban, it is best to take anything connected with that ban off your watch list. In the case of an interaction ban, it is best to treat the other party like the ebola virus - keep as far away as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unblock...but this whole thing is bollocks. IHTS remains rather pissed off that someone called them a "classic narcissist". Personally, I don't consider it a violation of WP:NPA (really, so what if I was a narcissist, it's not a horrible thing to be called)..., but IHTS REALLY believes it was an attack on psychological condition - PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING in this type of situation. However Bushranger apologized for the statement, right here on either AN or ANI. Yes - apologized. Case-closed, one would have thought. I believe I even said at the time "now we won't have to hear about it anymore". So,

• IHTS perceived the comment to be an attack
• IHTS does not perceive the apology to have occurred
• IHTS perceives that an admin got away with a gross personal attack

This therefore can be easily resolved:

• Bushranger repeats the apology for one, final time
• IHTS acknowledges it, and gets unblocked
• MaxBrowne takes IHTS's talkpage off his fricking watchlist
• Everyone drops their sticks and goes back to bloody editing
• Any FUTURE repeat of this stick behavior can lead to whatever else the community wants

Problem solved. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IHTS's failure to acknowledge Bushranger's apology should not require Bushranger to apologize again. As far as this block goes, oppose lifting it early. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that incident knows exactly where IHTS was going with it. There are two simple facts here. 1. he violated his ban. 2. He needs to let it go. If he can't do the latter, he will continue to do the former, and will continue to get blocked. The solution here is for IHTS to serve his two weeks, drop the stick, and find something productive to do. Resolute 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: I concur: failure to acknowledge shouldn't be our issue. But we really could save IHTS and the entire community (obviously) a lot of ridonc pain if Bushranger either a) repeats his apology, or b) someone's wise enough to re-link to where it was, get it confirmed, and move on. IHTS deserves formal closure of what they feel to be a "psychological-wellness-based personal attack" and they and the rest of us deserve to move on once and for all. We're just going to continually get jabs about how admins are immune until it happens the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saying, admins are not immune, there is nothing stopping someone from launching an investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the fuss is about. There was a consensus that there should be an interaction ban, there was a clear cut violation of that and the community consensus has been enforced. This seems to be a case of some people simply not liking the outcome.

While some people may not like it the fact is that there was an IBAN and it was violated. This issue is resolved. Chillum 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite - there seems to be consensus that the IBAN was not violated ("consensus" in this case would very much be unofficial, since I started this post) and it looks to be 3 to 1. Unless there are more opposes, I;d say the IBAN wasn't violated and thus, the block needs to be rescinded. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect you have not read what others have said. He did refer to the person he was in an IBAN with, anyone familiar with the case can see that. The only way you could not be aware of that is if you are unfamiliar with the case. Drop the stick and let it go, the facts are against you.

This is not a discussion on if an IBAN should take place, that happened long ago. This is a discussion to see if an admin action was wrong. The facts and policy support the block and most people can see that. There is certainly no consensus that the block was wrong. Chillum 16:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be closed now by an uninvolved party. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unblock Nothing to be gained by continuing this block. Giano (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, there IS something to be gained, as I recently learned from a similar experience. 2 weeks is a good stretch to think at length about what a ban is and to realize the consequences of a violation. An early unblock is just an invitation to more of the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

    But maybe you're just a slow thinker? Eric Corbett 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that you had been blocked for two weeks Baseball Bugs, but I'm glad you found the experience rewarding. However, while I thank you for taking time out from your busy editing schedule to share your experiences with me, my view remains entirely unchanged. Giano (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that the topic ban wasent violated. Then again I would be shocked if you did have support for an IBAN here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@[[Knowledgekid87: are you talking to me, Bugs or Eric? I'm beginning to feel rather followed and threatened by you of late, wherever I am, there you are also two paces behind. Giano (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Im talking to you, and no you aren't followed as you can see I have been posting in this thread since before you were here. Im not here saying the same about you following-wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I see: Well if you check the history of this block here on this page [3], you will see that I started the discussion. Now, if I were you, I would shut up now, before you make yourself look even more ridiculous than you managed last night when pointlessly pursuing me. Giano (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

MaxBrowne originally started the discussion on the admin page which I had not taken any part in, I started commenting when it was reviewed by Kosh here. Please stop trying to accuse others off of baseless arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly for you, on this page, diffs speak louder than words. Whatever, I'm not inclined to engage with you this evening. We all enjoyed quite enough of your silly inanities last night. I don't see what will be achieved by prolonging this block - other than punitive self gratification on the part of some. That's my view and I will continue to hold it. Giano (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the consensus is clearly to unblock. Giano (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose As IHTS shows he not only meant to infer max brown but stated how he believes that IBAN should be violated at will by him. He can always appeal it through proper channels, if he believes that it would be lifted but since he can't stop making comments even now I doubt that is likely. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This thread is degrading into nasty comments and wikilawyering. Nobody has refuted the clear evidence that has been presented to support this block, someone please close this one way or another before it festers more. Chillum 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Chillum, you can't have the thread closed because you don't like the consensus. Now I hope you are not in the IRC Admin channel trying to get it closed because I will find out and be very cross if that's the case. Giano (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• No Giano there is no behind the scenes conspiracy. I have not used that channel in years. Chillum 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion was closed by 2 admins and 1 editor, let it go already. The evidence has not been debunked all I saw from your reason was WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• You really are very tiresome. I'm afraid that consensus is not archived by those who shout loudest, but by common sense. Giano (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is appealing this in the proper place and not intentionally violating an IBAN. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus says the IBAN wasn't violated to begin with KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Saying that doesn't make it so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

But it does prevent the appropriate archiving of this thread (the second one concerning the same incident). If consensus were in favor of unblocking due to a falsely levied, "hasty" IBAN violation, a good neutral admin would have noted that and unblocked by now. Right? Close the thread. Doc talk 04:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that Jimbo held a conversation with him is no carte blanche to start dredging up a topic from several months back in violation of the interaction ban. The terms of the interaction ban have been made abundantly clear, indeed IHTS was specifically warned to avoid bringing up the "classic narcissist" comment and has been blocked over it once before. Also, the fact that IHTS has decided to employ an extremely hostile tone towards anyone who crosses him, and the commentary post-block is not something that makes me want to unblock at all. If the block were erroneous or abusive I might understand the accusations of bad faith such as "unnecessary and dishonest games" and "clear favoritism/prejudice/inconsistency/unfairness/hypocrisy"; but the block was per policy and so what I see is not legitimate anger that came from prodding or provocation but rather a total lack of willingness to accept the terms of the ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On hastyness

Interestingly, none of the users accusing me of hastiness have taken time to contact me to establish what due diligence I undertook before making the block. This seems hasty in itself and is yet another example of users assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard but perhaps we can let that slide for the sake or harmony. Just for clarity, I saw the report as it was posted, read the post, the comment and also researched the IBAN and associated discussion as well as IHTS's block log. Only then did I act. Please can someone tell me what part of that sequence is hasty or lacks due diligence? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing hasty at all :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard is en vogue right now. Chillum 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion will soon be bot archived. This happens, naturally, when a thread has outlived its usefulness; and it's an important part of the cycle. Will it be reopened/re-reported due to the "hastiness" of how these threads are archived? Let's hope not. What a waste of time this is. Doc talk 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Close of a stale RFC

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

---

Today, I closed a stale RFC at Talk:Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. It was a fairly standard close. Now, an involved editor, Floydian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted the close for the second time. After the first one, I restored it, but as he has chosen to edit war over the close of a stale RFC, I will leave it to an administrator to deal with him. I won't restore the close again, but I strongly think it should be restored, and this editor warned that reversion of an uninvolved editor's close of a stale RFC isn't appropriate. (Note: I have zero edits to the main article there.) LHM^{ask me a question} 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that his last edit summary ("not by a non-admin it isn't") seems to assume that a non-admin closure by a completely uninvolved editor should be given less deference than one by an administrator. There is nothing in policy to support such a view. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am involved at the content at Ebola virus outbreak in the United States but not in the specific RFC mentioned here. The request for the close was made here at WP:AN by SW3 5DL, current status here. It requested a close by an admin specifically. I commented at the WP:AN request that the RFC also included a discussion about possible canvassing, and that needed looking into. While content RFCs can be closed by non-admins, requests to investigate and close possible behavior issues need an admin. Editors on both sides of the aisle, SW3 5DL here and Floydian here, have indicated that an admin is needed. Given that this has become a contentious close with possible behavior issues attached, I agree with both that an admin is now required. Zad68 02:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no objection to a non-admin closure. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

here you said Still need that closure and, obviously, it must be an admin to save further disruption.... I don't know what else to think. Zad68 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very clear that he meant that in the context of Floydian's out-of-process reversion, it should likely be an admin that re-closed it. I was about to post something similar about your misrepresentation of SW3's position as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point I need to just let others review the edits and make their own determinations. Zad68 02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Lithistman, it's not me objecting to a non-admin closure. It's Floydian who reverted the closure twice, demanding an admin. In an effort to quell the disruption, I simply asked for an admin. When Lithistman closed it, I didn't object at all. In fact, I believe I thanked him. I still don't understand the issue. He's not really stated it. He's only reverted. And he's not come here or gone to AN. Don't know what to make of this. And, I'll add, why Zad68 has involved himself at all, makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I stand by my actions and statements. This needs administrator investigation, and LHM is not up to the task of looking into the allegations raised. That is all. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  You edit warred to revert a legitimate close of an RFC by an uninvolved editor, citing as your "reason" only that I am not an admin. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, which begs the question, why now? Floydian, if you thought something was amiss, why not go to ANI to sort it? Why wait until the RfC goes stale and then edit war with a non-involved editor? Don't understand any of it. One day you're contributing a template that solves a huge problem, next you're reverting and making sweeping accusations. As far as I can see, Lithistman should close and an admin should let you know that if you revert again, you'll be blocked. As for going on about the RfC, if you've a complaint state it now with diffs or be done with it. End of. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should mention one of the closures I reverted was performed by SW3 5DL themselves. The whole RfC was a joke, but since the articles have had time to be filled in with trivia and unconcise news events and information already present elsewhere, I fear the damage is now irreversible and we are stuck with a mess that could have been handled so much better if you didn't make so many maverick edits. The diffs are at Talk:Ebola_virus_outbreak_in_the_United_States#This is a joke, where they have been for some time. I wish I had handled this the day the RfC was opened and curtailed the cancer, but hindsight is 20/20. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No canvassing done at all. On the contrary, all RfC rules on publicizing the RfC whilst waiting on the bot were followed. The RfC was posted at the Village Pump here, on the talk pages of 10 editors chosen at random from the Feedback Service List, per the RfC rules/suggestions for publicizing, and editors from the immediately preceding AfD were notified, per the RfC page. Only two of the editors chosen at random responded, JBarta and Silvo 1973, and both voted "Merge." I voted "keep." I've not made that many RfC's in the 6 years I've been an editor. The RfC page was most helpful and I followed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would an administrator please handle this close? I know that closing RFCs doesn't require an administrator, but Floydian has edit-warred to remove my uninvolved, non-admin close, and from his angry comments above, I'm fairly certain he'd do it again, if I again closed it myself. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LHM, it can take a while. Don't worry, somebody will come along. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggested resolution

We have:

• Two overlapping RfC's - the first not advertised as an RfC but showing a rough consensus for merging; and the second started before the first had closed and showing consensus for keeping the articles separate;
• a legitimate close of the first and informal RfC by Floydian;
• a legitimate close of the second RfC by Lithistman, but only if considered in isolation from the overlapping first and informal RfC which had a different result;
• with respect, legitimate concerns about forum shopping and canvassing (both linked earlier in this thread). SW3 5DL, you did indeed notify some apparently random editors, per the guidelines. You also notified every editor who voted to keep the separate article in the AfD, in the same order in which they cast their !votes - but not for example, the editor (Floydian) who !voted the other way, or other editors like Gandydancer who had expressed opposing views on this issue on the West Africa page. Let's assume it was an oversight, but it certainly reduces the credibility of the second RfC.
• proposed article merges without the use of merge tags, though this is perhaps okay given the poor intersection between proposed merges and RfC notification rules.

Am leaving this open for the sake of any further discussion but here's a proposal, time-wasting though it may be:

• A new RfC, opened by me as an uninvolved editor, at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, to be flagged on all the other "Ebola in.." pages and via talkpage message to everyone who has commented on either side since October 1.
• No action on the conduct issues except a general admonition that duelling RfCs and the appearance of canvassing are detrimental to collegiate editing, and may become disruptive if repeated. The tools at an admin's disposal are too blunt to be useful here. At the heart of the discussion is a genuine content dispute. It would be great if everyone could offer their opinions in a collegiate forum, and waving big sticks at one side or other doesn't tend in that direction.

Views welcome. If no one objects I will open the new RfC in a couple of hours tomorrow.Euryalus (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd support this. Protonk (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I do object. You claimed I did not notify Gandydancer and Floydian. That's not true. I had to individually notify the AfD editors because there was no common board where I could reach them. But the main article talk was a common board for the other editors and they saw it there. The RfC notice was posted on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa on the talk page here and

here.

They were holding what amounted to a closed discussion on merging all these articles. Notice, they didn't put merge tags on the affected articles to let those editors know that they were planning to quickly blank and redirect the new articles. They didn't link to their discussion on those pages. They did not communicate their plans to the editors of those pages at all. If you're going to 'investigate' you need to look at the whole picture here. I opened that discussion to the wider community and the wider community has agreed that these articles should exist. I don't know any of those editors who commented, and as you can plainly see, only two of the editors I notified per the RfC rules even showed up. And they voted 'merge' whilst I voted 'keep.'

You'll note also, that Gandydancer, Floydian, and the other editors did appear and commented. It was their choice to not participate at the RfC. They could have participated and made their views known. They did not. Additionally, one of them socked as an IP and made personal attacks, then logged into his account and agreed with himself in the same conversation. He posted on my talk page, the West Africa talk page and the RfC page. His comments had to be rev deleted.

Sorry, but the disruption by a handful of editors who have two involved admins joining them, does not mean the community's decision on this is to be discounted and overturned. Look at the diffs I just posted in this comment. Look at the discussion section I link to. I did notify those editors. I notified everybody who edits the West Africa article. It was plain as day and I included the link to the RfC. No, sorry, this is a valid discussion. Sour grapes does not trump the opinion of totally uninvolved editors who came from the wider community. Also, do not call Floydian's thread on the main talk page an RfC. It was anything but that. Floydian is using disruption to subvert the community decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support keeping the decision of the community on the RfC. The wider community of uninvolved editors have made the decision to keep these articles. That decision should be respected per WP policy. And everybody who commented at the RfC must be notified of this ANI thread. I'm happy to post the ANI notice or an admin can do it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the content dispute. I also think that a new RFC would be unnecessarily time-wasting, but if other editors wish to spend their time in this manner, I have no objection to that. As for this being a "genuine content dispute", I would have agreed, right up until the point that Floydian edit-warred to remove the proper close of an RFC by an uninvolved editor. At that point it became actionable. However, as the issue became stale, and any block would be punitive instead of preventative, requesting one of Floydian would serve no purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, first off there was a discussion at the West Africa article about remerging SW3s maverick forks. The discussion was swaying to remerge them, it got quiet, and I announced I'd close it in 24 hours if there were no further comments. An RfC wasn't necessary (and any level headed editor probably thinks the RfCs that keep popping up on the Ebola articles for the most trivial questions are the signs of a lost puppy), and the comments from the editors who have worked on the articles were more than enough. But, SW3 did not like the idea that his articles were gonna be merged back into one succinct coverage of the topic. So, rather than open an RfC on THAT talk page, like any rational person would, he subverts the discussion by opening it on another page, not linking back to the ongoing discussion, and then only contacting the people that held his viewpoint. The claim that he contacted everyone in the AfD discussion is a bold faced lie because I started that AfD and was not notified. None of the editors who voiced a merge opinion at the West Africa article were notified. Next off, the RfC question was posed in a loaded way (and I honestly should have edited it when it was created to be a neutral question), and yada yada yada, this whole thing has become an irreversible clusterfuck of epic proportions. To quote Gandydancer, "This has been an example of Wikipedia at its worst." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of editors on the main article talk page was made in two places on the day here and

here. The diffs are clear evidence of that. And let me add, that if there'd been an AfD spot where I could post, I'd have used that instead of going to all the trouble of notifying individual editors. That was a huge time sink for me and I'd have much preferred a single spot for them. But no such spot exists. Or if it does, I wasn't aware of it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, admins take note, that these complaints came AFTER the articles already existed. NOBODY put up any objections to their creation. It was AFTER the fact that this began. I'll collect the diffs later. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been Wikipedia at it's worst. Floydian's account is accurate. It was my impression that editors at the Africa Ebola article did not object to splits but rather the maverick manner in which it was done with no previous discussion on what we'd include in them, etc. Now we are left Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia articles that truly are a disgrace to Wikipedia. I have tried to edit them but have been reverted to the extent that I am just not willing to attempt it anymore. Almost everyone else is just ignoring them. SW3 has just totally ignored WP guidelines for how we are supposed to conduct things here and now the whole situation is totally FUBAR. And now he is apparently accusing me of something or another - I can't quite figure out quite what it is. I've been here since 2006 and I've worked on a lot of difficult articles, but I've never seen anything like this. It is not at all surprising that we have reached this state where everyone is confused and does not know quite what to do, considering the manner in which this whole thing was initiated in the first place. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You yourself voiced acceptance of the new articles. You and the others NEVER OBJECTED to them. It was only AFTER the articles were created that you suddenly decided that there'd been no consensus. I'll collect the diffs. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well please do and hopefully you will find something better than what you've been using such as my "maverick" statement? Has it occurred to you that we did not OBJECT to splits because we are not mind readers and could not foretell the future in which you would ignore WP guidelines and do four splits without discussion? To editors that are not familiar with this ongoing dispute, I have been through this issue so many times with this editor that I am just sick to death of it. BTW, has anyone notified Doc James of this discussion, though he is most likely pretty sick of it as well. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, Did you or did you not make these comments?

• We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts?

• Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think?
• discussing a new article which was later created.
• Suggestion for condensing the article.
• 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak was split off, as well.

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not even one of your diffs suggest that I was in favor of an editor making splits without first finding consensus. Furthermore, it was laughable when you became indignant with Doc and Floyd when they deleted your splits, saying, of all things, that they had not first found consensus to do so. Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, you just said, I have been through this issue so many times with this editor that I am just sick to death of it. Where are your diffs? You can go on all day about this, but where are the diffs to back up your comments? As an admin on an Arb page once said, "No diffs, no case." Shall I retrieve more diffs of your comments? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Because this is a developing topic the second, wider, more official RfC should win out, to keep the articles separate. I should note that there's been a bad tendency of editors to rehash half the parent article in the separate articles, which should be rejected -- that stuff should be centralized -- nonetheless, the rules will be different from country to country. For example, Western Ebola survivors fly around donating blood to their compatriots apparently as a personal decision, whereas Liberia as I understand has been suppressing "black-market" donation. The U.S. took an infected dog to a naval facility for ... isolation, while Spain euthanised one. Even though the number of cases is small, they will have a disproportionate impact in demonstrating the unique social and medical situation in each nation. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As an disillusioned editor on these pages, and an African.. i'll throw my few cents worth of comments...

• Sierra Leone - on 3rd oct this page was blanked 4 times, after exsisting since 27th Sep.. (by Floydian and Jmh649)- 1st Blanking (here) 4th (here)
• Guinea - 3rd Oct same story - 1st blanking (here) - 4th (here) .
• Liberia- 3rd Oct same story - 1st blanking (here) - 3rd (here)

• Spain While there was a consensuses discussion going on the Spanish dog issue (Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa/Archive_5#Spanish_Dog), Floydian came in and reverted the section out, as Irrelevant...(here)-- On that day I lost almost all interest in helping "Regionalise" each of the split articles.....

• Popular Culture section which includes mostly cultural issues relating directly to Ebola.. In a region where literacy is low (10-20%), Historically the only method to pass on info, and get a message to the masses is via Music, Jokes and Preaching.. (I've lived in Africa all my life and have traveled in to the "POOR" regions and spent days learning about the culture.) After much discussion, i rewrote and renamed it to Other Works derived from the Ebola crisis, Regionalised as best as i could, sourced reputable refs, as well as some local to the region sites... While many might feel that this is 'irrelevant' it is actually a key part of the local culture. Music and dance, has been used to tell History and some stories in Africa long before written storybooks.

Editors are just too scared to update the individual pages because of the current edit war... i'm slowly getting back into it, but am been very cautious on what i edit..Gremlinsa (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes this has all been rather disruptive. I am supportive of having an article on the disease in the US and Spain. With respect to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone they would have been better kept in the article on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. They are three relatively small countries right beside each other. The discussion on the merge of these three article was taking place on the talk page of the epidemic in West Africa when User:SW3 5DL moved it to a completely unrelated page. An usual move to say the least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is where it now gets to the crux of it.. if we follow WP:GEOSCOPE; USA and Spain with (3/1) & (2/0) infections/Deaths respectively should be first on the list for wp:merge and not Liberia (4262/2484), Sierra Leone (3410/1200) and Guinea (1519/862).. However Nigeria with (20/8) never got it's own page/article.. why has everyone forgotten wp:RAPID. How would an American Editor feel if someone referred to the U.S.A. as Part of the Slums of the America's, comparing it as a whole to Mexico, Cuba, Honduras, etc... Any country in Africa should have the IDENTICAL WP:WEIGHT as America and Spain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlinsa (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gremlinsa for posting the diffs of their disruption. And yet Doc James is still here arguing his position. That's the truth of this matter right there. Doc James doesn't want these articles and that is at the heart of all this disruption and continuing time sink for editors.

Doc James, the community has already said the articles will be kept. If you and your friends would stop causing so much disruption, editors would start improving the Guinea and Liberia and Sierre Leone articles. It's you stopping it. It's Gandydancer and Floydian making disparaging, complaining comments on the talk pages of all those articles that puts a chill on editing there. When an issue is opened to the wider community, instead of confining questions to the WikiProject Medicine group where you hold sway, then a true consensus emerges. Inclusion of the wider community has given a decision you don't like.

The community wants these articles, they will be kept, and perhaps what is needed now is topic bans for you and Floydian and the others who've been wasting the time of all of us since these articles were created. And they were created with prior discussion where you and the others DID NOT object. It's the loss of control, me thinks, that has brought this on.

And the RfC question was neutral, btw, because you added in your version of the question. Fair play then, you can't complain that the question I posed, was flawed. Because editors also saw your "correct" version and yet they said, "Keep." I'll go get those diffs. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Posted the RfC here at 21:34 4 October 2014. Doc James posts his ivote: here at 22:49 4 October 2014 so obviously he read the RfC notice posted on the West African article talk page. The RfC question I posted was: Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, and allow them to continue to develop, or delete/redirect now to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

Next, Doc James posts his own RfC question here which said, The question is "should we keep these three article separate Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone or should we merge them back into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa were the material can be discussed in the context of the outbreak generally.

