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

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see [1] and [2]). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see [3]).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI [4]. The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - [5] apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Wikipedia?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:

“ A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. ”

Moreover, Dentren's diff ([6]) shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.

This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor ([7]). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership ([8],[9],[10]), POV-editing ([11],[12],[13],[14],[15]), inappropriate use of sources ([16],[17],[18]), and edit warring ([19]). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page ([20],), preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area [21]).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Wikipedia has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Wikipedia? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use [[WP:DISPUTE] Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. Ed best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that "[it] has been in dispute for seven years" and that "[it] has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" ([22]). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCM_email 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | ^Talk 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It seems Keysanger's English writing abilities have been called into question in these incidents. I not only don't see any big issue with their English here, but find the concept that they should be sanctioned also based on a perceived lack of grammar extremely worrying. If their edits contain English mistakes, correct them. It's a wiki. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Agree wholeheartedly, that isn't a reason for sanction. The continued battlefield mentality and refusal to drop the stick on the other hand is. WCM_email 16:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree as well. It was insensitive, and so I have removed it. Thank you for the comment LjL. As WCM indicates, there are other more serious behavior-based concerns here.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- Insensitive matters little when competence is required WP:CIR. Weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban. A few minor errors wouldn't be justification however.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CIR is just an essay - neither a guideline nor a policy - and stating that "weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban" is outright ridiculous. LjL (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is just an essay. This is not a meaningful point. If a weak competence in English rises to a level of disruption it is a justification for a ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysangers comment

Who are the commentators of this accusation?

• MarshalN20 is an involved editor
• Wee Curry Monster is an involved editor
• Dentren is an involved editor
• Cambalachero is an involved editor

Why does matter who are the accusers and judges?

Because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Hence, comments must be done by neutral, independent and objective editors and not by the gang of friends.

What about my contribution to Wikipedia?

Well, you may like my English or not, but I have made many of the best contributions to the article War of the Pacific. That is the reason why, for example, Dentren's tag was deleted. They were not my friends, they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist. They analysed the content of the article, find out what Dentren wanted to say (!) and rebuked. They were volunteers from the Dispute Mediation that I, that is Keysanger, called to help. Is it my blame that:

• MarshalN20 was banned of all articles of Latin America history?
• Darkness Shines was blocked because Sockpuppetry?
• Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a SPA?
• etc, etc

If any one of you want to contribute to an article, e.g. War of the Pacific, he is free to do it. Keeping the rules of Wikipedia.

What can we learn from this "discussion"?

Most of the editors are tired to discuss with people that recur to vociferate and to bring his friends because they are unable to argue.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No Keysanger, I am not involved, I've never edited the article and my only involvement in talk was to act as a mediator. Which I remind you was at your request [23]. The only reason I commented was because of your inability to drop the stick. You really do need to disengage here. WCM_email 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is all also completely irrelevant. So what would be my question? So what if Marshaln20 was banned? So What? He's also been unbanned I notice. So what about what ever petty issue you've mentioned. What about your own Ownership issues? What about your own edit-warring? Even if they were some how involved how is this even remotely important? What about your own battleground behavior? Have you no answer for the charges(for lack of better term) that they have made?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Serialjoepsycho:

MarshalN20 was banned of all articles about Latin America history, hence, he wasn't allowed to edit the article, so, it wasn't my "ownership" the cause of the prohibition, but his battleground mentality as is indicated in the ban!. Dentren's contributions were rebuked by the volunteers of the Third Opinion team, Darkness shines was blocked because of sockpuppetry, and Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a {{Spa}}. So, I ask you: why do they accuse me of "ownership"?.

It is not remotely important, it is very important to judge independent, neutral and objective. You can't expect neutrality from a person that has an interest to get a goal from the discussion. This is the reason why there are a independent judiciary power in a republican system and also in Britain. Can you imagine that some one accuses you of murder and he call also the jurywomen and jurymen?. Would you accept it?. I can't accept it.

Do you want to now how it works: You accuse someone, get some votes from friends and as another says the libel is ridiculous you change the accusation ([24]), so you keep the old votes and get new ones.