The community saw both questions early on, as he'd posted it at 20:26 5 October 2014. The community saw both questions and the majority voted "Keep." Now Floydian comes along to contest the closure of the RfC by a non-admin. Reverts Lithistman twice. Notice, none of these editors who did their best to disrupt the RfC ever came here to contest the RfC. So why now? Why contest the closure of a now stale RfC by a non-admin? What's the point of that? Or rather, what's the goal of that? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I notified everyone who ivoted at the RfC unless they'd already commented here as obviously they're aware. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure of this RfC as Keep and Lithistman should be the one to close. No reason for him not to. The community has made it's decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I was notified about this ANI thread on my talk page. I'd rather just say I'd prefer to respectfully defer to community consensus. Whether that be through community consensus from WP:RFC, and/or from WP:AFDs, or both, I'll defer to the judgment of administrators. Good luck all, — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure of the RfC as Keep: The length of the RfC was standard, at 2 weeks or so, and it was closed after an appropriate time. We cannot keep having RfCs until the cows come home. We do not have time for that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tell that to the editors who create them for every minor issue on the article; also the standard length is a month. The issue here is not the result of the skewed RfC, but the skewing in the first place and the canvassing by SW3. When that issue is brought forth is irrelevant and it seems SW3 is aware of their actions if they are trying to deflect the notions based on the timing of things. I raised the issue on the RfC itself within 48 hours of it being created, and the question was never reframed or posed in a legitimate fashion. Like I said, this whole thing is a farce and only a handful of editors seem to grasp how shoddily this was done and the repercussions of it, both in the future actions of this editor as well as in the state of our coverage of Ebola, which is now in shambles from the great state it was in before late-September, when all these new editors poured in and demanded their changes be made. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• But still, if SW3 hadn't notified all the editors, you could have told about the RfC to the editors who were not notified. Now that the article is so large, the option provided for in the RfC is not an option anymore. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• And he did show up, btw. And the RfC rules on publicizing are quite clear. And I followed them which included putting a link at their very quiet, not publicized with merge tags discussion on the West Africa talk page as well as opening a new thread there here and

here. AND, he did comment, as did the others. There's no evidence any of them were left out. Nor any evidence of any attempt to exclude them. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am looking forward to see these articles cleaned up by the editors who state that they have been prevented from doing so by me and a few others. When we voted them down we were not voting against future splits, we were voting against splits that were far short of even the bare minimum that one would expect to see on Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the irrelevant reverts stop, and the editors are given enough time to source, write, and clean up, these articles will come up to scratch.. Can I also ask that decisions for these three be made on there own talk pages and not via the "MAIN" page... Gremlinsa (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And before anyone says but where .... Liberia and Siera_Lione..Gremlinsa (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure of the RfC as Keep It looks like questions were asked of the community and answered by the community. Time to move on. I don't have all that much free time to edit but I'll contribute to the articles as much as I can. Miguel Pena (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure of the RfC as Keep seems logical--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Summary:

1. [4] 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
2. [5] 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
3. [6] 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
4. [7] 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
5. [8] 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I actually like this editor and he has made some important contributions (see Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Animated_GIF_showing_territorial_evolution). I don't want this editor topic banned, we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop.~Technophant (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.

Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another clear hypocrisy in this AN/I is shown in that nothing was done in response to the following noted and flagrant violation of 1RR [9][10] Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) this edit was moved: Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem of a WP:DEADHORSE. Amongst the dead are numbered Iraqis, Syrians, Sunnis, Shias and a whole host of other people who have either lost life, loved ones or liberty. Horses however aren't among the dead. Problems with jihadist terminologies have also been independently raised by other Wikipedians. See: Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither was there any relevance in your preceding comment nor the surprising gush of the self justifying pleasantries above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: That was uncalled for. You are just making yourself look bad.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In trying to understand your active campaign here mention of "Islamic State" becomes relevant. Jihadism was never your issue. This was.

All of my comments are justified. Here is a link to the talk page at the time of the AN/I. I am more than happy for editors to take any look they like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Worldedixor has an open (stale) RFC/U with a strong consensus for topic ban on Syrian Civil War/ISIL and a strong dislike for P123ct1 and myself for opening it. It has not yet been formally put in place however.~Technophant (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the link - I fail to see a "strong consensus for a topic ban" - which goes to the OPs credibility in this action. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot let that biased comment from Worldedixor go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC/U has been closed because of inactivity (although I think everything that could have been said had been said, so I'm not sure why that was the reason). Worldedixor has been trying to get several editors sanctions/blocked for some time without IMHO grounds. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am more than satisfied with that description: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/12708/Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Tahir-ul-Qadri-speaks-at-Global-PeaceUnity-Event-gpu-2010-Jihad-The-perception-and-the-reality.html Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc What else is it? You mention a few sound bites and bypass any of the reasoning behind it. Jihad, according to Islamic sources, is a struggle for the ideals of Islam which may cover a has a wide range of meanings but not wide enough to cover many of the activities of a wide range of Islamic extremist groups. The word has deep religious connotations and yet many political and other commentators from around the world have taken up usage of the word to apply it largely to more extreme situations of abuse and violence. One of my comments was: "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands." One of your comments was, "Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia" which completely misses the point and what "stats show" regarding the reach of this encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox for a the misrepresentative western interpretation of jihad. The "personal values" that I am presenting in reference to this murderous group are seemingly shared by the majority of the Islamic world. They want nothing to do with it. It's also worth comment that Worldedixor is one of the few Arabic users that we have. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning is (a) theological and (b) activist. You have an agenda to change the usage of the word jihadist as in jihadism when used in the English language in a restricted sense of armed struggle. We discussed this over and over: words have many meanings, jihad is not jihadism as Islam is not Islamism, etc. After long discussions you remind us of what you just said above, that in your opinion the common usage in English of jihadism leads to the ISIL's violence and it is your "jihad" to fight this usage even if you lose your editing rights.[11] Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have an agenda for the requirement of qualification for an unjustified justification of unjustified death. My arguments are valid and the cause is just. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute resolution noticeboard and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DRN is closed.~Technophant (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How in the world did this become "your complaint"? You were never involved in the discussion. At most there is a technical 1RR and that wasn't intended. Discussions took place in the context of the talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Jason from nyc's comment. He nails it. RS dictate what we write, not a particular POV favored in some region of the world. We use the terms used in RS, mostly English ones (because this is the English Wikipedia), and English language sources use "jihadist" all the time, and document that these groups use the term themselves, when they encourage jihad. They identify with the term as their prime motive. Gregkaye may need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In deciding the relevance of the use of Islamic wording in relation to an Islam related topic then Islamic sources may be considered to have some level of reliability - or would you prefer journalists etc. known as they are for the use of a wide variety of sensationalist spins to help them achieve their goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If Gregkaye is to be banned from editing then I would prefer it be a ban on editing the article directly; limited to making suggested edits on the Talk page. This may not stop his POV pushing (which is problematic), however it will prevent disruptive editing of the article.~Technophant (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for editing back from "he".[12]

Very politic. Technophant's edit came not long after this constructive edit which somehow wasn't mentioned. Despite misrepresentation above I have not rejected the use of reference to "jihadism" but have stated that it needs qualification and that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice to sanction them in this way. I am honestly trying to find routes to resolution and, at any stage, would appreciate help. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the battleground tactics and consider my proposal above.~Technophant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you dispute anything I have said then feel free to say what. For my part I dispute your claim of "edits that violate NPOV". All I am saying is that the questionable terminology "jihadist" should be given qualification. Above you claimed that a statement with basis was uncalled for and then added "You are just making yourself look bad". Meanwhile this thread is based on weak evidence with regard to which Wikidemon commented, "neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things." Despite this my notifications indicator began blinking with rapid and prolonged regularity with "Technophant mentioned you" messages. You failed to mention my last edit. Absolutely I think by now I have every right to be wary but no, I don't bear a grudge. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no grudge against you. Have you read the comments from other editors here? There's a problem with your approach to editing and resolving disputes and unless you offer up a solution (and quickly) you will most likely face sanctions. I don't want to see you topic banned but that's what may need to happen.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case I really have to question your motivation: when your last claim talks of need of a topic ban despite the context, as presented just three edits up the page in my 07:46, 21 October entry, you saw a link to a constructive and extremely unobtrusive edit for the page; when you have gone into a mass canvassing mode so as to promote this AN/I; when you have refused to answer my personal questions; when you placed content on my talk page that another editor independently highlighted as badgering which, despite repeated opportunities, you failed to remove; when you have placed prejudging links in connection to this page and when this isn't even your issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am editing this article since two weeks ago approximately, and I don't know the editors, but I have seen what is happening. It is very clear that Gregkaye is disrupting this article removing the words he doesn't like to read, and messing it up by puting criticism on the Lead, just because of his subjective personal opinion (Jason from nyc nailed it). This is an encyclopedic article and should not be an opinion piece, as Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. Gregkaye has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. So I think something should be done to prevent disruptions. Felino123 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye has made positive contributions to the article, which makes it unfortunate that it has come to this, however we have discussed the Jihadist issue at great length and the consensus of other editors is clearly against his stance. Ideally we could all WP:MOVEON, however Gregkaye seems to be taking a very strong POV stance on this word usage which is not appropriate. Gazkthul (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Gazkthul, Its difficult to "get over" the blatant fact that a supposedly "jihadist" group is actively slaughtering Muslims. This is NOT jihad. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Gregkaye, I don't know how many times we can go around in circles, it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what Jihad is or isn't, we simply reflect what WP:RS use. Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and the Taliban overwhelmingly kill Muslims too, as did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's predecessor al-Zarqawi a decade ago. BTW, have you heard of Usman dan Fodio, Tamerlane, Yaqub Beg or Muhammad Ahmad? There are countless famous Muslim Kings and Emperors throughout history who waged Jihad against fellow Muslims. Gazkthul (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While Gregkaye and I have disagreed on content, in my experience around ISIL articles he has been quite a positive contributor who works to reach consensus. Technophant on the other hand has been pushing the use of "Islamic State" even after consensus decided to use ISIL for the title and the article. I requested he stop so he put me on the Syria Civil War sanctions warning list in retaliation. The users here trying to keep an mention of criticisms out of the lead are just misguided. Darn near the entire world is upset with ISIL - a huge part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Legacypac's criticism is based on a false premise. The ISIL/ISIS consensus had nothing to do with the use of "Islamic State". The discussion was over a move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the ISIS article's text and nothing more. Secondly, editors have not been against criticisms being in the Lead. The dispute was over what weight to give them and how to present them in the Lead. Sorry to keep chipping in, but there has been some serious misrepresentation in this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Quick observation This edit [13] shows that P123ct1 has changed their ANI comment after I, another editor, commented on it below, something that is not permitted by policy. This is not an attack. I am presenting to the closing admin a verifiable pattern of conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a dossier on me again, Worldedixor? Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of these editors have made valued and verifiable contributions to Wikipedia as its dossier records clearly show. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I am here since only two weeks ago, so I don't what contributions has Gregkaye done to this topic overall. If these contributions are important, then I appreciate them. But unfortunately we can not ignore his continuous disruptions of this article. When I criticized him for this, he answered that the opinion of imams about IS has much more value than the facts stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports on Iraq and Syria, because "Islamic criticisms" are "of more relevance than anything [...]". After this bizarre response, along with the info stated here by Jason from nyc, I can't believe he's editing objectively and in good faith. He's been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. I think something should be done to prevent disruptions, given the fact that warnings and talking to him doesn't work. Felino123 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Persistent POV-pushing, editing against consensus and disrupting the collaborative work of editors are having a bad effect on this article. all jeopardise the Wikipedia project. I have changed my mind about dispute resolution. I don't think it would work and support a topic ban, in order to protect all Syrian War-related articles. However, I am not at all sure what the best solution is here. I now think a topic ban would be too swingeing, as it would stop Gregkaye from making his otherwise valuable contributions to Syrian War-related articles. Some editors on the Help Desk (see my very first comment in this AN/I for the background) thought AN/I may not be the best approach and that some form of dispute resolution should be tried (no details given). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we have some guidelines and advice on other ways of settling this dispute, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has nothing to support his claims that the islamic state "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", his only argument about how "the muslims are against the islamic state" (the only point of his "arguments") are wrong from its core from few reasons:

1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership that can renounce the islamic state in the name of the entire muslims world and islam itself.

2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates.

3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters.

he choose which muslim is "authority" and gives him the authority only in what he himself agree about(like al qaradawi renouncing of shia, alawites and the islamic state), gregkaye relies on "authority" which relies on gregkaye himself.

this is POV, period. and nobody can't deny it even if he ignore other of gregkaye's "arguments" about the islamic state's "morality" as it has anything to do with being jihadist or caliphate.

gregkaye also have obvious hard feelings about them and i already told him on the argument of me with him that he has too much hate for them and that he can't see them in a neutral way.

there is nothing that can serve as an excuse for his aggressive pushing of his POV, even if it wasn't aggressive at all cause wikipedia should be neutral at all cost. so what about the ridiculous accusations of "secret e-mails against Gregkaye" and the pointless talking about how much gregkaye has contributed to wikipedia?, do you get points that give you the right to push your POV? even if there was some "secret e-mails against gregkaye" that still doesn't gives him the right to force his POV.

and by the way i began editing articles only when i joined the discussion(you can see my ip on my first comments to him) and i know gregkaye's opposers as much as i know gregkaye himself, so you can forget from the "secret e-mails" consipracy.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0, Please don't misrepresent me. You put both phrases, "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", in quotation marks. They are not found in, Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

You say: "1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership..." Thank-you, but when a significant section of Islam worldwide reject this murderous (non-jihad), Muslim killing (non-Jihad), territory hungry (non-jihad) group as being un-Islamic, then that has got to say something.

You say: "2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates." Thank you. They say you "can prove anything with the Bible". The parallel phrase seems to be given a more limited use with the Quran but this does not necessarily place limits on the "interpretation of the quran". Show me a text that says that a Jihadist can be a murderer, a Muslim killer and territorially ambitious.

You say: "3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters." Agreed. ISIL has its Islamic supporters and yet their view are very far from being contested within the Islamic world. Please look up Islamic interpretations of Jihad in a variety of sources and hopefully you will see the point.

My conclusion has long been that we can't speak in an unqualified way in Wikipedia's voice and sanction this murderous group as being "jihadist". Wikipedia, as a neutral source of information, can say that the group is described as being jihadist. We might also put the word in quotes or add a footnote to the text so as to present religiously legitimised alternate views on jihad. The footnote is not intrusive and this is now quite literally a case of "to [b] or not to be" which would be mind meltingly laughable were it not for the fact that, without some form of qualification, we will endorse this most extreme of extremist groups by use of the religious, Islamic terminology "jihadist". We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die. You can claim such a statement as "aggressive pushing" if you like but, please, get some perspective. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye stop writing random mumblings as a comment for what i am saying in order to make it look like you had some argument or anything serious to say:

1.significant section of islam also consider shia and alawites as "heretics", it doesn't mean that you can use it to rewrite the defenition for jihad and caliphate and add new terms according to your own will. almost every caliphate and jihadist group has fought against other muslim groups and each one of them sought to expand their territory as much as they can.

2.show me a text about any kind of jihadist/caliphate that didn't commited murder and wasn't "territorially ambitious". you should also show me the text that appoints you to be the supreme authority in islam and gives you the ability to rewrite and add new stuff to islam as you wish.

3.you already provided an defenition of "jihad" but it has nothing to do with the difference between the islamic state and other caliphates and jihadistic groups, the only "point" in your comments is the new terms that you shove into islam in order to make it fit to your personal feelings on the islamic state organization.

so how you talk about "conclusion" and "qualified"? who qualified you to rewrite islam? who qualified you to dictate the authority of every muslim over islam? you even rewrites history with the way you ignores some parts of it.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Observation: I cannot tolerate injustice especially when I see a pattern of "selective" notification to influence a process. I, for example, was never notified of this ANI even though I was just 'one of the many' witnesses of Gregkaye's insightful contributions and his passionate dedication to the ISIS article. For the record, I am still not convinced of his Jihadist argument, yet I don't have sufficient knowledge or better arguments to convince him otherwise, but I won't just ban editors when I run out of logical arguments or because I don't like their approach to editing, or because he is in the way of my local consensus club of pals. If we want to address perceived disruption, we need to treat all disruptive behavior by all editors equally without any bias, let alone flagrant bias (especially those who bring forth any type of ANI with unclean hands, questionable credibility and a verifiable pattern of falsely asserting consensus and misleading well-meaning admins and editors with half truths).

Most importantly, I just observed something worrisome that is also compromising the normal consensus decision of this ANI process. As per WP:CANVAS, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." P123ct1 is one of Technopant's (very small) "Local tagteam consensus" club at the ISIS article, and they clearly intend to influence the outcome of this ANI in order to ban Gregkaye and get him out of their way. One example of her intent is her unsolicited and inappropriate attempt to dismiss Legacypac's comment above. So, I am reporting what I saw which can independntly be verified at [14] (Specific Ref: WP:Votestacking), and I ask the closing admin to take it into consideration objectively. Worldedixor (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy Re: Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

returning edit, which had been moved without explanatory comment, to its original position.

• Comment Worldedixor should have not been selective in his link. The full link to the exchange between Wheels of Steel0 and I shows that this is not canvassing but a continuation of an attempt made by both us, independently and each without knowledge of either having done so, to bring the very matter raised by this AN/I to the WP:Help Desk to get some guidance on the best way to proceed (their answer was inconclusive). Wheels of Steel0 specifically asks me in that exchange how the matter could be dealt with and I told him an ANI had been started. He is an inexperienced editor, as he said in that exchange, and was asking for help. This is really not the place to digress, but I cannot let these WP:PAs by Worldedixor on Technophant and I pass without comment. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Had Worldedixor been editing the page (he hasn't for over a month), he would have seen the notice Technophant put on the Talk page about this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Worldedixor, why don't just read gregkaye's "arguments"? he has nothing to say other than giving every muslim he wants an authority that no muslim can have over islam and rewriting islamic terms and islam itself as he wishes. just read our argument her and/or on the talk page in the ISIS article.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

so what about stop attacking his opposers as "small group"?, gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response I will gladly assume good faith as I don't have sufficient information to form an opinion of your conduct. I will also correct you. What you stated "gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article" is non-factual. You cannot lump me as a POV pusher when I clearly oppose his arguments on this particular matter and he has not yet convinced me, just as I oppose this ANI and banning editors who may be more knowledgeable than me in a certain area. I'd rather give them a non-confrontational, comfortable place to think with a clear mind, and give them the chance to improve their arguments, that may or may not influence me to support their contribution.

The ISIL article is a very controversial and heated article, and I am perplexed that we don't have over a 1,000 new editors contributing their diversified and insightful knowledge to the ISIS article. I have my opinion on this but I will keep it to myself for the time being.Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

response Worldedixor i didn't called you a POV pusher, i talked about Legacypac which sided with gregkaye. and why you think that gregkaye know more than you about the subject? he has no special knowledge, he just pushing his POV aggressivly and count on that that people will just let him do whatever he wants.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response Now, your statement is clearer to me. I stand corrected. Worldedixor (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Comment I remember vividly how clueless I was in my first few weeks on Wikipedia when I was a new inexperienced editor, eight years ago. I am extremely impressed how well versed Wheels of steel0, an inexperienced editor, is in Wikipedia affairs. Kudos.

Also, P123ct1 has changed the order of Gregkaye's comment in an ANI without his permission [15]. This is neither an attack nor a grudge. This is a statement of a verifiable fact of P123ct1's conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Innocent enough. Trying to put three comments in their proper time sequence. Gregkaye informed. Original order restored. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) What's so innocent about your writing "RfC/U - The worm has turned.", PA and WP:CANVAS at [16]? I have shown a verifiable pattern of your conduct in this ANI and, at this point, not only am I no longer interested in contributing my knowledge to the ISIL article, I will also recuse myself from this ANI because I clearly do not see editors sanctioned equally when it comes to policy violations. I am out of here!... Worldedixor (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Important Observation This edit [17] shows a P123ct1's conduct that is inconsistent with policy in this ANI. This is not an attack, this is a verifiable pattern of P123ct1's conduct.Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (removed my comment not relevant to AN/I) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Objections

In regard to Technophant's summary as presented above, the first edit clearly shows, contrary to the claim, "inserted paragraph into lead", that the edit involved a simple movement of text. The content, which had previously been placed as the second paragraph of the lead, was returned to this position. Technophant's additional claims that I have 'ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"' are laughable. As he will have read, and as his edit summary shows, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. In fact one of the effects of my edit was to take the presentation of Jihadist and to correct the grammar to jihadist,. Technophant also failed to present my actual argument which has always been that a declaration of ISIL as being jihadist should be qualified. The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government. As a result I have consistently argued it is in contravention of NPOV to use Wikipedia's voice so as to endorse the group as having a religious validation that is in dispute. I have since suggested an extremely unobtrusive format of footnoting that can be used to create a more balanced overall picture. In all my dealings on the talk page I have treated people with relevant respect. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines against the presentation of opinion on talk pages and certainly not when a reasoned case is presented. I do not object to accusation of pushing POV (hardly an issue on a talk page) but take serious exception when the accusation comes from an editor who uses a variety of spins to promote his. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye why can't you understand that the whole way you treat islam as a group with monolithic leadership and guidance is wrong from its core?, you talk about "view" of jihad but don't understand that the muslims you talk about can't realy seperate the jihad of the islamic state from other groups(like caliphates) who claimed to do jihad, their only objection to the islamic state is cause of non-religios factors like social pressure and arab goverments propaganda which obviously would be against a caliphate without any relation to its "religious validation". and for that "religious validation" you gave NOTHING to disprove their religious legitimacy as jihadist or caliphate but only talked on the opinion of some muslims and gave them special authority according to your will, and the main fact that made your rhetoric useless on that matter is not the fact that you give them authority which they can't have but the fact that you want to use it only when it fits to your opinion and obviously wouldn't agree to use that proposed "muslim majority" on articles about islamic factions like shia and alawites.

i respect your resistance to the islamic state, but you need to understand that you can't use the opinion of some muslims in order to force YOUR opinion on some article. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 why can't you respond appropriately and in relevant locations to the actual content of the thread. None of the above comments apply to the content that followed the emboldened title "Objections".

I had stated: "The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government." Your non-reply fails to address this point.

Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "Your non-reply fails to address this point" are you even reading my comments to you? like seriously? i commented on your pointless pseudo-arguments over and over and you still don't get it that your rhetoric of mentioning the opinion of some muslims(even as "the majority") as a proof for anything is just stupid and pointless. and it doesn't matter where i comment to you as long as you can see it, now all what you need is to stop with your ridiculous and pointless rhetoric as a defence for your aggressive POV pushing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am. Again: Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support a very, very limited topic ban: where Gregkaye seems to run into to trouble is with attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism. According to him Jihad (or whatever other word is the subject) originally meant something, and it can never be reappropriated. This is not how languages work, and it is not our role as compilers of an encyclopedia to second-guess the use of terminology by reliable sources. Since Greg does not seem able to get this particular point, I would support a topic ban on all discussions related to the definition or usage of specific words. This would allow Greg to contribute in all the other areas in which he is generally productive. Oppose a broader topic ban, as the level of disruption does not warrant it. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support The removal of the word Jihad means a manipulation of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.115.231 (talk • contribs)

(a) who left this comment? (b) did they read the discussion? It concerned removal of the word "jihadist", not "jihad". Big difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

He is an editor who changes archival settings on talk pages without notification despite having very direct knowledge of the presence on relevant talk page threads that were currently active at the time. He is also an editor that that uses red herring references to advocate his own non arguments[18]. In the first case he is an editor that I had contacted privately regarding the archival settings at talk:antisemitism in a genuine attempt to reduce potential embarrassment that might have been caused by dealing with the issue on the more public talk page. I have not sought to run into trouble and yet, at later date and albeit with humour, he made an unjustified attacks on me.[19]

In more direct connection to the topic of anti-Semitism I presented contextual arguments in an RM that I had raised in which I argued that greater clarity would have been retained if a term like anti-Jewish sentiment had been adopted. "Jewish" is the most commonly recognisable adjective used in reference to the Jewish people. The term "anti-Jewish" is also used in Wikipedia and, for the sake of clear communication, I have quite justifiably advocated it's relevant use.

Reliable sources were again an issue in regard to the proposed move to anti-Semitism and, in addition to wide use across RS, I have advocated that reliable sources should include Arab-Israeli peace projects. These are not people in ivory towers but people who have to deal with relevant issues on a day to day basis. Related discussion is also found in prematurely archived content within Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 33. That's 33 pages despite a setting of min-threads=3 within a context of wanting to shut down discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu for redeletion

Or similar. Despite the heartfelt appeals of puppet "Osugiba" in a thread above, in a thread within WP:AN, and in a thread within the Help page, the article Lia Olguța Vasilescu was deleted (not by me). But later it was re-created, first (I think unobjectionably) as a mere stub (by User:Auric), and then enormously amplified in this edit by User:Nick, with the edit summary "expand article with text from external site under CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence".

Nick presents the source as this at Blogspot (which I've archived here). It's stuffed with Mediawiki markup and very obviously either is or pretends to be a Wikipedia scrape. Titled "fgfg", it's in a throwaway Blogspot account. (See the top page, doartest.blogspot.com.tr/.) Even if Nick had no idea of the history of the article, I wonder why he considered this to be a reliable source.

The earlier history of the article shows that it was created by one puppet ("Bagnume") of a banned user and then stoutly defended by another puppet ("Osugiba") of the same banned user.

I find Nick's re-creation of this article extraordinary, in one way or another (I don't know which way). And he's an admin, too.... I'd summarily delete/revert/protect it myself, but it might look as if I have some grudge against the biographee (whom I'd never heard of 24 hours ago), imaginably there's some rationale for copying in an article from "fgfg.html" within a throwaway blog, and so anyway I'll leave the job to somebody else, and also provide an opportunity for the defense of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Blogspot page, although allegedly created in 2011, is an exact copy of this last revision made by Osugiba before the Wikipedia article was deleted. Also, if the Blogspot post was really written in 2011 how could the editor have used an image shot in 2013? Per WP:DENY I say the Wikipedia article should be stubbed back to Auric's translation. De728631 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Blogspot post seems to be an unattributed copy of the recently deleted version of the Wikipedia article, which makes it a copyright violation. Nick may have been unaware that he was inserting text which was itself a copyright violation (though given the source, he really ought to have known better). If he really wants to take responsibility for the edits of the banned user, he's permitted to do so, though in that case he must restore the article history so that all past contributors are properly credited. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you had asked, I'd have fully explained. The article I 'imported' should be the version of the article as created originally by Iaaasi (using one of his enormous number of sockpuppets) which was speedily deleted yesterday as the work of a banned user which nobody else had made significant edits to. There are several editors trying to work with Iaaasi, trying to get him to stop breaching has ban by socking, and trying to get him into the position where he can be rejoin the community. The most recent plan is to try and get Iaaasi to write on a blog (which is what he set up yesterday) making content available to be imported into the project by an uninvolved third party.

This idea comes from a recent post by Jimbo, where he suggested those who can't work with the community but who still wish to contribute should consider setting up blogs, writing there, and releasing their work under the CC-BY-SA licence.

If you insist on the history being restored, I'll happily do that, though I specifically included the correct attribution template at the bottom of the article to properly attribute the author in the manner they had requested. Nick (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

De728631's post implies that the blog post contains the most recent revision by the sockpuppet prior to the article's deletion. If that's true, then your attribution template was not correct, since it failed to credit all the authors of the article other than Iaaasi. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeap, it looks like there's been a misunderstanding on what Iaaasi should have copied over to his blog, he's taken the last edit he made, when he should have taken the last edit he made before any other editors edited the page. I've restored the history of the page to cover for that problem, but it now creates the messy issue of the source text on the blog being a copyright violation and needing to be de-linked, which in turn takes us right back to the issue of the article being by a banned user with no significant edits by any other user. I'll try and get in touch with Iaaasi and get him to remove the offending text from his blog and replace it with the correct revision (which by my reckoning is [20]). Nick (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It would also be great if he wouldn't falsify the dates of his blog posts, as that causes considerable confusion (as it did in this case) over which version of the text is the original. If he continues to do this, the folks at Wikipedia:Copyright problems may start removing all text imported from his blog(s) as presumptive copyvios. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He's fixed the date issue too, he tells me he had simply overwritten a previous blog entry rather than trying to do anything sneaky with the date. Nick (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! I hope this endeavour at rehabilitation is successful, and that in a few months' time we can all welcome him back into the community. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I find this very concerning. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi describes this user as having been community banned due to nationalistic POV editing and edit warring, and there is a note at the top of User talk:Iaaasi warning that in addition to socking to circumvent the ban, the user has been e-mailing editors to proxy edit for him. Talk page access has been revoked for bias. In a well intentioned implementation of a plan by Jimbo, one of our most out-of-touch legacy admins, Nick overwrote an article that had been deleted under WP:Banning policy and recreated as a rules-conforming stub by another editor with a version posted by Iaaasi on an external site, thereby creating an attribution violation. This version of the article should be revision deleted and either Nick or some other goodhearted editor should use the sources to expand the stub, rather than meat-puppeting for Iaaasi. Or alternatively, someone should take full responsibility for the article expansion as is permitted under the banning policy and has been recently clarified by Arbcom here. Since Iaaasi was banned in part for violations of NPOV and I cannot read Romanian, I don't feel competent to do this; otherwise I would have stayed up late last night and fixed up this article. To simply import a version by a banned editor, especially without checking whether it involved restoring uncredited edits by others, was a well-meaning violation of the ban policy. It's also unfair to other banned editors, or editors whose work gets reverted on sight: for comparison, see this recently archived WP:AN discussion on banning an IP editor whose edits are generally good copyedits, and discussions about article creations by socks of the banned Pumpie and the globally banned Olha. Banned means banned. It is the nuclear option. (Moreover, as Jimbo apparently did not realize if he indeed suggested this, potentially useful edits by editors with behavioral problems, banned or not, do not consist entirely or even for the most part of largely solo article creation. That is not how a wiki works.) Either the community formally decides to unban Iaaasi, or rarely and with extreme caution individual editors explicitly take responsibility for and reinstate his edits, or we modify the ban policy. I would advocate in any case for being very clear in ban discussions that a ban is a total site ban and requires removal of all edits by the editor made after the decision is reached. The AN discussion revealed uncertainty about that, and we may therefore be being too hasty to ban. But end runs around bans are not a good thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This. WP:PROXYING allows for edits on behalf of banned users if it can be shown that such edits are productive and/or verifiable and there are independent reasons for adding them. But an initiative of only a few editors to rehabilitate a banned user runs afoul of this policy and our general principles. Whether Iaasi or any other banned users are allowed to insert their original content at Wikipedia in order to return to good standing is to be decided by the community. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm sure that Nick had honorable intentions. But I wrote above "I find Nick's re-creation of this article extraordinary", and after the explanation I still do. I'm not immediately sure of all the details of what Yngvadottir writes, but its general thrust seems right. However, there's also a more nuts-and-bolts question. There is of course nothing necessarily wrong with heavy dependence of an article on sources in Romanian. Unfortunately, I can't read Romanian. Can you read Romanian, Nick? If you can't, did you ask one or more dispassionate reader of Romanian to check the quality, or how else did you check the material? -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues. I'm satisfied that all of the information is correct and accurate, and that the article complies with the relevant policies concerning BLPs, as well as notability and reliability of sources. Nick (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• When dealing with an editor for whom AGF can apply, a quick check with Google Translate can suffice. I suggest that AGF shouldn't apply for a banned editor, and that a quick check with Google Translate is nowhere near adequate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• You can suggest many things Hoary but unless you actually can demonstrate a problem with the content, rather than the person who created it, this discussion is pointless, and I'm out. Nick (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: reusability of Wikipedia content is infinitely more important than the details of how we might try to deter banned editors. Since Wikipedia ought to be able to take CC-licensed content from other online encyclopedias with practicable attribution, and vice versa, it inevitably follows that we can take CC-licensed content from deleted Wikipedia entries. When this happens the decent way to close the loop is to identify the deleted content that we now find acceptable to keep on a live page, and undelete that content. Because obviously per CC the worst thing we could do would be to delete history revisions solely to conceal their attribution. Undeleting the history, and also undeleting any associated talk page revisions, also has the advantage of revealing what substantive problems people found with the text the first time. Whether the choice is to delete the article or to undelete the history, it should be done rapidly to show that CC is taken seriously; the choice of which to do reflects the outcome of the undeletion discussion or new AfD that would happen anyway. And if a banned user has used this to sneak some acceptable content into the encyclopedia, so what? You know you'll never catch them all! Wnt (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Wnt: I'm not sure how far removed our points of view ultimately are; and to complicate things, Jimbo has now said at my talk page that his statement on the topic has been misrepresented. Since I don't know where that statement is to be found, I don't know. However, we ban editors to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. In this case, an old one that I am unfamiliar with and linguistically ill-equipped to investigate for myself, at least partly because of non-neutral editing. Letting such a person's edits stand is ill-advised on that basis. Rather, if they can be shown to have reformed, let's unban them. That way we also avoid this kind of ridiculously complicated methodology involving blogs, not to mention the time sink of investigations and AfDs. On the other hand, if they are to stay banned, as Hoary says, they've exhausted the community's good faith and any edits made by their socks in defiance of the ban should be reinstated on an individual basis and with great care, with the person reinstating them explicitly taking full responsibility. It is my understanding that we just had an ArbCom case clarifying that. Part of my concern is that if we devalue a ban by enabling it to be circumvented as appears to be the intent here as a way of rehabilitating the editor, we open the door to more casual banning of other editors (as in my opinion we saw in the AN discussion on the IP editor); part is that it's simply unfair to other banned editors who don't happen to have supporters willing to work with them (and rewards e-mail and other off-wiki canvassing); and part is that it flies in the face of the motivation for their having been banned, which is to protect the encyclopedia. Altogether better would be to unban, since the issue really boils down to: is this editor's work a net gain or a net danger to the encyclopedia. Otherwise we should follow ArbCom's ruling and make reinstatement of such edits rare and very cautious. I believe an AfD to be far too narrow a scope for this. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the main point here is that when a non-banned editor takes the banned person's text and adds it, they have the chance to put that text up under their own responsibility. Now that means that Nick, making this edit, can be held to account if there are clear BLP violations or something, but you'd have to show that. I think it should be a bedrock principle that when an editor in good standing adds valid content, there is no action that can or should be taken against that - there's nothing more fundamentally what Wikipedia is for than this. We don't rip out all the contributions a banned user has made to our existing articles at the moment of the ban; the text, if acceptable, stands. We can't allow tactical thinking to get so out of control that it attacks the encyclopedia instead of defending it. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But they've been banned because their edits are deemed to have too high a risk of harm. We do forbid and rip out edits made after the ban. The question with respect to this article is whether what Nick restored was, in fact, ok; and it's a more complex situation than clear BLP violations, since the editor was banned for nationalistic POV editing. The broader question is what to do about this ban-evading editor. To unban him might indeed be best for the encyclopedia. But to bend over backwards to abet his ban evasion is bad for the encyclopedia on several levels, one of them being that his work is to be presumed not good. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I pretty much agree with the principle "2) Banned editors" under [21] that was debated recently. They emphasize the cautiousness a bit more than I would, but the bottom line is, if a banned editor posts something, even after the ban, you can repost it under your own name, taking responsibility for that content. This is not a bug but a feature - for example, there are article subjects who come on and are contentious and get banned, but we shouldn't have BLPs where we aren't willing to listen to what the subject has to say, no matter what he's like to work with. As long as there's some human condom interposed between him and our content. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, OK. But there are two kinds of problem here. One is a copyright problem: the last time I looked, the resuscitated WP article cited a (or the?) page in a throwaway blog, which in turn didn't indicate its authorship. (It merely said that it was posted by "punctul pe j", who later added the comment "fg".) Secondly, the editor doing the reposting strikes me as nowhere near sufficiently cautious about the worth of the material (given that this had been produced and vociferously defended by a banned user and his socks/cronies): dealing with sources in Romanian, he just "did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues". There's WikiProject Romania and WP:Translators available; if an article by a banned ideologue sporting this block log is so important, shouldn't a reader of Romanian be asked; and if a reader of Romanian needn't be asked, is the article so important? (It's interesting that the biographee only rates a stub in ro:WP, and has never had anything much longer.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The check performed here was inadequate for a banned editor, and the whole idea of the posting to a blog is deliberate circumvention of a ban. Either it's time to lift the ban or the blog idea is a bad one (which is why I would have expected Jimbo to say how it had been misinterpreted here). The copyright issue was indicative of the casualness with which this was done, but has now been fixed by undeletion of the previous versions - so we now just have an adequately attributed article that defies a ban and hasn't been seriously checked for NPOV. @Wnt: Very few article subjects are banned (I would hope.) Article subjects not being familiar with our processes and editors who have caused sufficient problems for the encyclopedia that they have been banned are two distinct groups. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The person to check with would be Nick, who added this material. He's an editor in good standing, and we should "WP:AGF" that he checked the content unless and until someone posts an actual reason why there's something wrong with it. Rules wise, it is as if he posted the content himself --- except for the galling ball-and-chain of a CC-attribution link to an external blog, but that's a copyright issue, not a policy issue; one which I would like to see resolved per above. Undeleting a few revisions of one article is not a very drastic thing to do to fix that problem, and is actually unrelated to the banning of any editor. But you can't rightly act to suppress Nick's content unless you make a case against him. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I suppose I should dive a bit into the fundamental issue here. Suppose we didn't (for some obtuse reason) undelete the history. Well, in theory, we should still be able to cite Wikipedia for the content, provided some admin looks over the history and sees the history of the deleted version. This is because Wikipedia content is theoretically reusable. For example, if I write a book and illustrate it with a photo of the Alps taken from Commons, the publisher should not have to pull and pulp the run if Commons deletes the photo out of some overwrought moralizing about whether some tourists in the photo gave permission to be photographed on private property. Otherwise, most of Wikimedia's resources would be all but worthless for most uses apart from merely running the website, which could be done with far more restrictive releases to WMF for noncommercial use. The theory, as I've heard it said around here, is that Wikipedia doesn't break the freedom of its content with its ever-hungrier deletion processes because the content can still be attributed if you merely email an admin and ask for who the authors were. That is, yes, a nervous-making doctrine, but it's better than the alternative. So in theory you could do that directly, attributing the article to former deleted versions of the article that are unavailable. Now the reason why I don't like this of course is that it gives the impression of breaking attribution deliberately, with the purpose of hiding contributions from an editor you disliked/banned/whatever, which would not look good in a real copyright case I assume (IANAL). But because this principle is so basic to the function of any part of WMF, it really should be acknowledged! Wnt (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point we seem to be drawing further apart. The copyright/attribution problem has been solved by the attribution, but by Nick's own admission he did not check the article for NPOV (and initially posted the content without even verifying that it was the version he thought it was). This does not conform to best practice with a banned user, nor to Arbcom's clarification. It would have been better for him to directly reinstate the version he wished to take responsibility for. It's also not fair to other banned users who don't have friends ready to go through such hoopla to try to rehabilitate their content. I've referred above to Pumpie: recent socks of that user have created stubs on metro stations and several users have complained about their being deleted on sight before others can evaluate and possibly adopt them, but that's the banning policy. Taking responsibility for a banned user's edits is supposed to be a rare and very cautious thing, so it is inappropriate to say we should extend AGF in this case simply because Nick is a user in good standing and an admin. My concern is for the ramifications of such an end run around policy for the encyclopedia - and also, if Iaaasi can indeed now be trusted to write neutrally, the largely unspoken assumption behind what happened with the revival of this article, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not unbanning him. I think it's time for a proposal to unban him, and it seems it had better be here rather than AN? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir please point out where I said I didn't check the article for NPOV or redact your incorrect accusation. I'd actually quite like an apology for that. Nick (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You wrote above in response to a query about how far you had checked the article: "I did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues. I'm satisfied that all of the information is correct and accurate, and that the article complies with the relevant policies concerning BLPs, as well as notability and reliability of sources." This does not even mention what I understand Iaaasi was primarily banned for—biased editing—you admit that (like me) you are unable to evaluate the use of sources in detail because of inability to read Romanian. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become rather infamous for discarding editors with a long history of productive edits (indeed, many of the names on the list of top editors of all time) based on a few problematic edits. (I have not attempted to determine if this is one of those editors) The logical corollary of that is that a third party who reads their offsite editing will, most of the time, find their writing to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Copying that one piece of writing does not, alas, give any guarantee that they will not say something sometime that could get them banned; it proves one piece is OK, when checked by someone else. I don't say this to dissuade you from trying to unban the writer (I have not developed any opinion about that) but only to emphasize that Nick need not be signing on to anything more than the text that actually passes through his cut and paste buffer. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately all too familiar with Iaaasi's content contributions and his editing history, checking the point of view of the article was the first thing I did, before I even thought about reinstating it - it was the fact it didn't have a POV that made me think restoring it would be good for the project. When I was happy that there wasn't any POV/nationalistic issues, I set about checking it for the usual issues, making sure the references were accurate, thankfully the content of the article and the references meant this was a very straight forward and quick job, much of the content is essentially basic factual information concerning titles and dates of positions held, and election/voting results. I found it simple, quick and easy to check everything was in order, maybe I've missed something glaringly obvious, but I cannot for the life of me find anything wrong with the article, beyond a couple of slightly malformed references. Please, if I'm missing something, I'd dearly love to hear what I've missed, but I honestly cannot find fault with the article, no matter how critical I am looking at it. It is the article I'd have written on the same subject. Nick (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Ah! Unfortunately you hadn't mentioned that at all, and given the reasons for his being banned, that was the most important thing to be sure of concerning the article. I still think it would have been better to take some of the sources from the deleted version and make your own expansion from the stub that someone else had made, and there may be issues of omission or selective mention. But that makes me feel much better about having Iaaasi's version in mainspace. And I do think we need at this point to consider unbanning him on that basis, with mentorship or some other sort of checks. It would amount to the community regularizing what you did with this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I note I just had to remove a whole bunch of (stupidly repeated) sock posts from another Iaaasi IP sock from this very thread. I'm sure Nick's efforts to "work with" Iaaasi are honorable and all, but if this effort of vandal appeasement is meant as a way to convince Iaaasi to respect Wikipedia rules, it clearly isn't working. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're Iaaasi socks, they're miles away from his usual ranges. I'm wondering if it's connected with the bunfight going on with Eurocentral et al. Nick (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User Borsoka used sockpuppets

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

---

User Borsoka used suckpuppets in the Talk page of the Origins of Romanians, section called "What would be a neutral first sentence?". Name of suckpuppet: Thehoboclown and probably other names. Using suckpuppets Borsoka tried to show that majority of favorable comments. Thehoboclown also made illegal warnings.

Thehoboclown stated a few lines near Borsoka (similar phrases was used formerly by Borsoka):

"You might not realized, but your edits are clearly against the consensus and appears to be a POV push. You also might not understood, but the two theories are on the same level – there's no main view and other views, and shall be present accordingly. It is not the editors' work to decide whether a theory is more likely, "better" or whatever – theories must be present neutrally and it's up to the reader how s/he interprets it. Do not give undue weight to one theory over all others. Also, if you have objections, please raise them on the talk page rather than blindly reverting the widely accepted, consensus based version. In accordance with this, I have to note that you are close to edit-warring – if you continue your disruptive behaviour and go against the consensus instead of participating in the improvement of the article on the talk page I won't be shy to make the necessary steps needed in these cases. Please consider it as an official warning. Thehoboclown (talk)"

An investigation must start because of the weird influence of the Borsoka's suckpuppets in the pages of Origins of Romanians. Eurocentral (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What do suckpuppets suck? Do they suck mental energy out of Wikipedia editors? Do they suck drama out of the drama boards (which might be good)? Or do they just suck the ability to spell a common Wikipedia abuse? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Omigod! An editor who may or may not speak English as his first language, and who spends very little time on drama boards, has misspelled a term of art that has very little use in regular discourse. Quickly! We must rush to ridicule him. Not cool, Robert McClenon; you're usually so much better than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Urban DB: suckpuppet - although I don't think this is what OP is referring to. Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure you, Eurocentral, know two things. First, phrases like "consensus", "POV push", "undue weight", "edit warring", "disruptive" are used in Wikipedia policies and therefore quoted by quite a lot of editors. Second, accusing other editors of sockpuppetry without lots of evidence is a personal attack. Considering you haven't presented a shred of evidence besides "Boroska used similar phrases at one point and they share similar opinions" (and you haven't quoted or presented a diff of one of Boroska's comments yet!) I find it hard to take your complaints seriously. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editors you are reporting. Stickee (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, I informed you on my Talk page how you should have initiated the sock puppet investigation against me (by the way, Thehoboclown is not my sockpuppet and I am not his sockpuppet). I would like to ask administrators to investigate Eurocentral's behaviour in WP. As I mentioned earlier (here [22] under the sub-subtitle "WP:NOTHERE: Eurocentral") Eurocentral is not here to build an encycopedia, but to destroy it. Yesterday I reported him for breaking WP:3RR. Interestingly, administrators have applied no sanctions against him either during the previous ANI, or during this last one. If Eurocentral's behaviour is acceptable in our community, I think that I should also change drastically my behaviour because I do not want to stay unprotected against an uncivil editor. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Eurocentral, would you share your experiences when you were used during a long period as a sockpuppet by the banned user Iaaasi ([23])? Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed a remarkable diff. Was Iaaasi merely fantasizing? If not, was Eurocentral what's called a meatpuppet hereabouts, and if he was, then how long did the meatpuppetry continue? (We do try to be polite, and thus avoid the term "suckpuppet".) -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral's accusations are blatant lies. I have already expressed my opinion about him, here. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Read what Wiki says aboutThehoboclown: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title!

Eurocentral (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BOOMERANG. The article was put up for RfC and I put my two cents in – just like 3 or 4 other users. Then, after reaching a consensus and rewriting the lead accordingly, Eurocentral started to restore the version he preferred, for what he got polite but clear warnings, including mine (above).

It rather tells a lot about his approach to wikipedia, that this single contribution of mine led him to accuse Borsoka and me with sockpuppetting. Considering he did not submit an SPI, it pretty much looks like he tries to discredit certain users, even via such kind of personal attacks. Though, it's not unique from him, as he described Borsoka as "A commentator with 2 faces. Of course he will add the aid of his Hungarian colleagues in order to introduce his nationalistic ideas" or "Some hungarians, furious of their nomadic origin, see nomads in old Europe!!", making me to think that he lacks certain competences that are necessary to be a Wikipedian, including factual, social and bias-based competences.

To put up the issue on the ANI noticeboard thus escalating his disruptive behaviour also underlines his battleground mentality – he is not only unable to accept the consensus and unable to work in cooperation, but ready to go the furthest just to discredit and to throw the mud on others. Thehoboclown (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There were only usual edits:by the way, I asked commentators to put at the Talk page (Geographic space) of the Origins of Romanians, anything they want for a complete space (I proposed Dacia for continuity and Roman provinces for other theories). But there were NO replies. Instead there were accusations ! Again I ask commentators to add something to debate about geographic space. Only debates. I have a lot of references about this topic

Also Borsoka refused phrases (presented in the Romanian history pages) to be added in the Hungarian history pages. He wrote about a lot of disputes between Romanian and Hungarian historians, but he refused to show these disputes in the Hungarian pages. This kind of double dealers are not useful when approaching Romanian and Hungarian history. Eurocentral (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, after a consensus was reached by other editors during an RfC, you declared that you want to return to your original version ([24]) and soon opened a new subtitle on the same subject on the same Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOrigin_of_the_Romanians&diff=628758492&oldid=628757023). Within six hours I responded you under the new subtitle (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=next&oldid=628758492). Even so, you returned to your version in the article ([[25]]), thus ignoring the consensual text agreed upon by other editors. Eurocentral, as I have times mentioned to you ([26]), you are always abusing scholars' names in order to substantiate your own original research: in the "Origin of the Romanian" article Gottfried Schramm is cited in connection with a debate over the Romanians' ethnogenesis, you copied the same sentence to the "Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin" article, although Schramm did not write of debates among historians in connection with the Hungarian Conquest. As I mentioned to you, you cannot refer to Schramm in connection with all debates between Romanian and Hungarian historians, because he did not write about (for instance) Gelou which is also subject to scholarly debate between Romanian and Hungarian historians ([27]). Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Schramm has a general appreciation of relations between Romanian and Hungarian historians based on political bases ! You

changed the Schramm ideas. Here is an important issue of Hungarian history pages: the lack of objectivity (as I wrote in the Talk pages of Carpathian conquest...) You brought a lot of observations against statements of Romanian historians in Romanian pages but you erased all observations made by Romanian historians in the Hungarian pages. This is a lack of objectivity characteristic to a non objective person. You need to understand that WIKI needs equal politics in all pages. Eurocentral (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, would you verbatim cite what Schramm writes and in what context? Would you demonstrate how I changed Schramm's ideas? Would you also list the cases when I deleted any "observations made by Romanian historians in the Hungarian pages"? You are always making empty declarations and accusations. You are always declaring wars. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to destroy cooperation and to harass other editors. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is falling into a content dispute. Take that back to the page; focus on user conduct here. ansh666 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, why do you think that the above statements about me ("double dealer", "non objective person", etc) can be regarded as a content dispute? Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the main part of what you two are talking about is what sources can be used to cite a specific body of content - not an issue that can be dealt with here. ansh666 17:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So any editor can make any statements of any other editor on this page without consequences. Interesting. I will remember it: "When in Rome do as the Romans do". Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm that's not what I meant, and you know it. ansh666 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not know and do not understand. If an editor states that I "changed Schramm ideas" or "erased all observations made by Romanian historians", I can only prove that these are empty accusations if I aks him/her to cite examples. This is not a content dispute, this is a dispute about the credibility of editors. And I do not know whether you know it. :) Borsoka (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand: Pardon for throwing my hat in the ring, but I've read Eurocentral's comments and edit summaries and it seems obvious to me that he (or she?) is on a personal crusade to assert any edits and arguments that may support his favored ideological narritive; and it seems to me that he sees editors like Borsoka as enemies. You have seen that he is not above making blind accusations of deceit and sockpuppetry or making sweeping generalizations of Hungarian historians or editors. It seems to me that to him, this is a war between him (Romanians) and Hungarians. It seems that to him this is not about historical accuracies or truths. I'm afraid that he won't stop waging edit wars against Borsoka, and it is said that he is collaborating or has collaborated with the banned user and sock-master Iaaasi. It seems to me that his ideological POV needs to be put across and nothing else will do. Well, that's my take on all this.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit is a very suspect account. It is clear that this is not a wiki novice. Initially blocked as a sock, he was unblocked on [[User talk:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit] with the motivation that his IP geolocatres on another contient. The motivation offerred by TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbi was that he was until now a "long-time lurker ", a spectator, who was "watching with interest the current edit/conflict wars between Borsoka and User:Eurocentral." and decided now to intervene. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit should also be blocked as a "single purpose account" created to attack other editors.

Eurocentral (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, were the above sentences suggested by banned user Iaaasi to you? Based on my experiences, I am sure that you could not write the above sentences alone. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I have not made ad hom attacks against any editors, but merely commented on your behavior which is apparent to anyone who notices. Yet you're not above making personal attacks, as you made here or anywhere else. Besides, are you admitting that you are waging edit wars between Borsoka and other editors?

NOTE TO ADMINS and Borsoka: If my commentary is not constructive, let me know and I will withdraw.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

After being mentioned once again, Eurocentral, would you please share what do you exactly accuse me and the other mentioned users of? Please, don't forget to add evidences that support the accusations. If you would fail to do so, I'd like to ask an administrator or any non-involved user to be so kind and close this discussion as it is a made-up story and leads nowhere. Also, I have to remind you, Eurocentral, accusing others without presenting strong evidence(s) may be taken as a personal attack and as such, it may have consequences. Please, take it as an official warning. Thank you. Thehoboclown (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

More WP:OR immediately following a block

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following this discussion only two weeks ago, Kkm was blocked for edit-warring and for unapologetically adding his own original research and "analysis" to various corporate articles. Even while the discussion was ongoing, Kkm continued to make the same sort of edits. He was blocked for that and for edit-warring to keep his original research in various articles.

Immediately following his return to editing, he added exactly the same type of original research (raw financial data, disingenuously cited with his own interpretations) to two different articles. I reverted both edits and warned him for those. My reverts were reverted, but with the addition of slightly better sources. But Kkm is at it again, adding the same Google Finance data, calling it an "annual report" and using the raw data to extrapolate year-on-year financial results.

There was a commitment from Kkm during the last ANI discussion that he would discontinue his OR spree. That commitment was obviously as disingenuous as his sourcing. I really don't know what else to do - I've tried warning, discussing, reverting, discussing again, discussing here (for which he was blocked) and more warning. What is it going to take for this disruptive behaviour to be stopped? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that adding (or subtracting ) numbers together isn't OR. He can show where he got the numbers from, and unless the contention is that google's unreliable, he's doing nothing more that basic addition or subtraction. This doesn't appear to be OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me. It was established that what he was adding was original research in the last ANI discussion and he agreed to stop doing it. The block was for original research. But he's back at it. It's not simply a matter of "adding (or subtracting) numbers". He's posting raw financial data, extrapolating results and claiming the data is in fact an annual report from the company in question. Completely false. The reliability of Google isn't in question - it's not a source published by Google at all; it's the raw search results Kkm got when he plugged the stock exchange code into Google. The issue here is not the acceptability of the edits themselves (it was established they were completely unacceptable and even Kkm agreed as much while at the same time pleading ignorance). The issue is that the IDHT attitude has continued beyond the original block. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111, looking at the page he linked to shows the numbers he says are there, and where he says increase or decrease, it's obvious that that indeed is what it is. He's not making up numbers, nor is he comparing source a to source b and coming up with C. He's reporting the numbers on the website (which is google finance) and stating if it's an increase or a decrease. That portion is not OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps this shouldn't be qualifies as the "Annual Report" which is an actual document likely produced by the company and Google Finance does not (as far as I saw) claim to be directly reproducing that report. There may be an issue of if Google Finance is an RS for this type of thing, but assuming it is, the increase/decrease stuff clearly falls within WP:CALC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Gaijin42 said, it is also disingenuous to call the Google finance search an Annual Report. Anyone who is familiar with financial parlance would know that an Annual Report is released by the company and includes far more than just the numerical data for cash flow, etc. As it is now, the labeling is misleading to the reader as to the true provenance of that source. Blackmane (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said on Kosh's talk page - I have no real interest in re-prosecuting the case against Kkm. That was well established in the last thread about exactly the same behaviour. There is no "annual report" - that's an invention of Kkm's who is trying to pass his interpretation (or calculation) of financial results off as the work of the company itself or Google Finance. The sources in question are not either of those things. The issue here is an editor returning after a block and thumbing his nose at the community by immediately re-starting the same sort of editing that got him blocked in the first place. If consensus has changed in the last two weeks and Kkm's actions are no longer a blockable offence (which seems strange without considerable community discussion) then I'll move on and stop putting effort into stopping what is obviously disruptive behaviour. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Err, "There is no annual report...." What's the link he's referring to ? The link shows a report on google finance for that company. It's not an invention by Kkm , unless you want to claim that he put together an OR report, then somehow got google finance to carry it ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the report? Annual report means something specific - something a long way away from that which Kkm calls, "2014 Annual Report". ZTE. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Besides the obviously wrong date and wrong attribution, the link isn't to an "Annual Report" at all - it's to a set of google search results - a raw Google Finance data sheet for the company that you get by plugging the relevant stock exchange code into google and hitting "search". It's not an "Annual Report" by any stretch of the imagination (it's not even a published "report" in any sense of the word) and includes specific disclaimers (from Google) that it's not what Kkm claims it to be. You'd get the same data by walking into a stock exchange and copying down the numbers from the board. There is not a single part of that citation which is honest and genuine - every part of it is false. Kkm knows this, has been warned about this and has edit-warred to keep this sort of thing in article to the point where he was blocked. And he's at it again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That link actually has the quarterly and annual data for that particular company, and he's accurately reporting what the numbers say in that annual report without any calculations. Time to drop it Stalwart, there's no OR here. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source". As on your talk page, I genuinely can't work out whether you're just trolling to get a rise out of people or whether you don't understand what's going on. Right now, your are the ONLY person suggesting these are acceptable sources and edits (even Kkm has given up on that ridiculous line). Do you actually think Kkm's conduct (which even he has vowed to discontinue) and editing (which even he has reverted) is acceptable? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source" ' Stalwart, I'm hardly trolling. On the page in question I see a link to google finance, which is not some fringe blog, nor is it a forum, nor is it a user-supplied reference, it appears to be reliable as well. I also see KKM reporting what the page says, without attempting to combine source and with source b to create c, nor do I see him attempting to analyze data, he accurately reports what the annual numbers are (they're actually there on google finance ) , whether it's advancing or declining is obvious, so no, there is no OR. You've offered no evidence of such, so , once again, time to drop it and move on, it's not OR KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just. Plain. Wrong. Nobody suggested it was a "blog" or a "forum" and that's a pointless straw-man. Calling it a "link to Google Finance" is disingenuous - they are just raw search results. Of course its user-generated - you get the same by plugging any stock exchange code into Google or any other word into Google and copy-pasting the URL after hitting "search". It's not even a "source", let alone a reliable one. Google didn't "publish" the content - a search engine tool automatically extracts the data and presents it in that format. If I type "Harry Potter" into Amazon's search engine, the results wouldn't constitute a "report" or a "source, published by Amazon". And again, you're the only person here who thinks its a legitimate source - you're still digging; alone in your hole. Even Google warns against using the results in the way you're advocating. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, that corpse is beginning to stink, please back away from it. |google finance is not user-contributed data, it's the financial data available in any 8K report (I work in the fiance industry ). It's not a search engine, it's a report. Yes it's reliable , if you believe otherwise prove it otherwise stop beating the horse, it died a long time ago. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not even... you just don't... Facepalm. Your capacity and willingness to argue in the face of overwhelming (like... 0% support for your position) consensus is astonishing. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here but I'm starting to gain an understanding of how the extensive note on the top of your talk page came about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• As with the last thread, Kkm has refused to explain himself either here or on his talk page (last time we got broken English contributions demanding we explain what he had done wrong, even while he undid his own edits). Nothing here at all. But again, Kkm has quietly acknowledged the issue, reverting himself and replacing the "source". Surely fortnightly ANI reports is an inefficient way of preventing disruption? Can we get some admin action here? Dare I ping DP whose warnings Kkm is ignoring? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said earlier I will use original company source it could be either annual report or fourth quarter results where financial results are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you made that commitment "earlier" and then you were blocked. And you've done it 3 times since your block. We obviously shouldn't have believed you last time. Why should we believe you now? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That is why I need your help. Just remind me where I have failed to put original source I will immediately replace it. Don't worry to much about it, just relax take it easy brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody should need to remind you. You've been blocked for it before, isn't that reminder enough? (I don't have firsthand experience, though, so maybe not...) ansh666 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, you appear to be the only person arguing that his postings are OR. You further claim (up a bit higher in this same area) that Google finance is somehow unreliable and is user-generated. You mentioned the disclaimer - and you're right to do so, google doesn't verify the numbers. However, did you see the first part Data is provided by financial exchanges . It's not user generated, and thus reliable. You claim it isn't, I am stating that it is reliable and that no OR is being done on this , he's posting what the numbers say and the "increase " and "decrease" is obvious, and not OR per WP:CALC. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Financial data and analysis for annual reports most definitely do not fall under WP:CALC. Google results are not reliable sources, annual reports are either from the company or from a 3rd party financial reliable source. Perhaps there should be a discussion on the article Talk pages on how best to update corporate financial numbers. Dave Dial (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Temporary page review

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

---

Requesting admin assistance in reviewing the article rewrite after a claimed copyright infringement. The new article is entirely original and includes reliable citations and sources. The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Schiller

New article written as directed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvey_Schiller/Temp 2602:306:CE71:E330:904C:D6B0:9B3F:E577 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done I don't see a copyright violation in the new version. That's doesn't mean there is none - but that I can't see one. --Tóraí (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User J Greb harassment

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

---

The user: J Greb has constantly been reverting any edits I do simply because they were done by me. An example is I created a redirect for the Caitlin Snow version of Killer Frost, like we do with all alter egos of most other comic book characters (Clark Kent being a prominent exception). And he deleted it, the reasoning being "sigh" (here). I seriously hope that isn't considered a proper justification by Wikipedia standards. Also note that there is no other Wikipedia page called Caitlin Snow, so there was no unstated disambiguation reasoning.

Another example is I created a redirect to The Flash (2014 TV Series) page called Flash 2014, and he deleted that. My reasoning behind it was that not many fans would want to type such a long title to search for the show, so I thought this would be helpful. But he didn't even talk with me about it- just deleted it right off the bat.

Now, I might as well talk about what I posted on his talk page since it'll no doubt be brought up. I was going through a tough time and I happened to see we'd had a conflict of interest in the past on my own talk page. I regret doing this, but I posted on his talk page that I hated him and that no doubt convinced him to start watching my edits. He looked through my edit history reverted a bunch of redirects I had created. I'm not complaining about those b/c he did post on my talk page why they violated the rules, but it does add to the point of harassment.

I'm not complaining about all the decisions he does because some of them are reasonable, like when he told me I had messed up changing the Dances with Wolves and General Zod page pictures.

I doubt I'll be successful in this since he's an administrator, but let me just say this. All the edits I do as of late are done in good faith. I hope you don't see these minor additions/redirects as vandalism because I swear that is not my intent. And I do make mistakes like every other user, but that doesn't mean I deserve a watchdog who just deletes anything I do, and only occasionally talks about it. I beg you not to see this as vandalism and assume good faith. Thank you for your time.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You give a single example of a reversion (indeed, deletion) that you don't like: having "Caitlin snow" (small "s") redirect to one part of a longish article. If I understand right, "Caitlin Snow" (large "S") appears in two issues of one comic, so it's not obvious that the name is very important, though I'll grant that "sigh" is an inadequate comment for the redirect's deletion. Anyway, without the redirect, looking for the name shows people where to go. How about your creation of, say, The bike thief (a redirect to Bicycle Thieves, subsequently deleted); why did you create it? -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not being able to see deleted contributions, I can't judge all of VR's created redirects (J Greb's log - I can see the titles, but not where they linked to, nor who created them, I'm assuming they're all VR's until told otherwise). The two given as examples here make sense, as well as many of those in the log, and I would likely have made some of them had I thought of them first. R3 certainly does not apply to many of them - IIRC from a prior discussion about it, generally if at least one person genuinely thinks it's "obvious", R3 shouldn't be used (WP:CHEAP and all). The deletion rationales aren't exactly good, either: R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Not so much "implausible" but thourolghy unneeded (which isn't R3 at all); Unneeded implausable redirect (doesn't mention R3, but that's nitpicking, I know); Really? Again?, Sigh, Same, and a blank one, which only make sense when viewing the user logs. Just my take on the situation, as an outsider. ansh666 07:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ansh666: here is a list of all VR's pages, including deleted redirects. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Without being able to see where they used to link to, it's still kind of useless. I mean, most of them are guessable, but still. ansh666 16:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• For whatever reason the link given by GS Palmer doesn't actually have ALL Valkyrie's deleted redirects, and is missing such gems as Harry potter 7 1. Having looked at the deleted redirects and spot-checked a few, they appear to be pretty illogical and unhelpful to say the least. For example, Twilight 1 to Twilight (2008 film) (the movie, not the book, which would have made at least some sense). Since there are dozens of redirects of similar quality, some going back years, I can understand some exasperation on J Greb's part in having to deal with this, especially as your actions toward them range from sniping to all-out personal attacks, the latter of which occurred on an IP's talk page! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You say pretty illogical and unhelpful, but I disagree. I think many of them (the two you mentioned, for example, though the point about book vs movie is valid) make sense. ansh666 19:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You've every right to disagree, but I'm not seeing it. Being a moderate fan of Harry Potter I've never seen the 7th movie referred to as "Harry potter 7 1", and a quick Google doesn't show this as a common name for it either. Besides, I think you're (possibly deliberately) ignoring the point, in that Valkyrie Red's personal attacks on J Greb are completely unacceptable. Maybe you're on some Bizarro World version of Wikipedia where it's totally okay to call an editor a "big fat douche bag" and then run to ANI claiming they're harassing you, but the rest of us aren't. That isn't going to fly here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Most of the redirects VR creates are search related. This covers the fan-think redirects, the malformed capitalization, and the niche fan acronyms. While CHEAP - short essay that it is - makes a good point about keeping most redirects, the intent of those is primary for in article use, either creating links without including pipes or preserving links for pages that have been moved or merged. What VR creates will almost never be used that way (I think I came across a grand total of one). This has been brought up to them, and brushed off. While I do believe they sees what they're doing as a service, it isn't. It's a mess. It's for the most part creation of useless pages that spam the search window and makes it harder to find things. And no, that is not vandalism thorough maliciousness, but it is thoughtless.
  
  Now there is something to be said in favor of redirects for the alter egos for characters that are likely to be used. But the editor(s) creating them should think through what they're doing. Using the correct title format for the redirect is one. "Caitlin Snow", "Caitlin snow", "caitlin Snow", and "caitlin snow" generate one hit in the search box. That is with two of the versions currently up as a redirect. So, the benefit of keeping the mangled version is what exactly? Beyond that, the mangled version has no links aisde from this ANI. And the correctly formatted one has a worse problem. That is unless fictional characters are now competing in real world events. Maybe if VR or NE2 had looked first that wouldn't be an issue.
  
  The reasoning for having the above though doesn't translate to fan-shorthand for films or TV or for getting rid of portions of the proper title. "The Flash 2014" generates the search result VR wants, there isn't a reason to remove the "The". And Starblind already point out the problem with cases of one shorthanding being valid for two or more articles.
  
  Last thing since VR brought it up. their changing of infobox images tend to be in the vein of editing the file that is already there, rather than uploading under a new name. They do this without updating the FUR and general using image sized well beyond what is acceptable. Without thinking they create a situation where not only the image they add, but the entire file page becomes a valid target of removal. It also seems to be a method to avoid discussing the change - editors watching the article will see the change in their watch list if the filename is changed, they won't if the file us just uploaded over.
  
  - J Greb (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

-->With regards to the personal attacks, I was blocked for those a long time ago so I have served my time. And I also admitted that I messed up with the images, so I don't know why that's being used against me. And using absolute statements like "never" reflects more on your own personal thinking than the general public.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just popping in as an uninvolved outsider - Not a single redirect that has been mentioned here should have been deleted without discussion. None, period. These deletions are not only wrong, they are wronger than wrong. I suggest that Greb take a voluntary break from speedy deletions for a month, and learns more about redirects for discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Oiyarbepsy.Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Raymarcbadz

A few days ago I posted the following but no-one responded. I have brought it back here. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing content from "nation" at the XXXX Olympics articles. Here is a summary of his disruptive behaviour:

1. [28] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
2. [29] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
3. [30] - Benin at the 2008 Summer Olympics - (20/10/14)
4. [31] - Vanuatu at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)

• Older examples:

1. [32] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (10/3/13)
2. [33] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (9/3/13)
3. I can spot seven here

• Warnings:
• I gave him a 4im due to the amount of content removal ([34]) which s/he reverted quickly ([35])

Raymarcbadz has made 35000+ edits and he has been a great service to WP:OLY. I just think he has gone a bit far. Maybe a official final warning saying: "If you remove content again from WP:OLY articles, you'll be blocked without warning". Just a suggestion though, as it is up to a sysop. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see here a reasonable explanation by Raymarcbadz as to the reason for removal of sourced material. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I do have a reasonable explanation for removing chunks of content in most of the articles that I edited.

• The intent to nominate an article for a GA category - When you are creating an article for a nation competing at the particular Olympic Games edition, you do not need to expand lengthy information for each athlete and his status in the competition in order to nominate an article. There are multiple approaches to polish your article in order to nominate an article. Since the nations article contains data and results, I do not have any problem if you're describing about the status of the sport for a particular nation, but putting petty and pointless details (e.g. born in etc.) is not the main target to nominate an article.
• Background - Is this an appropriate manner to set up historical information about the nation from the previous Games? Better if you place some of them in the Olympic nations article without mentioning a year of the nation's participation, because this is a direct approach to examine what happens to the particular nation during the Games regardless of the edition.
• Sports Reference as a source material - I do not know which source material should I rather cite to describe the status of the competition and to narrate the life of an athlete if I am clearly using Sports Reference. There are numerous variations to cite data using the Sports Reference, but through uncertainty and questionable fact, which one is effectively official?
• Useless information - Some of the information that I observed for each article do not directly focus on the athlete's performance at these Games. For example, born in the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia (referring to the athlete in the article Bolivia at the 2008 Summer Olympics). Is this better if you should not mention the athlete's personal facts on the article? This would have been done in the article of the athlete itself. If you're aiming to focus on the athlete's performance, why cannot you put everything there in someone's article. If you wish to put a qualitative content on each section of the nations article, just provide the description briefly. No need to put too much petty information on the article. Another way to polish the article with enough content (not on the tables) is to create a section that summarizes the performance of the athletes of each nation during the Games. From my discernment, nations articles do not rely solely on the quantitative techniques (e.g. results tables for each sport), but rather analyze the outcome of the athletes before, during, and after the Olympics.

If you want to clarify something, please leave me a message. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Scottperry at WP:NPOV

[36] [37]

Warned: [38]

And about this ANI discussion: [39]

Sought input from WP:FTN: [40]

As far as I can see Scottperry refuses content discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?, just "vote-counting", accusing me of not following due process etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Francis Schonken (talk) is attempting to catch some admin by surprise here. He has a long history of blocks, has already made two reversions compared to my one, and seems to have posted this here right after I let him know I was going to work. Well I read Wikipedia at work too Francis, surprise! Specifically, he has already reverted this one WP:NOV policy twice, inclucing his July 30 reversion. He originally inserted the policy in early July without any "clear consensus". He first reverted it on July 30, in the apparent hope that he would "catch other editors off guard" by waiting until that time, still making the first reversion without any "clear consensus", and when asked how he achieved consensus, all he could do was to point to a talk-discussion where his edit was first reverted by User:Flyer22 in which Flyer22 had reverted his edit. How is that "consensus"? He seems to me to be the disruptive one, so far making two reversions, trying to "force" his will upon Wiki policy via irresponsible behavior, and not actually caring about first achieving "clear consensus" before making edits to our policy. Yet repeatedly claiming that he "did" achieve consensus, before his attempted changes to our policy. He has been editing Wikipedia for 9 years I believe, and I would guess that he must have at least a reasonable understanding about what "consensus" really is. Why he repeatedly claims that he had consensus for his edit, I cannot understand. It appears to me that he may be attempting to "game the system". If he makes a third reversion, I would ask that he be blocked for 2 weeks. I am beginning to think user Francis is a real "system gamer", and may need a block simply due to his request that I be blocked here. In fact I would like to request a 2 week block of him right now, due to his obviously "bad-faith" edit here. (this comment first posted at 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC). Last revision:Scott P. (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no disruption here. Scottperry has ample participation on the talk page although his accusation about Francis hoping to catch other editors off guard is very questionable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Neil, very kindly. Scott P. (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott, you're adding to your post after I replied. Please don't do that. No one should be blocked yet. Just drop the stick and continue calmly discussing on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right. Sorry and twice now, thank you kindly. Scott P. (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, I've asked you essentially this at the NPOV talk page:exactly why do you feel that your edit has consensus behind it? Your answer over there was to provide a link to a discussion between you and User:Flyer22 where she had simply reverted your attempted policy edit. If you might still feel so strongly that your edit had a consensus behind it, is there any other "proof" that you might have that a consensus amongst multiple editors approving the edit was arrived at before you made the edit? I would not have reverted your policy change if you had been able to provide such proof. Still I offer, if you could just provide some real evidence of such a consensus behind your edit, I would still be happy to let you keep the edit. Otherwise, why do you still seem to feel so strongly that you had consensus? How would you define consensus? Maybe that is what needs clarification here. I don't know. Scott P. (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my close at AN3 on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Request resolution of ANI thread

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

---

Hello, could an administrator(s) please resolve the issue in this current ANI thread? It will go a long way to helping the articles move forward. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Euryalus --Tóraí (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Cassianto just won't stop

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

---

User:Cassianto will not stop with his personal attacks on me. Here [41] he started a thread on me so that he could trash me as usual but he also trashes User:Metropolitan and User:Ian Thomson. I want the harassment and bullying to stop. I also want an admin to remove his entire thread on me. I'm fed up with Cassianto and his abuse. I'm also fed up with his lies about me. He claims in his thread that I spend all day reverting others? That is a lie. Then he says I cant write articles? That too is a lie. Enough is enough. Caden ^cool 20:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's time you two disengaged from each other. I have warned Cassianto and will block if it continues. As I said before though, having a user box that says you enjoy pornography is liable to lead to people making jokes about it. Ultimately if you are sensitive to this sort of leg-pulling, you may wish to remove the user box. --John (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

John it's not the user box it's because of the Peter Sellers talk page. The abuse from cass started over one month ago due to sellers. Cass is not joking, he's being vindictive as usual all because of sellers. Well i'm sick of his bullshit. Caden ^cool 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you Caden.Amanda Smalls 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No dont worry Amanda you didnt. Caden ^cool 20:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that Cassianto was warned about just this stuff just a day or two ago on this page, and was continuing in the same vein today, I have blocked them for 48 hours for a clear-cut case of personal attacks. To all people involved: insofar as all this is related to the flame wars at Talk:Paris (a page to which you both seem to have contributed and which was mentioned in this context by Dr Blofeld in that thread on Cassianto's page), please see my zero-tolerance warning at Talk:Paris#Behavioral warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Justified block by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. "They just tossed in a few supporting posts in favour of Caden; I can't stand tossers" (emphasis added) is another post meant to subtly call people he doesn't like names. Judging from last time, he might try to make the argument that he meant "things that are tossed" or even the act of tossing, when "tosser" does not mean "tossing" or "a thing that is tossed," but either "one who tosses" or "a masturbating male." In isolation it's not that much of an issue, but given the prior history of using "wanker" in place of "wanking" when 'correcting' Blofeld's claim of Caden jerking off, and his later argument that that somehow meant "wanking" instead of referring to a person who wanks, Cassianto appears to have an unfortunate ability to confuse nouns offensively directed at persons with verbs. That's assuming good faith and pretending he clearly didn't intend to make a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet, Ian Thomson, you are happy to use a piped link to besmirch another editor by questioning their competence, despite them creating a damned site more good content than you have? An editor who would rather spend their time being constructive than haunting the dramah boards? Nothing hypocritical in that at all, oh no…. You may not like them or what they have said, but please don't throw insults at people while you're also trying to claim some moral high ground that doesn't exist. – SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The blocked editor's behavior was obnoxious, post multiple warnings. There is no moral high ground to be had there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And there certainly isn't any high ground at all in Ian Thomson's rather curious comment either. A mixture of ill-placed and ill-thought grave dancing, insulting others, and needlessly re-hashing what has already been discussed. I'm curious as to why it was posted: it certainly isn't constructive or helpful in any way. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're taking quite the principled stand against insulting people. Good for you. If the blocked user had taken that approach this discussion wouldn't exist in the first place. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

But the world isn't perfect, which is why we have ANI in the first place. What it doesn't need is additional snidey and pointy comments—including insulting a blocked user who is unable to respond or complain—after the blocking admin has taken action and posted their comment. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@SchroCat:: What you're doing isn't stirring up that drama, with your pretense that contributions trump behavior? Especially when our edit counts (and the percentage of edits to articles) are rather comparable? (Heck, that edit count to talk pages is almost three times his and edit count to user talk pages about four times could be interpreted as a sign of how much time I spend trying to sort out how to handle articles and undoing vandalism). I pointed out that the editor has a behavior problem in case someone wanted to pretend that calling someone a wanker or a tosser is (as happened last time), as much as Cassianto pretended that he didn't actually call anyone names. What I did doesn't violate WP:NPA, while Cassianto did violate NPA repeatedly. So how about assuming good faith and quit trying to denigrate my work here? How about showing some ethical backbone and sticking up for what's best for the site instead of sticking up for a troublemaker?

@Elaqueate:, @Baseball Bugs:: Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"How about showing some ethical backbone" Where on earth do you get off with insulting others while still tying to claim some form of moral high ground? "sticking up for a troublemaker?" I have done no such thing, so perhaps you could read what I have said properly before you try and smear me again through yet more innuendo. And, by the by, what you are doing does violate NPA: you aremaking disparaging comments about others, which is exactly what NPA is all about. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As a completely un-involved editor, I think it is best that both of you let the matter drop. Cassianto can request an ublock and discuss with an admin on his talk page if he does not understand why the admins have found his behavior unacceptable for this site. Having circular arguments boarding on personal attacks is not going to make the situation any better. That's not to say either of you should end any civilized discourse as to this action, but I don't see that as what is happening. 199.227.12.234 (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Making fun of somebody once, for a peculiar userbox or whatever, is one thing. Hammering on it repeatedly is unfair. If a userbox is in violation of the rules, it could be challenged for that reason. But I don't see anything in Caden's userboxes that would be a rule violation. So maybe it was funny one time, but now it's just old news and needs to stop. (That's just my dos centavos.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Main page for AfD on October 23 -- group of unclosed items appear as if closed

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

---

On the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 23, everything from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_October_23#La_Alianza_Hispana onward has been boxed as if closed (with a blue background), even though many/most are still open. Is it OK to keep editing the unclosed items? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem was fixed, one of the AfDs had an improper close (Missing its bottom bit) as a result the box carried over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to learn the internals one of these days. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proper thanks should goto User:GB fan. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior right after the block of User:Bobi987 Ivanov expired

User:Bobi987 Ivanov was blocked two times successively (Block log) and right after his last block expired (23.10.2014) he continues with his disruptive behavior/edit warring on the same article for which he was blocked (article history) and on others as well ([42]). While he was blocked the edit warring started (or continued) from 2 IP addresses User:79.126.172.145 and User:85.30.127.197 (both from the same Internet provider). While he was blocked and the after the interventions of the IP addresses above, the articles had to be protected (only autoconfirmed users) ([43] & [44]). Now when his block expired, the disruptive editing continues. My request is his block time to be increased and the 2 IPs checked for sockpuppeting. --StanProg (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss my edits on the talk pages. I've posted a few subjects, for example, this one. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't blocked because I was making disruptive edits, but because I refused to discuss absolved subjects, multiply absolved. And, I'm sorry about that. I'll try to play by the rules from now on. My edits are always confirmed by academic studies, books etc. I just provide what the sources say. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockfarm spamming links to what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com

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

---

I just blocked Maryenault (talk · contribs) and Constancethughes (talk · contribs) for spamming links to what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com on all sorts of Christmas-related articles. Would a more competent admin consider adding it to the spam blacklist? This should be documented somewhere, probably SPI but I've no idea who the master is. I think I blocked another account earlier this week or late last. Have any other admin seen this? Is it already documented somewhere? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Added to the list, thanks for pointing it out. Wikipedia is such a bad choice for spammers so I think they will probably give up soon anyway. —Soap— 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I raised it on the blacklist talk page while cleaning it and related URLs up - looks like the spammer has plenty of variant domains for girlfriends and moms and other recipients, so it may merit a wider regexp blocking (such as what-?to-?get-?.+christmas.com). --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Silly spammers do not realize that our blacklist is public and that now they are on it they will be blacklisted from many forums and downgraded on search engines. A smart spammer would avoid that list by any means necessary. Chillum 17:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Soap:m @McGeddon: If you look at Heavenlove8x (talk · contribs) you'll find some more spam domains. I've blocked 3 spammers in the last few minutes all obviously the same editor or perhaps company. Dougweller (talk)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maryenault. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Going through this with the linkwatcher DB... this may take a while. MER-C 03:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting requested on meta. MER-C 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:BadMotherf

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

---

1) Evil trolling. 2) Provocative nickname --Maxrossomachin (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Notified user, removed trolling. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for reporting this. next time, you don't need to come to ANI for vandalism/trolling only accounts, you can go to WP:AIV, where (a) usually, but not always, the response is faster, and (b) you don't have to notify the vandal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Maxrossomachin (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 184.162.56.126

This user has been persistently adding incorrect information [45] [46] [47] [48] and has expressed an unwillingness to discuss [49], in spite of posts on his talk page user talk:184.162.56.126#Recent edit to Supergirl. The two articles affected are Supergirl and Bewitched ([50]). Thanks for looking into this. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a note that the linked information is accurate (Supergirl first appeared in 1958!) but presented in a POV format the page is better off without.--Auric talk 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Don't know how to word it better though. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User C759 is deleting some relevant links

Well, the issue is. User C759 deleted twice relevant links (from an omnilogy, scientific community) with unique, adequate photos like photos from typhoon areas (examples: http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/social-network-seo-social-network/a-new-strong-typhoon-is-coming-to-china-hainan-guangdong-and-guangxi-provinces/msg21571/#msg21571 and http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/social-network-seo-social-network/after-4-nights-and-5-days-without-electricity-and-almost-without-water/) and others like, for instance, a picture proving new Mirinda Watermelon from China (this one: http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/drinks/a-chinese-mirinda/). He or she thinks it's "spam", but it has high relevance and it's useful for Wikipedia and for its readers. It's not that important, but I'm a scientist, almost 40 years old and obviously I can't be and I'm not some kind of spammer, who will link something wrong. Please, tell me your opinion, because I'm not going to spend more time to undo C759 deletions. Сароман (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

C759 is absolutely right for removing the links. The pages seem to be forums, so they can't be considered reliable sources, and links to forums generally shouldn't be included in articles (see WP:ELNO, number 10). If the images are public domain or creative commons, I would suggest uploading a couple of the best and including the best in the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the photographs (images) are not public domain or creative commons. (And, by the way, there is a contradiction: in one hand the scientific forum "can't be considered reliable source", but in other hand, some of its content can be "included in the article" and no credit/link to the source. (?!). In my opinion, it's not in fair.) --Сароман (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Links to forums are not appropriate because the forums are not a reliable source, not for credit reasons. If the images are suitably licensed they can be displayed. Images don't have the same reliable source policies because they are not used to state facts by themselves; they are used to illustrate other content (which should of course be reliably sourced). --Richard Yin (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IF "forums are not a reliable source", then please explain this:

1. Links to an Indian forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=+http%3A%2F%2Fdefenceforumindia.com%2Fforum%2F&go=Go)

2. Links to another forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=forum.ragezone.com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go)

3. Links to vbulletin.com's forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbulletin.com%2Fforum%2F&fulltext=Search) AND MANY OTHERS! Wikipedia.org is full of links to forums, this is a fact. Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard? 是不是，Yin先生？;) Сароман (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's racist. Or as we Chinese would say, 那是种族主义. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

没有啊！真的，I didn't get it. In this conversation NOONE uses any form of racism (known in Chinese as "种族主义"). Me and the people here discuss only the issue that an user, nicknamed "C759" deleted twice links to a scientific (omnilogic) forum, despite of the fact that the linked content is related, informative, reliable, etc., and then, after we couldn't find agreement with him, I posted here this issue to see what is the opinion of the administration. No racism at all!!! About this question "是不是，Yin先生?", it means "Isn't it, Mr. Yin?" or "Yes or no, Mr. Yin?"(even Google Translate can show some approximate translation of this and you can see there is nothing racist in this question: https://translate.google.com/#zh-CN/en/%E6%98%AF%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%AF%0AYin%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F), in Chinese, because I saw there are still SO MANY LINKS TO FORUMS IN THIS ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA (https://www.en.wikipedia.org) and I pointed to some of them, then I suppose that if you guys keep those links and you delete only the links to http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com (which is a Chinese-English-Russian-Bulgarian forum, i.e. very international, non-rasist forum), then we're talking about a phenomenon called "Double standard", IMHO. That's all. As far as I am busy with my online and offline jobs + my family, I have no time for free labor here and if the issue is clear (for me it's already 100% clear), I don't want to spend any more time here, because I prefer to spend my labor for actions that are profitable and reasonable, not for free as most of you over here (as far as I'm relatively poor 39 years old family man). Thank you for your attention and for your answers, for your time! Сароман (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

outing and disruption by Ips

There are IPs following me around, outing me and another uses background and claiming we are "anti-Semites"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthright_Unplugged&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ein_Qiniyye&action=history

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

How exactly are they "outing" you? Number 57 15:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's the IPs statement that they are from Syria, seen in edit summaries on both pages. I don't give IPs a lot of credibility, though, and Supreme, it seems, has kinda outted themself by confirming the IPs comment. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Supreme is digging himself a hole here.... Epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's true that you are an anti-Semite from Syria, it is just pure IP vandalism/trolling. Don't dwell on it. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The same troll is now attacking me as an " anti-Semitic self-hating communist" (not true, needless to say), and clearly has a large supply of IPs to edit from. RolandR (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Gomu gomu no pistol on dubious grounds by User:Berean Hunter setting a bad precedent

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

---

I tried to contact the blocking admin to resolve this but to no avail. I do not feel it will be resolved by his hands. I feel very strongly about this as I believe it sets a bad precedent.

This user was blocked with "thin evidence" (to quote the admin User:Amatulic) and others have said there is "no evidence" (to quote User:Priti.shetty) that this user is a sock or meat puppet of User:Misconceptions2.

The SPI was inconclusive bordering unlikely

Blocking Admin therefore claimed the user must be a Meat Puppet of M2 (misconceptions2) on the grounds that the user edited 1 article that M2 edited. 1 article out of a thousand articles !

His second justification was that this user likes "anime" and M2 also likes anime. SO apparently he suggest their is some sort of link.--Mohsinmallik (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator--Mohsinmallik (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I have also been accused of being a sockpuppet by User:Berean Hunter , JUST because he claims I made my account same day as User:Gomu gomu no pistol actually I made my sockpuppet account (and i should emphasize legal sock puppet account) before then called User:Calculatro009. I didnt even edit the same articles as that user. --Calcula2 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as I have said previouslly. There is basically no evidence that this user is a Meat Puppet or sock puppet of M2, and the CheckUser confirms this. Just suspecting is not enough. Even the grounds to suspect are baseless because claiming that this user has a link to M2 just because he likes anime is careless and downright irresonpsible and I agree. It sets a VERY BAD precedent.--Priti.shetty (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I love how the nominator, Gomu, Calcula2 and Priti.shetty all showed up on October 7 after long editing hiatuses. Yep, these are interconnected meatpuppets. Just as surely as they herded here for clan support. Any more M2 meatpuppets want to comment?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • • Oh please stop already. 1. Calcula2 has never edited or been on a hiatus, i see he only made account about 20 days ago. 2. I have already told you I know M2 off wiki and have worked with him to improve wikipedia articles. How does me editing on 7th October make me a meat puppet of the other users? I made my account in 2011. Way before the above 2 users. --Mohsinmallik (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Appearing on Oct. 7 after not having edited since 13 August 2013 (Mohsinmallik)
        • Appearing on Oct. 7 after not having edited since 13 August 2013 (Priti.shetty)
        • Calcula2 created on Oct. 7
        • Gomu created on Oct. 7
        • These were secondary findings which help cement things for me. The fact that your group immediately made for unblocking pleas on M2's page as fast as they could rally is telling.
           — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also blocked Kellyjens as latest puppet.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated attempts to insert copyvio and remove negative review

I don't really know where else to go with this, so here we are. Crhamar (talk · contribs) has attempted to insert a copyvio three times at Champs (film): [51], [52], [53]. It is a copy-paste of this text. In addition, he has repeatedly attempted to remove a negative review from the article, sometimes under a deceptive edit summary, such as "bolstering content". This follows from a previous user, Qohen Leth (talk · contribs), who also removed the review. This has gone beyond any problems of WP:COI and become seriously disruptive. Qohen Leth has not edited the page in a while, and I suspect that Crhamar is either a sock puppet or meat puppet based on their shared dislike for this negative review. If someone feels that it's warranted, semi-protection would be appreciated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Might be quicker to request page protection straight off response times usually a bit better there. No guarantees though. Amortias (T)(C) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just overcautious, but I try to avoid the look of forum-shopping as much as possible. Anyway, I don't mind waiting for resolution here. The article is not under imminent threat from 4chan; it's just being targeted periodically by COI editors/POV pushers. I can revert that myself, though page protection would make my life less stressful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for repeatedly inserting copyvios, and left a note on their talkpage to let them know that once they acknowledge our copyright policy and promise not to do it again, I'll be happy to unblock. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Insults on talk-page

Can some admin please give a warning to this user, Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not to insult people on talk pages as he did here: diff. He showed serious hateriot in a Balkans sentitive area, a kind of conduct we older editors indeed don't want to see here on en.wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User warned. Are you happy for someone to close this or do you specifically want an admin to intervene? Amortias (T)(C) 23:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could have gave him a cookie as well and a welcoming notice... "While you probably didn't intend any offense" come on, the user clearly intended to offend consciently. A warning not to repeat such behavior would be way more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a standardised first warning for the behaviour he displayed. While I agree the behaviour might have been intentional theres no sign of a history of this behaviour by this user. If he had demonstrated a tendancy for this type of behaviour then I would have placed a stronger warning. Although not strongly worded I would consider the last sentance as advice not to repeat the beahvaiour. Amortias (T)(C) 23:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionable user identity

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

---

I have a problem. This user has self-identified as a 15 year old student and given their date of birth on their userpage. Either this is true, in which case this is a problem WRT our child-protection policies, or it isn't, in which case it is a grossly inappropriate persona to adopt - to the point where I do not feel that it is appropriate that this person should be editing either. The user claims not to know the word 'cunt' (also [54]), which, judging by the sophistication of the language, I can't believe to be true. I just can't. There are posts that could be construed as subtle trolling - [55], [56], [57]. And some forward questions. See also here.

I think we're all being played here. Does anyone have any strong opinion on this. Despite some copyediting and cursory article starts, I don't think this person is here to build an encyclopedia but for less savoury reasons. So I am debating whether or not to block. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note but Amanda's old username was User:MirrorFreak. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The c-bomb isn't that common in the U.S., a 15-y-o is more likely to know "motherfucker". Also, FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MirrorFreak/Archive. —Neotarf (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So a former sock master who used multiple accounts in a childish way who is starting out on a new better path? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I also want to note that nobody bothered to link Amanda to WP:YOUNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Block Other than links to alleged subtle trolling there is not any real evidence that the user isn't who she claims to be. If this user is who she claims to be then a majority of personal information needs to be removed from her user-page ASAP, if she isn't then this can be revisited down the line as I believe in WP:ROPE and wating from the sidelines here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It would probably be worth posting a link to the advice for young editors. They seem quite reasonable in their editing so I dont feel thats a cause for concern. Amortias (T)(C) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Done [58]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to do here. I will say I'm willing to bet a month's salary this is NOT a 15 year old. I agree that many of the edits do look like (poorly executed) attempts to look 15, and to a degree, it really looks like trolling with a long term plan. I also note the locations of edits, the people she chats with, the style of contributions, all point to someone who has more than 1600 edits, the kind of stuff you look for at SPI. I don't have a silver bullet to point to, but I've been suspicious for a week. Edits like this [59] are almost impossible to believe to be true. I've never seen someone be so "matter of fact" when coming out as transgendered for the first time in a community, particularly a teen. I don't buy it, and find it a bit offensive to use being transgendered as a persona or tool to troll. Dennis - 2¢ 00:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I 100% agree with you, it would be awful and disgusting if this person was a troll here but what evidence do we have to go on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You never get direct evidence in socks or trolls, it is always behavioral (even with CU confirmation). It requires experience reading that kind of evidence as it isn't always obvious and often requires comparing to previous instances. The behavioral evidence here is moderately strong. I'm not quite ready to push the block button with it, but it isn't trivial and I'm still looking for more info. Certain aspects are pretty clear, like there is no way they are 15, which isn't a reason to block, but using that to troll is. Dennis - 2¢ 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be using the account in accordance with the previous agreement. Is there an established editor who identifies as transgender, maybe at Category:Transgender Wikipedians who might be able to provide advice/mentoring? —Neotarf (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also undecided as to what to do, but the more I look at it, the more uncomfortable I feel. A statement like this one: I'm also a Transgender Female. I've sort of always known I was but was really embarrassed about it until a couple years ago when I started to accept who I am (emphasis mine) is certainly not something I would ever expect to hear from a 15 year old. Also, the note about being enrolled at the FLVS doesn't help her credibility at all. Let alone the fact that she claims to be atheist. → Call me Hahc21 00:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support block. Props to Cas Liber for calling it like it is. WHBT. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Its not so clear cut though is the problem, I have seen a lot coming from using Gaia Online over the years where I have seen behaviors similar to this. Teens like to think of websites as social media websites Wikipedia isn't one of those websites though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • There's no evidence this person is a teen. There is evidence that they socked and speculation that they are trolling. You're demanding the rules of evidence be reversed. We don't prove negatives. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there's much of a problem here, unless there's a problem with how she edits, in which she's subject to all the policies and guidelines Wikipedia has, regardless of their age or gender or religion or lack thereof. No need to address the trans angle at all, just assume that's true, for respect for trans folk. Also Viriditas, are you intending we have some verification to claims made by an editor of their identity? Forcing editors to upload a birth certificate or something of the like to continue editing here? Tutelary (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed I have not seen any real disruptive editing, questionable things maybe but nothing that would warrant what a troll would be looking for which is the attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, don't put words in my mouth or speculate about my intentions. I don't think this editor is who they say they are, and other editors agree, which is why we have this open thread. We've had problems with editors role playing like this in the past and I see no need to entertain it again. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, when you're saying 'There's no evidence this person is a teen.' it kind of implies to me that you want some sort of evidence that this person is a teen rather than taking them at their word, which is why I brought up the birth certificate thing. Again, unless there's any disruption or policies or guidelines being broken, I don't believe there's a problem. Sure, you can doubt things about an editor, but your doubting doesn't translate to an automatic block because you think someone's lying about their identity. I'm also concerned about the usage of the word 'troll' as it seems ambiguous to its wording and even seeing admins use it as part of their terminology is kind of alarming. Tutelary (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but if admin block editors on assumptions alone that opens the doors to block anyone who might make a suspicious edit or two. I am not saying the admin here are wrong but I would air on the side of caution, look at things from the other side here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is "respect for trans folk" that means dubious editors should not be encouraged to use Wikipedia for chat. Apart from it being obviously true that occasionally people will perform sophisticated trolling here, there are plenty of examples where that has occurred. It ends up consuming a huge amount of time and energy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe they're using Wikipedia for chat. I'm not seeing instances of 'I'm a teen, you wanna talk about dolphins?' I see a single mention of their age and gender on a user page and a bunch of people saying 'that deserves a block'. I don't believe it does. Tutelary (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that when the same things happen in the past it is human nature to judge the person before they even have done anything wrong if they fit into that "category" of people from past experience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some have looked at a couple hundred of their edits, not just the last 20. If you only see one instance regarding age, then you haven't looked around enough. I'm also reminded of the phrase that "Good faith isn't a suicide pact". Dennis - 2¢ 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you finding anything that is blockable from a disruptive editing point though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To articles? No, but I don't see that many article edits [60]. WP:DE is only one reason to block someone. Trolling and socking are other potential reasons. Maybe its a failed WP:Cleanstart, maybe something else, but to me the evidence is clear that this isn't their first account, in addition to the other misleading personal facts. Again, I'm not rushing here, but I have enough experience with socks (about 1600 blocks) that I recognize familiar patterns. Dennis - 2¢ 01:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, maybe you could inquire to some of the closing or participating admins on the SPI and question on why they didn't block the user regardless of having 10+ accounts confirmed by the SPI. I know that in some SPIs, it's closed because it wasn't technically disruptive, but that the user was confirmed to have socked. I'd rather that happen, the user gets blocked for a legitimate reason rather than fishing for edits or remarking on how I think this user is lying about their age, or how we need to block them to protect them. Nevermind, was a deal between one of the admins. I don't think there's enough activity here disruptive for a block, then. Other than the small bit of 'chat' between editors, which could be remedied with just a warning. Tutelary (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would be interested in hearing from @Anna Frodesiak: as she has had contact with Amanda. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I actually am beginning to see your point on the topic of using Wikipedia for chat. [61] 'Also, what's your favorite color?' [62] 'So do you like, live in China?' [63] 'Mac The Knife sounds familiar. Do you watch Criminal Minds?' [64] 'Also, do you play any instruments?' [65] 'This is totally unrelated, but are you good at Algebra II' [66] 'This has nothing to do with the Encyclopedia, but are you good at Algebra II?' and asks for Algebra homework. I may be able to see a block if given warning for WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and continuing, but don't really see any other disruptive stuff that warrants action. Tutelary (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This would fit in from what I pointed out above about teens seeing websites as a way to do social media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(multi ec) I'm going to be blunt, as is my wont (!). I've been watching this stuff on and off for a few days now and I've got a reasonably decent nose for trouble because of the topic area in which I have spent much of my time. This is a troll, just as Patrol forty is not a newcomer. This is WP:AGF but tempered by WP:PACT. In the highly unlikely circumstance that it is not a troll then the account should be blocked for the protection of the user, who is declaring themselves as a minor in pretty much any "developed" jurisdiction that you care to name and is giving away far too much alleged information such that it is reasonably likely they will regret in future. The best case scenario, sad although it may seem, is that we have a moral duty to protect them from their own statements. They can always return as a more mature contributor and I am sure that they would be welcomed as such. I hope that in the intervening period they become the person that they desire to be (poorly phrased, but hopefully people will understand what I mean). - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Im not seeing any harm being done though so why should we WP:IAR and give a block here? What would it accomplish? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. We have two scenarios: 1) Amanda is who she says she is, in which case we will likely have to block her account and delete (and oversight the reveisions of) her userpage to protect her; and 2) Amanda is a troll trying to foolish the community by crafting a false identity, in which case we will likely end up blocking her because her behaviour will (in the medium-to-long-term) become disruptive enough to warrant such an action. The fact that several administrators (myself included) have independently reached the same conclusion (that this account has a high chance of being a troll) speaks for itself. → Call me Hahc21 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I seriously contest the notion that you want to 'block' her to protect her. Are you being serious right there? Even if personal information was involved, you redact, oversight provisions, and the like. You don't block somebody for it, especially since it was a good faith insertion of her -own- information. 2. DO you have any proof that this is a false identity other than a 'gut' feeling or an 'emotional' or 'I really don't feel like this user is telling the truth'. Tutelary (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I've seen many cases of minors having their accounts blocked (some of them by ArbCom) precisely as a means to protect them. Oversighting the information is not enough; it was already visible for a period of time. To properly get rid of the risk, the account has to be blocked. It doesn't mean that the person cannot edit; it means that as a measure to protect their privacy, they are instructed to abandon that account. That way, noone will be able to establish communication with them. → Call me Hahc21 02:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is more of ArbCom's ballpark rather than arbitrary user-admin intervention stuff. Is there some sort of private way you can contact them about this? (So it doesn't show up for like hours on ArbCom's page). Tutelary (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You can send them an email, however I'm not sure they can do anything right now given that we suspect Amanda is not who she says she is. They usually handle unambiguous cases where it's clear that the user in question is a child. → Call me Hahc21 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the "no need to address the trans angle at all" stuff, as 1) disruptive editing can reflect poorly on the trans community and from what I have seen they do not welcome it 2)this individual has been all over several high-profile talk pages, but does not seem to work on articles 3) the trans angle, as well as the user's apparent age, may require uniquely tactful handling. —Neotarf (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Not really. I've never seen any other people get mad for editing Wikipedia under their identity. Putting 'Democrat' on a userpage, then editing poorly doesn't really reflect badly on 'Democrat' political party, just that one specific editor. Also really out of scope for this ANI, considering this is where we discuss sanctions and problems. I don't believe that the reputation of a group is really relevant here. 2. So? Are they being disruptive? 3. Only half point here. Age could be a relevant factor, their gender--IE: being trans or not is not. A disruptive editor is disruptive whether they are trans or not. Their age is only a factor because of personal information. Redact some, oversight some, done deal. Nonetheless, what are you proposing as a counterproposal? Tutelary (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I interacted with this Amanda person fairly recently, and it became obvious pretty quickly that this is not a 15-year-old - I'd bet good money on it too. Do they do gender reassignment surgery at 15? Do kids come to accept their minority sexuality at 13? This is just trolling. Neatsfoot (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I once again the most gullible editor? I see possible indications of what you are talking about, but no hard evidence.

I think it would be reasonable to insist that she makes 100% of her edits to the mainspace and talk pages related to improving the mainspace. If she's really here to build the encyclopedia, then it should not be too hard to hear or comply with. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Interacting with users beyond just talk pages is one of the staples of editing Wikipedia. As I said, there's a bit of a problem asking for certain non-Wikipedia related things, Algebra homework, TV shows, that stuff that should be cut out. She should be warned for that. But arbitrarily saying that '100% of her edits should be in X and Y namespace' is kind of unfair. Tutelary (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are two mindsets on this page. Some thing that Amanda needs to focus more on content and less on social issues. Others think it is all an act, a long haul method of trolling and perhaps socking. Dennis - 2¢ 02:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have changed my opinion to block per Hahc, I see being instructed to make a new account fully reasonable in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is purely about personal info and not about the editing conduct being discussed, then yes I'd agree with that. But there's more than that to than just this. Mandate: If this is the solution amicable along with oversighting, 'account creation disabled' is to be set to OFF. If not, then I absolutely do not support this. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about editor conduct Amanda did nothing wrong, this is about preventing others who can and do exploit information to do harm. Amanda wont be blocked forever she can just create a new account minus the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Im on board with a topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I had occasion to review some of the editor's contributions earlier and it gave me a bad feeling. My gut tells me that this user has needs that Wikipedia is never going to be able to meet and a nose for drama that is certain to lead to trouble and woe. That said, I think AN/I is the wrong venue to be discussing this and that it should be handled at a lower level. From here though I think our best path forward is to close this and do as Anna Frodesiak suggested above: topic ban her to the article namespace (letting her use the Talk and Usertalk namespaces only for issues related directly to editing articles). If she's here to troll she'll get bored and leave. If she's here for the "social network" thing, ditto. If she has an underlying agenda she won't be able to accomplish it. But if she's really interested in writing an encyclopedia then she'll stick around and we'll gain an editor. I suggest a 1 year topic ban from the Wikipedia and User:Talk namespaces the exception of being able to edit her own talk page, the talk pages of those she is engaged with in editing, and the talk pages of admins for the purpose of making inquiries about what would or would not violate her ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would support this idea too but what about all of her personal information? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This is going nuclear. You can't contribute to Wikipedia without interacting with users, which includes their talk pages. This is like shooting a fly with a shotgun instead of just using a fly swatter. You haven't even tried given her a warning regarding anything, and she hasn't even edited Wikipedia after this WP:ANI was filed. I also believe that topic banning her -ONLY- to those name spaces is an inaccurate and inefficient solution. We're skipping a step...I think I know what it is; a warning. A chance to make things right. We've not given that due tribute, rather we're talking about sanctions when we've not even gotten her thoughts on any of this. Now, as a counterproposal, warning her that using Wikipedia for social purposes is fine, and letting her self improve would be better than us giving a sanction without giving another chance. Tutelary (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It isn't covered by General or Discretionary Sanctions, and can't be unilaterally imposed by an admin, we lack the authority to do that. There isn't a path to those sanctions lower than ANI, as only the community can impose that. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with Calsiber that we are being played, but if the majority disagree and want to go in your direction, that is fine, but we have to within policy. Dennis - 2¢ 02:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Watch carefully with skeptical eye. Nothing actionable at this point but we can watch. Most of the fun will be gone if this is a deception. I do in fact think we are being played, poorly. I have seen much less obvious "subtle trolling" in my time. Chillum 02:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It is very unlikely that a 15 year old would understand the concept of the "mirror" and its use in college-level transgender studies. I suspect this is a man in his early to late 20s, who is well versed in transgender theory and probably studied it a bit. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone notified the user of this discussion, or is the situation different for a minor? —Neotarf (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Was notified 'about 3hrs ago. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block this obvious troll. No I'm not going to sugar-coat it and add a pile of diffs to explain the obvious. This troll isn't even doing a decent pretend job.--MONGO 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Okay I lied so here's one diff that should put this to bed...this edit was done with a sock owned by Mirror Freak, aka, Amanda Smalls. Pretty ridiculous that this sort of edit would come from someone that was posting that they didn't know what the "C-word" was. I call bullshit!--MONGO 03:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Why does this new user have two pages? Here is the "original" User:Amanda Smalls/Old Userpage.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see comment with link to image. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Again this does not seem like trolling I mean who would be dumb enough to troll this badly if it were? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...how long have you been here? ;-). I once caught an under aged sock on my talk page who simply couldn't keep their sock account straight with their named account and answered a question I posed to their named account while forgetting to log out of the sock account and log into the named account. Some people try to be sly...but just don't have what it takes I guess. This seems very odd to me and I think we may indeed have an issue here. At this point I am weakly supporting a block but perhaps someone has a better suggestion. If this is indeed a male pretending to be a transgendered female would that not violate arb com sanctions?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the more evidence that comes forward the more clear that this person is being dubious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Something helpful made by Amanda: [67]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Impossible that anyone, especially a transgender planning on an op, over the age of 10 in the U.S. who has access to the internet, not to know the c-word. Let's get real here folks. PS: For those who say this doesn't sound like trolling, you need to realize that trolling takes a myriad of forms, including impersonation and wasting people's time. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Indef block - Clearly trolling, With crap like this [68] it's plainly obvious!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Check this out... This userbox is making me rethink things: User:Amanda Smalls/Userboxes/Uncensored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know that I'd jump to an immediate block, but I concur that the account does look highly suspicious. Then again, I was an odd child as well, but I do have a hard time believing this is a fifteen year old girl. That said, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the information about her real life location that could permit someone to track this person down needs to be oversighted, even on the off chance that this isn't a hoax account. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

• I am not sure why this is not being done ASAP removing the personal info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• No hurry to do that since its all a scam anyway. Maybe doing a quick Google scan will indicate that the name was hijacked probably off Facebook...just sayin.--MONGO 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I actually did that and found nothing odd or out of place, but I did find a few quick links to maps to the location of a number of people with this name and it may be best to take action quicker than not here.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, for now we need to assume this is truly a 15 year old that has simply given out far too much information. Yeah...I was a weird kid...and a weird adult. LOL! So the more I think about this, the more I have to wonder if we are jumping the gun on this...but then...I have been fooled before.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with most of what Hahc and Dennis have said so far, especially Hahc's point about one of two situations occurring -- either a) this is a 15-year old who has revealed entirely too much personal information or b) we are being played by a troll. Either way, I think most of her userpage probably ought to be oversighted. However, I am all for assuming good faith, so if we protect her identity, I see no problem with giving her some rope, if she in fact wants to work in article space, as Anna and Blofeld have suggested. We can always block later if necessary. Go Phightins! 04:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the mystery has been solved & the account blocked. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup...and while the checkuser is good, it was a pretty obvious troll from day one.--MONGO 04:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup what a truly disgusting person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

"Virtual" range block

Hi there, I would like to bring up a case of user blocking whose circumstances or implications may have been overlooked by the blocking admins. Please note, this is not necessarily an appeal to the block. I'd just like to hear your views, if there are any precedents and hopefully work towards a solution.

The company in question (250,000 employees) has a policy of somehow having all outgoing web traffic from all employees' browsers spoofed as one single IP address, 171.161.160.10. As a result, inevitably, some rotten apples gave all other users a bad name. I would argue that, given the scale, blocking this IP address is tantamount to a range block.

Thanks for your kind attention. 31.185.133.188 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a long term issue with this IP. The rule is not to avoid range blocks but to use them carefully.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's standard procedure at large companies to have a single outward-facing IP address. As pointed out on the talk page for 171.161.160.10 (talk · contribs), the solution is to create a registered user ID. The user's refusal to do so does not inspire good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this line of thinking is missing the point. This is not a one-user problem. The fact that one user cannot or doesn't want to register is immaterial. We are talking about 250,000 potential contributors being blocked, and Wikipedia missing out as a result. Why do we have to be careful with range blocks? Same kind of considerations should apply here, that's all I'm saying. Currently the account is on a 2-year block from editing and account creation. 31.185.133.188 (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it impacting you or anyone you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This has happened before, when we blocked an entire country by blocking a single IP. The conclusion was to block for short amounts of time and allow for registered accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:82.148.97.69/header <- The IP of Qatar (no joke). Tutelary (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Qatar. This is a corporate IP. It seems to be having problems off wikipedia as well. They can register an account and the problem for them is gone.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so there are both good eggs and bad apples that edit under that IP address. The IP address gets blocked because of the bad apples. The IP address will continue to get blocked because of the bad apples. This will not change.

As far as I can see, the only solution to this problem is just what Bugs and Serialjoe have already said: the "250,000 potential contributors" should create accounts and ask for Wikipedia:IP block exemption. It really is just that simple. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The original position that this is a corporate proxy funneling multiple users is likely correct. Similar IPs are blocked regularly based on the frequency of problematic editing. These blocks are almost always 'anonymous-only' and have no impact on accounts who choose to edit from school/work. There seems to be some hand-waving over the potential pool of editors behind the IP in this instance under the presumption that BoA is funneling every one of their 250k employees across the world to this one choke point. This is not the case; there are hundreds of IPs allocated BoA, many of which draw large numbers of edits without incident, and some of which get blocked in a similar fashion (ex: 171.159.194.11 (talk · contribs), 199.43.32.99 (talk · contribs), 171.159.194.10 (talk · contribs)). The segmentation strategy for those IPs is unknown, but I've seen some companies allocate pools to public facing terminals that can be used by anyone (see Best Buy) which may explain the odd distribution of problematic edits. I respect that the original requester has a hang-up about registering an account which would instantly solve his issue. Another option may be to request your IT/corporate communications contacts to swap you to another outgoing IP which has less of a history of abuse. Kuru (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Mayasutra

This user recently edited a talk page comment about him/her-self from another user (happens to be an admin) to refer to another editor [69]. S/he has been warned for edit-warring on his talk page and continues to pile comments in talk page with no progress. Four editors have tried to address his/her concerns with me being the latest one. Talk page section where s/he explicitly refuses to engage in discussion. S/he made edit that changed content [70] while noting explicitly in the edit summary "No change in content." S/he says [71] Admin Bgwhite has assigned Joshua Jonathan to handle this. Mayasutra notified[72]. @Joshua Jonathan, Bladesmulti, and Abecedare: ping. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was already wondering; I thought I'd changed my comment, but it was reverted (or so) by Mayasutra. By the way, Bgwhite only wrote "follow JJ's advice"; he didn't assign me any "task". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it is actually actionable, lets hear from Mayasutra first. Commenting on the current situation, I would give this a few days before deciding anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Better to have a look at what AmritasyaPutra kept repeating. This is already being resolved by Joshua Jonathan (handling issues pointwise). Am sorry I misunderstood BgWhite's instruction. Anyways, moving on, hoping Blade and Abe provide sources for the remaining issues. JJ, your advice on India talk page is well taken.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Wooeyparks repetitively reverting and readding their own edits

Wooeyparks (talk · contribs) has been adding, deleting or reverting "Gakuen Basara (Yukimura Sanada)" (and sometimes other lines, or subheading names) over and over again. For example there's maybe 50 edits like these a, b, c in the Hiro Shimono page history. It almost looks like an automated process, except that some edits are mobile edits? The only reason I can think they might be doing this is to try and increase their edit count.

I've identified at least 5 other articles where there is this similar repetitive editing pattern by Wooeyparks: Mamoru Miyano, Nobuhiko Okamoto and (perhaps less extensively) Junichi Suwabe, Kazuyuki Okitsu and Katsuyuki Konishi. I suspect there are more, less-easy-to-identify examples (These ones were either on my watchlist, or I recognised "Gakuen Basara" or "Vomics" being changed). The gaps between edits sometimes span days, and Wooeyparks' contributions show that they alternate between articles, and Wooeyparks often contributes legitimate edits as well as these strange repetitive ones.

I contacted Wooeyparks on their talk page and they deleted my first post [as seen here]. I then contacted them again, and a 3rd time after 3 weeks. They deleted those posts along with others [as seen here].

Apologies if this request is in the wrong place. I don't know if their edits are necessarily against guidelines. It's edit warring I guess? But with themselves? Given that they haven't responded to me, I thought Wikipedia:Third Opinion might not be suitable. I don't know. Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Please advise—Msmarmalade (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest regarding Coodie & Chike

I am being very careful about this notice. I'm not sure how to handle it myself so I'm posting it here.
Coodie Rock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since July 2013. Since than has done 6 edits, all of them related to a filmmaker named Coodie. All of the changes were marked as minor though they are obviously not so.
I think the single issue this user is dealing with, together with the similarity of the username, warrants further looking into by an experienced editor in order to rule out conflict of interest.
Thank you. Ehudzel (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You could just ask them, explain our guidelines on COI editing and then use the WP:COIN board if there is no/negative response. The article is really in need of a lot of work but seems to pass notability and should be reasonably easy to further reference since the “Window Seat” video did get a lot of news coverage and seems to pass notability for mention in the article and is one of the artist's major works I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A deletion spree by an user

Why should I have a User Name? (talk · contribs) has been on a deleting spree for quite some months now. His AfD stats are troublesome (see here). 49 Delete votes as opposed to 1 keep vote. 75 AfD nominations in a matter of two months. The AfD results were mostly kept. Shouldn't there be some oversight for such activity? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't you post an ANI notification on their talk page?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What's actually wrong with this users AfD's? I can't see an issue with them voting to delete articles 500 times and voting to keep only once. I also don't see an issue with one user posting 500 articles to AfD in two month and the results being mostly to keep. Do you see an actual issue with their nominations besides the sheer number of them?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

On the surface, I disagree with User:EtienneDolet. Stats do not prove there is a problem. The average person participating in AFD is going to !vote delete because most people who nom at AFD aren't doing it for spurious reasons. That said, reading through WSIHAUN's contributions there, I am seeing a lot of "per <name>" rationales and just a lot of laziness. Some of the comments by WSIHAUN show a lack of competence. Frankly, I think it's reasonable to ask WSIHAUN to participate somewhere else for awhile.--TP (alt) 00:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The wikitool EtienneDolet posted isn't loading for me. I went to the contributions but very few. If the greater amount of AfD's are like [73] this then it might be best if they choose to slowdown for a while. A user 'Speednat' eventually told what the the duplicate article was. I'm not sure I would have found that article. It also seems as if this AfD might have been a duplicate AfD. Also he asks that the duplicate article be deleted as well without actually offering a reason.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned user boasted: "I PROD or AfD anybody whose article is undersourced and make no distinction about their nationalities or anything else", as if it were a good thing. With that said, I just don't find the user's aim on Wikipedia constructive, it's quite the opposite. His insistence on having articles as many articles deleted without attempting to improve them or by merely placing constructive and often times necessary tags is quite troubling. The articles he nominates are often times easily savable (i.e. Haroutioun Hovanes Chakmakjian). For example, I've done my utmost to have this one article saved, but what about the rest? As TParis (talk · contribs) mentioned, a lot of these nominations are not only laziness but incompetent. Some troubling AfDs that come into my mind are Hotel_Føroyar, Nick Baird, Bashir III. At Nick Baird, his attitude is particularly concerning. He was quite aggressive towards an user who simply wanted to userify an article:

Troutman, how are you going to rehab it? Do you know the gentleman personally? Did you work with him, as a diplomat or a journalist and you know how he achieved outstanding notability?

@Serialjoepsycho: that website is helpful, but it takes awhile to load. However, it will load eventually. It's a really bad server. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Levente 2

I hate to do this, and I hope this is the best place, but User:Levente 2 is being a bit of a drain. The problem is he's apparently young, Hungarian, and cannot speak English. But he doesn't see that as an impediment to creating new articles in English or adding to existing articles - I think he's just using Google Translate or something similar. Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway (which I've proposed for deletion) is by far his best contribution, but it's largely incomprehensible - everything else is already deleted or reverted. Another problem is that he inserts low-quality photos that don't really add anything - his latest was replacing a higher-quality photo with a lower-quality one. I've tried to talk to him, but he can't understand what I'm saying - and I can't understand what he's saying either. He's wasting people's time, he's wasting his own time, and is simply incapable of contributing in English right now. Ideally if anyone can speak Hungarian they might be able to persuade him to go away and stick to the Hungarian Wikipedia, but I think he really does need to be stopped here. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE is required. Their English is too poor to write an article. Their English also too poor to effectively communicate what they are trying to say so other editors can assist them. Unfortunately this makes their activity disruptive.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

His current English is defo. way below even the average level of Hungarian students at his age. I've politely explained him what's going on and what's wrong with his edits – hope that will help. I also offered my help for him and would do the same here: if he ignores the advices or makes something utterly wrong, or you just want to make a thing clear, drop me a line. I'm happy to translate it to Hungarian. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! Neatsfoot (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Patrol forty

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

---

Patrol forty (talk · contribs). Come on, folks, this is getting silly now. The competence of this new contributor is astonishing, the frequency with which they are able to refer to backstories is equally so. I don't see a report at SPI but I'm sure that this is no newbie, as they have claimed. They are trolling left, right and centre, as most recently evidenced here. Can we not put a stop to it? We're drifting from AGF to WP:PACT, in my opinion. I have an idea of who it may be but there is no way I have enough evidence to take it to SPI; I just hope that common sense can prevail. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about this user with 13 article space edits - total - and 35% of their total edits to Jimbo's talk page is doing on Wikipedia. 58% of their edits are to user talk pages. 14 of their edits, more than their article edits, are to Arbitration. I'm concerned twofolds: 1) That there is more noise than anything else from this users, and 2) that there are all of the signs of a previous account with this user. Their primary contributions are to pursue disputes with DangerousPanda and Eric Corbett.--TP (alt) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's pretty simple←all we have to do is make a list of all editors who have lost an argument with Eric, then work out which one is P40. That should take no more than a year or two? Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• This editor does seem to know their stay will be short, and they have spent all their time trying to create the maximum amount of friction possible. To me, that is just glorified trolling. I tried to leave a thoughtful and informative warning to the user, you can see the reply for yourself. At this point, I have to support blocking. Dennis - 2¢ 00:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Is there anyone who thinks that Patrol forty is not a sock account?! Don't know if that is sufficient to block, or if we need to guess at the puppet-master's identity and run a CU for confirmation. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I seem to recall an ANI recently brought here about Jimbo. Apparently Jimbo was discussing someone on his talk page that he asked to stay off of his talk page. I can't remember whom that individual was. Was it this user called Eric? I'm just wondering if these reverberations here date back to what ever the hell that was?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo has banned all sorts from his talk page, aside from (seemingly) some people who are sitebanned. His sometimes seems like one of the less FriendlySpaces. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unlike last ANI where I was the lone dissenter regarding a possible trolling attempt (finally read that wiki article about it) and socking, I think this is a bit more unambiguous than the last. Someone should start an SPI and try to figure out if he's got any glorified socks or sleepers. Tutelary (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • An SPI can be filed, but we are short of CUs, and CUs don't prove socks, just connections. Any smart sock can do so where a CU can't connect them. 99% of all determinations at SPI are purely behavioral comparisons, which trumps CU data every time. This is based on my making 1600 of those blocks at SPI when I patrolled there. This case falls under the "sock of an unknown master" type of cases. These aren't determinations we make lightly, but when backed up but a number of people who agree, I'm very confident we get it right much more than we get it wrong. Knowing the master is handy, but not required in some cases. Dennis - 2¢ 01:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This person has already posted (massively overlong) evidence in the ongoing ArbCom proceeding in which Eric Corbett is, not accidentally, a party. All Arbs have CheckUser tools and they don't need to file any paperwork to use them (as we have recently learned on WPO in reference to Jimmy Wales checkusering somebody or other...) so unless not a single one of them is curious about this (unlikely) we can assume that some sort of rudimentary check on sock accounts will be made. My sense is that this is a Northern English person (as self-described) with a bone to pick with Northern English person Mr. Corbett. I don't understand the helicopter obsession, that's a mystery. But I'm personally 100% sure this is an alternate account of somebody. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

Right, so someone has decided to kick off the witch hunt. Let's get it over with then. I've explained why I think the various allegations about me not being a new user are nonsense time and again on my talk page. I don't care if people don't believe it, but I do expect those explanations to be given due consideration here. Frankly, I really don't care how hard some people seem to think it is to find User talk:Jimbo Wales, or how long it took you to understand simple page like GNG or NPA, you're not me. I didn't find/learn/do these things in hours or even days, as some people are trying to claim, I've been here for several weeks, and I've been reading (if not editing) almost every day. Even so, if these things are so unusual, then I make no apologies for apparently being far smarter than the average new user.

My disapproval of Eric's behaviour and involvement in GGTG arbitration has an entirely innocent explanation, one which nobody seems to have even considered - that a new user like me, someone who actually reads pages like Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and is not jaded or otherwise biased toward the status quo, is of course going to be horrified to learn what I learned about on User talk:Jimbo Wales about him, which he summarised quite well here. What some administrators want to ignore is that he thinks there is an existential threat to Wikipedia, and he's using Eric as a prime example of it (which is different from engaging in a personal grudge). I've yet to see a single good reason why he's not 100% right. Every single attack and troll from an advocate of Eric that has subsequently come my way, has only confirmed it. And I want to make it absolutely clear, I'd never even heard of Eric until reading that talk page. I make no apologies for getting involved in that, and if anyone wants to claim I've engaged in any trolling or disruption in this matter, then it's me who's going to demand evidence. Real evidence.

Sitush knows what I mean by that. Because while I was wasting my time getting diffs that he requested over at User talk:Epipelagic, he was apparently over here making all sorts of claims about me, with no diffs at all. I want real evidence of trolling, just like everybody I criticise demands reams of evidence from me (which I've always provided). Like it or not, saying things you disagree with, is not trolling. If you want to know what trolling looks like, check Giano's posts to User talk:Jimbo Wales. If you don't have a problem with those, as it appears you don't, then I'm entitled to think there should be a real good reason why you think anything I've ever said anywhere on Wikipedia, is trolling. Because unlike Giano, I don't purposely go to any page to mock any user.

As for Dennis, he didn't try to leave me a "thoughtful and informative" anything, he left an entirely deceitful bit of 'advice' which he knew fine well was not going to be received well (you could even call it attempted trolling - read my reply for the reason). If there is any Wikipedia rule that demands any specific article edit to non-article edit ratio, then I want to see it, because I think I already know this is a fiction, an entirely made up rule presented here only to manufacture a reason to get rid of me, apparently because you can't prove for sure that I'm not a sock, yet don't want to accept you could just be wrong. Patrol forty (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, how am I engaging in a dispute with DangerousPanda? I made one comment after I noticed that linked from User talk:Jimbo Wales, and if anything, I was backing him up as an example of a good admin. How on Earth is that one edit evidence that my "primary contributions are to pursue disputes with DangerousPanda and Eric Corbett". Seriously, if neutrals can't even get stuff like that right, what hope have I got of any kind of fair treatment, given this complaint is soon going to be flooded with comments from all sorts of people who will no doubt make no effort at all to differentiate whether they're neutrals or not. I'd wager that there's several administrators here who don't know the names of every user who has gone against Mr Wales or has been strongly advocating for Eric during in this dispute (because let's be honest, that's the only reason this complain was filed - if I had just 13 article edits but had been largely commenting about something entirely unrelated to this apparent touchstone of a topic, then I'd wager I wouldn't even be here being subjected to some made up signal/noise rule). Patrol forty (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Other's comments continued

he was apparently over here making all sorts of claims about me, with no diffs at all I gave a diff (a link, actually) in my opening of this thread. I'm still waiting for your evidence at Epipelagic's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really worried about the evidence. My experience tells me now, particularly after this exchange and the recent exchange on your talk page, that you are a sockpuppet of someone. The kind of vitriol and even knowledge you are showing clearly demonstrates you have had some issues festering for a long time, likely years, and whoever you are, this is just your latest incarnation to express it. This particular brand of bitterness only comes from bad experience here, and Patrol, you obviously have plenty of previous experience here. Your behavior couldn't scream "sock" any louder than it is. Dennis - 2¢ 01:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you're not worried about the evidence, you have your own reasons to get rid of me that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I am a sock, therefore any need to back these claims up with anything but your Jedi skills, would be extremely inconvenient to you. I particularly love the fact that me turning up here to defend myself is held up as proof. What's the typical behaviour of editors you accuse of being socks - put their hands up and claim it's a fair cop? Why you're continuing to pretend I haven't been critical of you and therefore have every reason not to approach this objectively (or even stay out of it completely, as would happen in any other scenario like this), is beyond me. It's borderline corrupt, it really is (feel free to add that to your evidence of a past life - I can at least believe you've been accused of corruption before). Patrol forty (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - You will note the word "TROLL" in "Patrol." Just sayin'. I've deconstructed this English editor's early edit history on WPO in the "Another civility shitstorm hits the hypocrisy factory" thread, if anyone cares. Clearly and obviously not a first account of anyone. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. That is all. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not neutral in the matter either. Patrol forty (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Adjwilley has already blocked Patrol forty under WP:NOTHERE, so I suppose someone can close this. Dennis - 2¢ 02:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Cool beans.--MONGO 02:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could the other people involved perhaps take a six month break from diving into similar topics, e.g. Jimbo and how important they don't think he is, themselves and how important they think they are, how they are pursued by evil people off-wiki and need to retaliate by pursuing existing editors off-wiki? And all the rest of it? I just think it's bizarre that supposedly responsible people are repeatedly engaging in this nonsense. I think if everyone took a step back and just disengaged from it all (I mean for a long period of time, not just this month and next month), there were be a great benefit for us all. Thoughts? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not following whom you are asking to do what... I'd rather you ask that Wikipedians not use alternate accounts and to spare us all the drama created when purported transexual 15-year olds from Florida and all-too-adept "newbies" trying to kneecap established editors are given the inevitable heave-ho. That's really what would save us all a lot of drama, if people who should know better didn't keep pulling this kind of crap. Carrite (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break... Banners like these [74] on @Dr. Blofeld:'s talkpage? It is clear that this is approaching harassment levels. I am also sure that there is something in WP:USER about it as well . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What, a user is not allowed to post a Wales banner on his own talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you see Jimmy posting a Dr.Blofield banner on his mocking him? It has come down to this childish mudslinging. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

BLPN Legal threats

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez Legal threats about some tag or another.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies, but does he have a valid complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The IPs and account(s) have been blocked, so there's not much more to do. The article, subject and associates have a long history of disruption, sockpuppetry and ownership so this was more of the same. I handled the thing from the OTRS side, and it looks like it's over for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which complaint Bugs? There are a few.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of the one objecting to the claim that it looks like the article was written by the subject and/or his pals. That might well be true, but it requires sufficient supporting evidence that the guy can't reasonably complain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really make much of that but it seems the individual that the IP says made those claims is also the individual that banned that IP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning: Tutelary is a member of Wikipediocracy

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

---

I just want to bring to the attention of administrators that Tutelary is a member of Wikipedioracy, is criticism site of Wikipedia. Be cautious of any further approach. 172.56.6.43 (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are administrators here that are also on that site. No editor can be automatically discredited simply for having an account there. Doc talk 06:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning: The IP is from Dallas, where the first American ebola victim succumbed. Be cautious of any further approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And the Cowboys have been known to make an appearance in those parts. <shudders>--v/r - TP 07:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Tarc is engaging in open abuse. As requested by Dreadstar, I am posting the incident here.

Requested here

I also requested Tarc cease this behavior here. He has responded by claiming that me "and my associates are not welcome on this page". I'd appreciate if this was dealt with.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here, he has every right to ask you to not post on his talkpage whether you are right or he is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Does he have the right to curse at me too or make false claims about me working in a group?--ArmyLine (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

His single use of the word bullshit is likewise not actionable. If he is accusing you without any evidence or a good reason then alleging you are working with another group is assuming bad faith but if he has cause to say it that's why we have WP:SOCKPUPPETS and WP:MEATPUPPET guidelines. Piece of advice though if you aren't either one just ignore it, Tarc isn't the most pleasant individual and it's easier to ignore it then the resulting stress afterwards. I would point out though that he has been here a while so he probably has a reason why he thinks you are connected with someone else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He's also condoned death threats and harassment, claiming that such actions were "defending others from harassment". And if he thinks I'm connected with someone else, he can go through the proper channels to have it investigated. The likely reason he hasn't is because we both know that is a lie.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is times we don't need to run an investigation to determine that. I am not sure he is condoning any death threats or harassment here on wiki and would have to have you provide diffs of where he has done that but as is this is not something that any admin will act on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act." - condoning actions like this. To quote, "but ethics". I'll add that this "blowback" was such things as threats of sexual violence against female Gamergate supporters.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Condoning death threats? Who does that? Hello?! "ArmyLine" is an incompetent troll. Yeeks! Doc talk 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That "condoning actions like" link cause my IE to flake out. Bevare! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Basically someone was harassing this man and threatening to kill him and his family for supporting gamergate. So he found out who was doing this and called her mother. He explained what happened and the mother made her daughter get on the phone and apologize.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

“Just last night I deleted a youtube comment from a user who posted my home address and said he’d kill my wife and leave me to mourn.”"- from one of the articles. Kind of confused where all of these bad faith assumptions have come from...--ArmyLine (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This contributer has been here since at least 2012. The nature of the edits seem to be subject oriented but unless we're saying this is a long term sockpuppet I think we can sum it up to Tarc acting like an asshole. We can not block people for just being unpleasant. Bugs what did you internet explorer do? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't horrible, but it did leave me suspicious. It went to that page, which had a weird illustration and possibly some nonsense comments, but it basically froze. It wouldn't let me click on anything, even the X in the upper right. So I killed the window, and then it popped up a second time, so I killed it a second time and it disappeared for good. To feel safe, I ran malwarebytes and nothing turned up. So it seems not to be a malware site, just poorly coded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A note on that Tumblr theme; if the flaking out was visual, IIRC, the theme doesn't display right if your version of IE is behind (like, majorly, numbers-wise, or possibly if your browser emulates an older version or compatibility views it). I checked the page's code, though, and I found nothing malicious (and Tumblr disallows a good portion of potentially malicious things from being added to theme code/executed from a post anyway). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see them condoning death threats. Have you considered staying off their talk page, ArmyLine?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• This thread shows that ArmyLine (talk · contribs) should be topic banned from the Gamergate area. The original post is harmless but misguided because it shows nothing sanctionable. However, the eccentric claim that Tarc condoned death threats is an extraordinary and totally false assertion—that would would not be so bad because anyone can make a mistake, but the diffs posted by ArmyLine to support their claims indicate that the user cannot understand simple statements in discussions concerning a very controversial topic where an army of SPAs is attempting to use Wikipedia to tell the world the truth. ArmyLine made 20 edits in 2012, 23 edits in 2013, and 3 edits to Gynocentrism in February and June 2014. Since 28 September 2014, ArmyLine has made 104 edits relating to Gamergate. The cluelessness shown here, combined with an SPA's dedication, mean that ArmyLine should work in other areas for the forseeable future. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes this display here seems to be some Mickey Mouse... Well I wouldn't want to offend.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This whole thread is an example of not having a clue and POV pushing. Condoning death threats? This editor should be topic banned at the very least. Dave Dial (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made two edits to the Gamergate article. Once again, curious why people are so quick to excuse Tarc's bad behavior but assume bad faith concerning me.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of "POV pushing", look at the talk page. Tarc has stated: "Was this a serious question? A leading female figure in gaming circles who as subjected to the same misogynist crap that the rest of them have been. This is what the primary narrative of Gamergate is becoming." Why is it that one side has been allowed to openly attack the subject of the article on the talk page while there is even a discussion about topic banning me for "POV pushing"? Once again, I don't even care if I get banned at this point. I just want to know what universal standard, if any, is being applied here.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved on those pages, I'm not involved with those subjects or issues. But I'm not naive and know the 4chan/8chan/reddit/MRA agenda driven SPA and new accounts have a goal. One that's tendentious and frustrating to regular Wiki editors. The whole GG/MRA group now have 'wiki' pages with directions to advocates to come to Wikipedia to push their POV. With a list of 'hostile to GG' editors and 'friends of GG' editors. Admins should try to take control of the situation to ensure further disruption is limited. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet it's the "GG/MRA group" which is being openly attacked on the talk page, not vice versa. Which doesn't give the impression that their POV is the one which holds weight here. It's like a claim that's repeated without any relevance to the underlying facts. Also, GG is unrelated to MRAs. There are feminists who are members of GG and radical MRA groups have been disassociated from the movement (rightly so IMO).--ArmyLine (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Herein is the problem; one side decries the misogynistic harassment that Quinn et all have suffered, while the other side essentially lies and says they're just arguing the ethics angle, and that the harassment is unfortunate but unconnected. It's like Obama and the birthers all over again; only the birthers saw themselves as noble patriots fighting for freedom and truth, while the rest of the universe dismissed them as loons." - Tarc

Just thought I'd add this. Oh, and here's the completely unrelated first sentence of the article as of now: "In video game culture, Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is an online movement which emerged around false allegations of unethical conduct levied against indie game developer Zoe Quinn in August 2014."

<<redacted - BLP>>--ArmyLine (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm. First off, the "normal exceptions" clause of this Arbcom ruling is now invoked, as I have been named in an ANI filing. Now that that's out of the way, this is crap. So...profanity in an of itself is not uncivil, this has been borne out time and time again on this and other venues. I have made a conscious effort lately to not be explicitly profane on-project, but at times a little steam-releasing is warranted, and all this was was me beginning a post to a user's talk page with "Eh, bullshit".

As to the meat (though it is about as meaty as a can of Spam) of the complaint here, no, I do not "condone death threats", but I'm not surprised if (and that is a sizable "if") some starts to go the other way. The context of my "That some of those types got a smidgen of blowback is at best a footnote" quote was from this thread. Anonymous people online who have been harassing and demeaning women, Zoe Quinn & Anita Sarkeesian in particular, for several months now under the auspices of "Gamergate" these anons claim they are getting some gruff in return. In my universe, that's called the Threefold Law, so, I have no sympathy. We also have the fact that the misogynist harassment against the women named above, and several others is sources to reliable sources. The other side? Well as you see above, sourced to tumblr, the playground of 14 yr old boys who aren't edgy enough for 8chan.

The result here should be a sizable WP:BOOMERANG hitting this armyline person in the head. Every single-purpose non-editor who has come to the Gamergate article like a moth to a flame that in the last month or so that can be removed will only make the editing process run more smoothly. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is that if you and Ryulong are allowed to continue to edit the article while I, who have made a grand total of two edits to it, am topic banned, then Wikipedia clearly isn't the place for me. That much I'm sure we can agree on.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I arrived at this article out of concerns for WP:BLP policy, I am not a regular editor of gaming-related articles. SPAs, like you, have come here to ensure that your minority point-of-view is jammed down the reader's throat. Fortunately, this isn't reddit or somethingawful or wherever you came from; we have standards and rules here to uphold. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Well, I arrived on this article as it interested me, and I have stated this twice now (once when I was on Ryulong's list) but my work makes it logistically impossible for me to edit wikipedia for continuous stretches at a time. I don't appreciate this disingenuous behavior from you. You and I both know I have gone away from wikipedia for similar stretches at a time, to return when logistics and interest allow. A simple check will confirm this. Add another false accusation to the list of my ANI complaints.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum. For those here who may not have had much to do the whole Gamergate topic lately, this is the kind of stuff we have to deal with day in and day out. Whether it is freshly-created accounts or ones that have been years-dormant, it is all part of the same off-wiki organized agenda-pushing. This is exactly what Talk:Barack Obama was like, circa 2009. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Check my history. I've left and returned before. Why are you giving Tarc every benefit of the doubt and consistently assuming bad faith for me, even when easily obtained facts prove otherwise?--ArmyLine (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Agenda pushing". I'm not the one openly attacking the subject of the article on Talk:Gamergate_controversy. Seriously, what's the universal standard here? I get told, by an admin, to go through ANI and now people are acting like I'm the one pushing an agenda here. Just wow.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that admin figured on you launching a boomerang. Admins weren't born yesterday, you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to image that admins of Wikipedia do not openly engage in deception against other users to get their way. Is this really how you think this website should work? Open deception?--ArmyLine (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Open deception is better than hidden deception, don't you think? No, he sent you here because here is where this issue belongs, at least for now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well one post over you were saying he sent me here because it would get me banned and he deliberately withheld that knowledge from me.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the prefix "Maybe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tarc's conduct is reprehensible in insulting and asserting other unsubstanciated assertions towards editors, a lack of good faith, and bitey conduct. Comments even on this WP:ANI focus on solely degrading ArmyLine as if he's some object worthy of being broken. SPAs, like you, have come here to ensure that your minority point-of-view is jammed down the reader's throat. How is that in any sense of the word -not- a personal attack? If Tarc cannot respond to these users without using insults or attempting to degrade or depreciate their arguments, then I believe that a sanction should be imposed. Whether that be a block or a topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary, assume good faith is not a suicide pact. ArmyLine may not technically be a SPA but is pretty close to it, it seems by looking at contribution list, just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Malerooster, are you trying to imply that SPAs are not deserving of the WP:BITE and WP:AGF and should actively be pushed out of Wikipedia, insulted and berated for simply being SPAs? (even giving you that) That's the notion that I'm seeing. Tarc gets a free pass to essentially and euphemize insults towards other users because apparently, they're just Pro-GG scum and don't deserve any civility. To Armyline, I feel that copying and quoting (make sure to attribute CC BY SA 3.0 of course) all of Tarc's abuse towards you will be the only way that people see that Tarc has committed personal attacks. One diff doesn't do it unfortunately. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

TBQH, I don't think even that would be enough. Ryulong was allowed to continue editing after a huge list of cursing and personal attacks was posted. Not even a warning. He also claimed he would leave for a while and three days later he's back, the first paragraph is written like a slap in the face to "gaters", and nobody has anything to say about it.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A few things: (1) The original complaint is groundless, as the initial respondent said; (2) The stuff about "condoning death threats" is also groundless; (3) An ANI poster's own history is also subject to scrutiny, and the poster looks to be a single-purpose account with an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the initial claim is groundless. Tarc has been attacking and insulting me right here in the talk page. Perhaps you'll find some time to respond to my rebuttals of your accusations as well.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The items you cited are nothing. Groundless. As for the "condoning death threats" stuff, how about you post a quote here that indicates such, because I'm not seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I never condoned them, explained in the rebuttal above, but I'm not overly-sympathetic either if it is happening...whether it is happening at all is questionable, though. Against Quinn, et al, We have verifiable threats of death, rapes, and mass shooting documented by authorities and covered by reliable sources. On the other "side" we have people like Yiannopoulos who assert things that are unverified. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I would just like to see a quote from you that the OP alleges "condones death threats". So far, he's got nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And an hour and a half has passed, and no response from the OP. Surprise, surprise. He's got nothing. This thread should be closed; and maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's your quote: "No longer really matters, given the continuing shift away from the "but ethics" sham. Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act." The linked articles contained death threats. Writing off death threats as "defending oneself and others from harassment" condones them.

Is it normal for Bugs to assume bad faith after someone leaves for an hour and a half on a Sunday morning, by the way?--ArmyLine (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. You have still not shown us any evidence that Tarc "condones death threats". You've got an overactive imagination. Like the way you jumped to some false conclusions and extrapolations when I said "Maybe..." such and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: grossly uncivil BLP transgression

Earlier today, above, I made an off-hand reference to one of the newest single-purpose accounts, User:Agent Chieftain as an example of the type of new user that is plaguing the article. Would the admins pls evaluate this comment and take necessary actions to curb that? Tarc (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, while they deal with that it would also be nice if they fixed the lie on the first sentence of the article and banned whoever added it. Cheating is unethical conduct, or is that up for dispute too? That first sentence claims that the ex-boyfriend lied about Zoe's unethical actions. That should be a BLP violation as well. To the best of my knowledge, none of his claims have been "proven false". Some of the accusations levied by others have, but his have not.---ArmyLine (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You really do not understand the concept of "false allegations" and you only have the word of someone whose very words themselves are a strange rambling attack. Not to mention you're making this whole thing about a woman's sex life when that's what GamerGate claims it isn't about. GG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Did unethical conduct occur? Was it proven false? I'm not going to jump around, it's a very simple question with a very simple answer.--ArmyLine (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the exact first sentence: "In video game culture, Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is an online movement which emerged around false allegations of unethical conduct levied against indie game developer Zoe Quinn in August 2014.". :::::She cheated on her boyfriend with, and this has been confirmed by the man she cheated with, at least one other man. So there's a big fat lie right in the first sentence of the article - unethical conduct did occur. So the first sentence of the article is a lie. I can see there's a group of bullies and single-purpose accounts pushing people around to get their way, that much we can agree on. --ArmyLine (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read that Kotaku link, as it says the exact opposite of what you claim. You statement of "unethical conduct did occur" is quite plainly contradicted by "...our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true". This is really here nor there, though; this Chieftain person needs to be removed from the sandbox. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban on both Gamergate and BLPs in general for User:ArmyLine, who has been posting unfounded claims of ethical violations by a BLP subject left, right and center today. This is not the place to gossip about strangers' sex lives. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

All I've been saying is cheating occurred which is unethical conduct, so the first sentence of the article was a BLP issue about the ex-boyfriend. If you don't like it when lies are dragged out into the light, your camp shouldn't tell them. Curious how you ran across this, by the way, Tara.--ArmyLine (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF Unblock on BengaliHindu

BengaliHindu he been editing for nearly 5 years with over 5600 Edits with no previous blocks .He has been blocked as per this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BengaliHindu. Now 5 of the 10 edits of Abhijit4law are clear copyright violations whereas BengaliHindu has no history of copyright violations as far I can see.The Nirmalya1234 has has only 3 edits 2 reverts and 3rd one copy paste text on the article Talk page which an established editor will not do .But feel here BengaliHindu needed to be given WP:AGF as the behavioral evidence is not clear and the Checkuser report was inconclusive.The User has requested an unblock and I had posted on the talk page of the Checkuser Salvio giuliano but he appears to be away.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel only an established editor knows about SPI rules and how to avoid behavioral match by making edits which do not match with his own edits.--MehulWB (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly the case does look weak. Also isn't it generally standard that you contact the user when you post an SPI so that they can defend themselves?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be good form but I will say there is times I don't. Honestly sometimes I think it's better because all you do is list all the reasons you think they are a sockpuppet, which in cases of legitamte socks it can be used to modiofy their behavior and elminate the tells. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, why wasn't User:Berean Hunter notified? User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, He's the one who blocked, not Salvio. Salvio said "Technically speaking, this is just a Possible match. I'm afraid the connection will have to mainly be based on behavioural evidence". I don't think he's going to say anything different now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A sockpmaster with sufficient wit to change their editing style and avoid "tells" is surely going to see their own SPI at some point. Avoiding talkpage notification just has a delaying effect (unless the sockmaster is stalking the reporter's contributions). That delaying effect does have some value in the case of more persistent sockmasters, as it can delay the sudden onset of disruptive/deceptive editing on the SPI page. That's the only real benefit of non-notification. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologies if it is a standard to inform but I didn't find about this on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations and I filed the case after this message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BengaliHindu&diff=625584066&oldid=625546685 from another editor. --MehulWB (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller I have notified User:Berean Hunter. But wanted to check with the CU first was there any update as he had last posted on September 22nd and the block was done on October 25th Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the page protection request they opened after making their last edit to that page [75]. Here is the BLPN that they opened on the matter before the first supposed sock made a revert on the article [76]. You'll also find that they discussed this on the talk page. I wonder what would have happened if they were informed an active socketpuppet investigation was opened against them. Perhaps they could have defended themselves. All 3 should be unblocked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am supporting unblock. There is no reason to believe that it was one person. If BengaliHindu is living in a populated city, definitely there will be many people who may have shared similar thought, and I cannot see any abuse of multiple accounts. I had a suspicion before, that BengaliHindu might be socking on an AFD, but none of those accounts seemed to be related with him, and each of it edited the same subjects for ages. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Further the issue the dispute was over one page Ahmed Hassan Imran with MehulWB most of whose 73 edits are over this page and this sock case.BengaliHindu said he would stop eidting the page and it was semi protected and hence user Nirmalya1234 could not post and posted on talk.That appears to be resolved and do see a need to block after a month.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not screamingly obvious, it may be slightly off base but I think that AGF was being extended by the relatively short block. It's a toss up to whether it's a sock or not so a lot can be done here and have a wait and see approach and give a little WP:ROPE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, when an editor use your username then you get notification at the top of the page beside your username. I have mentioned the username in SPI and this will surely notify him. The case was filed on 15 Sept. and closed on 26 Oct. which I think was enough time to defend. Plus, the user filed the unblock request where he can defend himself. --MehulWB (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We still require the actual notification to the talkpage as well. Sometimes a person isn't online to see that and the resulting email from the message tells them to log in. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I got it but honestly I didn't find this notify thing in the instruction of How to open an investigation on SPI page. And if notification is a standard then the user have filed vandalism reports against me but didn't notify me.--MehulWB (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP:AIV board is different from any of the other boards, that is a straightforward set amount of warnigns whereas these boards are more complicated and can't just be summarized in diffs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@MehulWB:, You today made this post [77]. It seems to me that you are implying that because they contacted Jayanta Nath that proves that he contacted the others, but then you offer no proof that contacted Jayanta Nath. Do you have any proof? If not that really goes to show the ridiculousness of your claims. Nirmalya1234 reverted the information twice. There protected edit request suggests they are a new user [78]. They could have kept on reverting but didn't. Abhijit4law, didn't revert. They added other content in that was deleted. And Mehlu you didn't post it on their talk page. You might have pinged them but after your personal attacks it's reasonable that they ignored them. That message that was on your screen before you clicked save while filling out the SPI told you to contact them on the talk page. It even gave you a template to use.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Further Ahmed Hassan Imran is a Member of the Parliament and has been in severe controversy [79] [80] [81] and any one can edit his page to say only BengaliHindu will edit his page is not assuming good faith.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know why Pharaoh contacted me rather than the blocking admin (and then came here before I had a chance to reply), but as Dougweller correctly points out, I merely said that the technical evidence I got made it possible the three accounts were operated by the same person. It was the closing admin who made the final call and it's him you should contact to have the block lifted. As anyone who has ever been involved in SPIs knows, "possible" is a very low threshold and, in such cases, in order to call sock puppetry the closing admin has to also examine the behavioural evidence. As a result, I can only repeat what I already wrote: technically speaking, a connection is possible, but before doing anything it's necessary to consider behaviour. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• My apologies Salvio the block was done on Oct 25th over a month later after your posting on September 22nd and hence wanted to confirm that no other issue was involved .BengaliHindu posted an unblock request hence brought it here thinking you were away .My apologies for any misunderstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to apologise, don't worry. I just found it strange that you should ask me rather than Berean Hunter, that's all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:, I thought you're an experienced editor but your message asking me of proofs is really ridiculous. Firstly, I said that I just guessed which mean I am not 100% sure and secondly, another experienced editor user: Titodutta echoed that too[82] so why don't you ask him too? It needs basic logic to understand why I guessed. Now, I missed the message at SPI and the thing you're keep referring to is at the end which states "You may wish to notify the accused with {{subst:uw-socksuspect|casename}} which clears that it is not mandatory to notify and which personal attacks I made? --MehulWB (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Behavioral evidence certainly suggests puppetry. Nirmalya1234's first edit was to engage in the exact same edit as the master in an ongoing edit war where Mehul was pulling material on a BLP rationale and BengaliHindu was restoring it and incorrectly calling the removal vandalism. Bengal exaggerated in his report to AIV stating that Mehul was "consistently blanking out" the article. A commenting admin stated that they would take Mehul's pov in this matter. And then the first sock/meat stepped in to precisely take up the edit war that Bengali was undertaking. As Hell in a Bucket pointed out, my AGF was to block for only 72 hours. If you notice the SPI report also had another admin/CU who stated "Likely as not to be meatpuppetry...".

• It will be several hours before I can reply again.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Nirmalya1234 and Abhijit4law, their contribs do look odd from a purely technical stand. The first two edits [83] [84] of Nirm were to restore edits by BengaliHindu [85]] that someone else had reverted out. Abhijit4law's first edit to that same article was [86] (admin only, as the BLP violation forced RevDeling the edit) but was consistent with the previous edits, only less verbose. This leads us to one of a few possibilities: 1. These are socks of the same person, to which the block is fine. 2. This is meatpuppetry and the other accounts are SPAs here to force a POV, in which the block is fine. 3. These are three different people that don't know each other, and two just happened to get involved in this article exactly after the master was reverted, which is remarkable timing.

The patterns in their editing and supporting make option 3 exceedingly unlikely, as the patterns of the edits and methods strongly support previous examples of POV socking. That BengaliHindu is an established editor doesn't make socking less likely. Established editors frequently use socks to do the dirty work, as to not tarnish their "good hand" account. Not all editors who do this are "evil", and often they do it out of an attempt to "right great wrongs", which appears to be the exact case here. BengaliHindu and MehulWB were on the cusp of an edit war when these two new accounts showed up, a point that shouldn't be lost as it gives us a motivation for creating the accounts.

As for the CU finding of "possible". There is no singular definition of what that means, but I could guess that means "They are in the same city or area, but one uses a computer and the other uses a cell phone, so the user agents and ISP don't match". There are other possible explanations. This is not uncommon for sockpuppetry, although obviously it isn't a foolproof method to get away with it. All it really says is "it is possible", meaning the persons aren't on different continents, so it can't be ruled out. This is why behavior is always the means of which we connect sockpuppets, not CU.

In short, I think the conclusions that Berean Hunter came to are reasonable and within expectations, and I can see that many other admin would have come to the same conclusion. The master is only blocked for 72 hours, which is actually less than average for a first time offense (1-2 weeks), so perhaps Berean Hunter was cutting him a little slack because he is an established editor. Whether this is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry doesn't matter because the blocks could justifiably be the same, although it is more likely sockpuppetry. Is it 100% guaranteed? No, but SPI doesn't work that way. Is it considerably likely that BH got it right? Yes, based on the evidence here, and other behavioral evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown The CU actually last posted in September 22 and block was given on October 25 and the article Ahmed Hassan Imran had semi protected on September 23 and no one really edited for a month but for a one minor edit on Oct 12th Further no established Editor will Copy paste the article text on the Talk page. after the article had been semi protected it is absolutely pointless. BengaliHindu has no previous blocks for the last 5 years and hence WP:AGF should have given to him and unblocked the page has not been edited for a month and behavioral evidence is not clear. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• All we can do here is decide if Berean Hunter used good judgement, and if that judgement falls within the range of what is acceptable and reasonable. There is no Truth®. You've provided your insight, I've provided mine. Debating the minutia of an admin board that is perpetually a month backlogged doesn't change whether or not his actions were within community norms. Dennis - 2¢ 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown I posted here only to request for an Unblock the user has also requested in his talk page.Admin Berean Hunter is well within his discretion to take call here.This request is only for an Unblock as per WP:AGF .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you have shot yourself in the foot. Once you open the ANI, most admin are going to avoid the talk page case, as once here, it is up to the community, not so much individual admin. No admin wants to rush in, just to find out the community disagrees with them, so they (we) do the safe thing: nothing. The problem is, in his request for unblock, he is saying he didn't sock, while the evidence I looked at says he very likely did. No admin is going to unblock him unless they think Berean Hunter either 1. made a mistake connecting the dots, 2. blocked for too long, or 3. abused his authority. Once you file it here, it is pretty much going to be a consensus to unblock, or Berean himself, we don't have a lot of choices. Had the person said "Look, I screwed up, I shouldn't have socked but that was a month ago and I haven't socked since", then any number of admin might have just unblocked. As long as the story doesn't match the evidence, the status quo tends to be the default position. Dennis - 2¢ 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Pharoah, my block of 72 hours was given on AGF...an experienced user is often given longer blocks because they ought to know better. Calling the other user's edits vandalism when they are clearly trying to cite BLP comes across as disingenuous and lacking in good faith itself. BengaliHindu should be experienced enough to know what vandalism means. The less-than-AGF version would be that he used the vandalism claim as a tactic where he didn't have a good rebuttal for the BLP claim and simply wanted to revert to his version of the article. The moral of the story is don't sock and don't recruit friends/editors to come to your aid.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear BLP case? MehulWB talked thru talk page revisions until [87]. The vandalism report came before Mehulwb was remotely clear. BengaliHindu was the first person to take this to the talk page. BengaliHindu even took it to the BLPN as suggested by EdJohnston. It sure looks a whole lot like BengaliHindu was trying to handle this dispute in a responsible consensus seeking manner. There's little actual evidence to suggest that these other users were sockpuppets or meat puppets (Great Band BTW. I've always wondered if the band influenced the phrase meat puppet). What there was, a news story that seems to have been national. Both of the two alleged socks could have been brought here due that news story. Malapati, another alleged sock, could have been brought here due to said story. Now if it's felt there's a need to ban him because of his Vandalism report have at it. It's actually ridiculous to ban him for sockpuppetry in the absence of any legitimate evidence supporting it.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

MehulWB

I think it's reasonable if it's asked if MehulWB own behavior should be discussed. MehulWB seems to be a single purpose user account. Most of their edits are about or can be tied back to Ahmed Hassan Imran's article. Before today their last edit was September 23. Someone posts on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BengaliHindu to defend BengaliHindu and they magically appear a month later. They comeback to make unsupported accusations [88]. I also feel the need to point to their first comment here. Those comments to me suggest, "So what if the evidence is weak. Experienced users know how to fake it." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that he appears to fail WP:DUCK for 78 edits with the sole focus being on Controversial Member of Parliament Ahmed Hassan Imran and in getting involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BengaliHindu and defending his block. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DUCK. Sole focus on one article, out of 78 edits most of it in an3, blpn, spi, rpp, ani for this article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"they magically appear a month later" - I posted in SPI and if it seem to you a magic then sorry as I do not know how to do magics. But as per you isn't it magic that another user Malapati suddenly made edits on the same article echoing summery of BengaliHindu's edits after over a year? User Malapati's last edit was on 15 January 2013 before he just made edits on the same page on 22 September 2014[89]. Also, isn't it magic that after the block sudden users started defending him at the very same time? A user came to SPI posting that BengaliHindu is personally known to him for which I just guessed that the other two accounts might be his familiar persons which is also guessed by another experienced editor Titodutta[90] and you just concluded that I am giving unproven accusations then the other experienced editor did the same like me. Actually, you're directly accusing me without proofs. --MehulWB (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Again the accusation on me that my sole purpose it to block BengaliHindu is a direct accusation without proofs. Again the rule "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to me also. As I said earlier that I filed SPI after another editor's comment on user BengaliHindu's page[91] and it wasn't me who blocked him so please be more focused.--MehulWB (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Malapati wasn't banned for being a sock. He made a post on the 22nd. Bengalihindu's last edit was the 14th and they last touched the talk page on the 16th. There's no connection between the two besides your assumption of bad faith. Your actions are more suspicious than that of anyone that was involved. Magic? No, and if you asked the users who have moved could probably explain how exactly they came to find out about Bengalihindu's ban. There really wasn't anything suspicious about your SPI. Your return a month later and constant accusations without evidence is suspicious. Seems like you have an Axe to grind.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism

These are, I hope you would agree, a grievous personal attack, and are highly damaging to the encyclopaedia. You are probably not aware that anonymous editors will always be accused of vandalism, and the time it will take for someone to slander them in this way is usually very short. For this IP address, it's taken less than two days.

• Edits with very clear summaries: [92], [93]
• Reverts with false accusations: [94], [95]
• Threatening message left: [96]
• Further spread of false allegations: [97]

Is anyone bothered by this, and if so, what are you prepared to do about it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that this user is the so-called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP user, as has been noted by a statement on this user's talk page by someone else. I would suggest having a look at the edit history of BBC Canada and CBC News Network, which both show a history of edit-warring on this particular point by this user. I would argue that the vandalism designation is now appropriate given that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, which is exactly what I would argue this user has now been doing. I would suggest a lengthy block of this IP address (definitely for the edit warring regardless of the validity of the vandalism designation), given that this user has previously been blocked for 3 months after doing exactly the same thing (see User:187.17.57.15). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the IP is operating whilst his block under another IP [98] is still in force. Not entirely unusual for this individual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is obvious that my edits were an attempt to improve the articles. Even if you considered making necessary edits with clear summaries to be disruptive, that is specifically described as not being vandalism. Your ignorance of the policy is troubling. False accusations of vandalism are highly damaging to the project, and in my opinion they should be met with a block if made and not retracted. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean a block that one can ignore, and just pop up immediately under a different IP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you think false accusations of vandalism are not a problem then. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They are a problem, and admins will decide how to call this, bearing in mind both sides of the story. Is it a "grievous personal attack"? Biggest laugh I've had all day, considering what you've called me in the past, let alone others. Do I think you're in a good position to decide what's "damaging to the project", "troubling" or "slander"? No. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you like to see a particular person attacked, that's up to you. It doesn't mean that the attack is not an attack. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to see anyone attacked, which is why I find your behaviour over the years so obnoxious. Do I feel this is an "attack"? No. He's criticising your editing, as far as I can see, and it's up to the admins whether or not he's accurately doing so or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, "criticising"? No. He's making an obviously untrue claim. One could, conceivably, use the word "vandalism" as criticism. Journalistic reviews of works of architecture and such have certainly done that. But that would not be accompanied by a "final warning" and the reporting of the architect to the authorities, would it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP apparently wants the "offending" editor to stop using their user name an edit as an ever-changing IP. Brilliant. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no idea what you mean by this. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The primary remedy here is blocking editors. In your world, that means the editor is supposed to continue editing, changing their IP every time they are blocked for evading their block. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. The IP is editing in direct defiance of a block. Again. Repeated claims of being the victim based on wikilawyering ("It's not socking because I've never had an account", "How dare you undo my edits made in defiance of a block", "No, I'm not 'banned', I'm merely ignoring every block ever placed on me", "It's not 'vandalism', it's just more of the edit-warring that I've been blocked for", "Calling my edit-warring 'vandalism' is a 'grievous personal attack', which I won't stand for"). I'd suggest a nice boomerang, but I'm just a "fucking retarded little cunt", so what do I know?

Let's try this: Start with the earliest block evasion we can find for this editor. For each evasion after that, make the next block longer and extend the previous block. Then, if the editor waits out the block, we can let them try again in 2020 or so. Or let them continue to edit war, make personal attacks and ignore all blocks and edit all of our policies and guidelines to reflect their special status. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sock puppetry again? It does amuse me how a complaint about false claims just leads to more false claims. And indeed, I've been blocked several times in the past for no reason other than having complained about false claims being made. Sock puppetry is the act of pretending to be more than one person. A puppet has to be animated by a puppeteer. Perhaps you can point out where I ever pretended to be more than one person. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am accusing you of block evasion. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, personal attacks and block evasion. Hell, you were blocked yesterday for a personal attack. You have also falsely claimed to not be the same editor.[99]

And obviously, you have to trot out yet more false claims. Nowhere in the diff you provide did I claim to be or not to be anyone. I never attempted in any way to conceal my identity. The diff you post is an interesting case, in which you undid a swathe of my edits for no good reason, with no explanation, and clearly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia (for example, restoring peacock words and undefined acronyms). I complained, obviously. I got blocked because of who I am. here. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• We can always let positive edits stand, and not revert them for no good reason besides either desire for righteousness or bureaucratic adherence to a guideline that does not itself require we follow it. Or, we can go ahead and indef-block their current IP address, and feel much better about ourselves. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In effect, you are saying the editor in question is untouchable. They can make personal attacks, edit war and ignore any blocks, so long as they are willing to restart their modem. (They have repeatedly stated that they have repeatedly done so to avoid the numerous blocks.) Thus, they were blocked for 3 hours yesterday for calling me an idiot, but only because they chose to ride it out. They were not blocked for any of their other repeated personal attacks (including "fucking retarded little cunt"), edit warring and block evasion. Would you care to clarify Wikipedia:Blocking policy? It seems it should read, "Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages or if they are willing to restart their modem and make edits Drmies feels are an improvement. In that case, do whatever the fuck you want at all times." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to find out if the IP's sockmaster is a banned user. If so, all edits by that user are revertible on-sight, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah great, another ridiculous false accusation of sock puppetry. You think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, you could give us a list of other IP's and/or registered users you've edited under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're calling for the revert of all my edits, based on a claim you've decided to make on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And this despite us never, to the best of my knowledge, having ever interacted in any way. Again I'll ask: you think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I unequivocally call for your edits to be revoked? Or did you just confess to being a banned user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) IP has been blocked for 6 months for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done OhNoitsJamie. I don't know why we waste so much hot air on trolls, vandals etc. Just nail them down and move on. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie, Jim, for reasons noted above this is not going to achieve anything (and we are not dealing with a "troll, vandal, etc."). Note that the editor is not banned--a discussion on AN did not deliver the result some were hoping for. Note also that "LTA" is not some admin- or community-approved page: that they "have" an LTA file does not mean they are a longterm abuser, it means that someone wrote it up. The choice term the IP slung at SummerPhD, that was in March. That doesn't mean it's nothing, of course, but I am not the first one to notice that their abuse follows being reverted time and time and time again. (This does not mean I think it's OK for them to have said that--note that I blocked them for saying "idiot".) The way I see it, we have two options.
  • We block every IP we run into, and revert every one of their edits we run into. The effect of that is that we block a lot of IPs, and revert a lot of good edits in main space; the other effect is that this just keeps going on and on. (I don't see how it can escalate much further; it's pretty much out of control already.)
  • We do not revert their mainspace edits on sight, just because an IP made them, just because this IP editor made them. The effect of that is that many articles will improve; another effect is that a lot of editors will have to swallow their pride and not revert. I don't know if this can be done, but not reverting edits on sight, not reverting their edits with "rv banned ip" (incorrect since they're not banned) or "rvv" (incorrect since not vandalism), well, that would stave off many an edit war, wouldn't it, and many an insult back and forth ("vandal" is an insult, if the person addressed is not a vandal).
  • There is a third option: if the IP got an account, I doubt they'd be reverted as often and as quickly as they are. Of course they're riding hard on this point of principle, which is both admirable and foolish. If they could swallow their pride, though, on this point, well, we could make progress.
• But option two and three can't happen now, and Jamie, I assume you knew that that would be the effect of a six-month block: every time they edit they're block evading in the next six months, and every single time they do simply adds to the notion that the IP editor is a longterm abuser and block evader. I do not believe this is a good thing to do, and if you look into the history here you may realize this too. Basically, the IP keeps getting blocked and reverted because they've been getting blocked and reverted. It's a crazy situation, exacerbated by both sides' increasing antagonism, with a schmuck like me in the middle. What to do? We have chosen the easiest and worst solution: an LTA file, a series of blocks and now a really long one, and an adherence to procedure. And yes, the recurring problem of IP editing where, in this case, an IP editor has too frequently gotten reverted because they didn't have an account. And don't tell me "I reverted them because they're the abusive IP"--the way I see it, they became the abusive IP because they kept getting reverted. But I rest my case: it's hopeless given the intransigence on both sides. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest this to the IP: find an IP address that you haven't used before; create a named account, and resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags. Continue making constructive edits, and avoid incivility and edit-warring. If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident. The "avoiding incivility and edit-warring" is going to be the biggest challenge for this user, given their history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jamie, I certainly appreciate the spirit with which you are making this suggestion, but of course a. it remains block evasion for the next six months (unless you lower the block) and b. they're going to have to...what's the word...pretend they're not them, so to speak. I don't know if they're willing to do that. It would be the easiest way out of this mess, no doubt--and yeah, of course they're going to have to keep the cussing down. But I don't know if you've ever been slumming as an IP: the speed with which one gets reverted (and blocked!) sometimes is very disheartening. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that IPs (and redlink named accounts) are sometimes wrongly "profiled"; that's why I suggested that the user create a named account from a non-blocked IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) needs some attention. The article should probably get renamed to Ross William Ulbricht (the guy the FBI has identified as the person behind the Dread Pirate Roberts pseudonym). @Signedzzz: and a bunch of IPs have been edit warring over including Ulbricht's name in the article, even though no one seems to care that Ulbricht is named in Silk Road (marketplace). The article has become a mess and it's hard to clean up with an active edit war. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• The FBI identifying his real name really doesn't matter, we use what the sources use, and when we want to change the name of an article, we start a discussion or WP:RM on the talk page. That isn't something that admin decide, only editors decide names. Admin just mop up afterwards. As for edit war or such, I just looked and the amount of traffic on the article isn't that heavy. 13 edits in 24 hours is nothing. Dennis - 2¢ 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)