Greetings, --Keysanger (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marshaln20 is no longer banned from this topic area. This is not relevant. There's nothing to suggest that they are accusing you of ownership because they were banned. This also isn't a court of law. The votes aren't votes. Consensus is not a vote. If you get banned there will be a strong policy basis for it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that MarshalN20 had been topic banned because of a discussion about Juan Manuel de Rosas. An Argentine ruler, half a century before the War of the pacific, and with no links at all to that topic, besides the broad thing of taking place in the same continent at some point in the past. Now that his topic ban has been lifted, it is completely irrelevant to raise that point here for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Actually specifically notes that mention of past sanctions, when the reason for them no longer exists is of itself uncivil. Which is immaterial in any respect as the topic ban was not imposed for incivility. WCM_email 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentrens comment

I interpret the issues brought up here as evidence of Wikipedias grave problems. Editors are stuck in perpetual conflicts, some of them frozen, some of them re-activated. We seriously need to consider whether we will be able to solve problems being around here for over five years, when he haven't done so so far. Nothing Keysanger says makes me believe he will change his intransigence on putting forwards his particular view of Chile's role in the War of the Pacific. These prospects can easily be shaped into a pessimistic view on Wikipedias future: Aging editors locked on old disputes, biting and playing power-cards on newcomers. I seriously wish we had some new faces in the War of the Pacific and that we older editors move on to new topics so that we do not become temple guardians. Dentren | ^Talk 09:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You get nothing when you change an editor and put another one. You have to improve the quality of the contributions and the best way, until now, is the consensus. You tagged the article, delivered a rationale that was rebuked by the Third Opinion volunteers. That are the facts. --Keysanger (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to reality, there no such thing as consensus in the articles where Keysanger has proposed himself to defend a the state of Chile against information that puts the country as a "bad boy" in his eyes. Examples: War of the Pacific, Economic history of Chile#Saltpetre Republic (1873–1914). Sietecolores (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1[25] 2 [26]

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See [27] This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. [28] Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence: [29]

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there [30], including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past [31], and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: [32]. And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include [33]. I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So all of these users are involved?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Question What is the desired affect here? It the proposal that we ban an editor for a snarky comment that was made 8 months ago? Is that it?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also second this question. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal The OP doesn't seem interested in pursuing this and the report is stale. I suggest we close this and move about our business.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So long as everyone involved in this thread is okay with dropping it and moving on with no action taken, I think that's fine and dandy :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not okay with me, speaking for myself. The thread may be stale because ArbCom didn't want to look at it, not because nobody felt it didn't need to be dealt with period. See statements above. This is an editor blocked for edit-warring six times [34] and with at least an additional other editor pissed off for every time he did attract enough admin attention to get blocked. This is a persistent and ongoing behavior. If some kind of penalty and suspended sentence with parole is issued, that will probably stop the problem. On the other hand, if nothing is done, the problem will continue as it has since 2011.

Perhaps I erred taking this to ArbCom. If I've erred in taking it to AN/I as well, then say so. If AN/I is not concerned with persistent edit warriors and disruption that makes WP a real pain to edit, then please say so here now formally. SBHarris 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give diffs for the "ongoing" part? I think that's what's being asked above. Begoon ^talk 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are wiling to do the homework and present something to the community then this should be closed.--Adam in MO Talk 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate

RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identified on Commons as an alternate account of A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A1candidate appears to be a clean start of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. A1candidate has outstanding sanctions (0RR restriction )

• AN discussions of Levine2112
• AN discussions of A1candidate

It seems to me that the sanctions preclude a WP:CLEANSTART, which was in any case problematic when changing from Levine2112 to A1candidate. I think this user needs to be restricted to a single account, since making statements in arbitration cases with undisclosed prior history witht he participants is not in the least bit cool. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this is Levine2112, they should still stay away from alternative medicine articles, broadly construed, especially chiropractic. If this is A1Candidate, they have a serious COI regarding TCM and acupuncture, and should stay away from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of a clean start is not to "respawn" with clean logs to resume whatever arguments you were just in, if you're under DS you shouldn't try it all. And if (this point is a matter of interpretation) you're trying to give the impression you're a random, concerned Wikipedian that just found their way into an ArbCom case, oh and by the way, here's a huge pile of diffs...I'm particularly concerned by that. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. All the evidence suggests the Project would be better off without this user. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to allow the editor to change names, which in and of itself is fine, but if it has been done to, apparently, dodge existing sanctions, that is problematic. At the very least, the editor should acknowledge the prior account name and by extension the existing sanctions against them. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I really dont see that they have violated the existing sanctions. It doesnt appear they have edited let alone reverted more than one time on alt med articles or edited let alone reverted on acupuncture by looking at the contribs. There is a question of the clean start being an issue. But unless it was done and the sanctions were violated, not much should be done other than a possible single account restriction. They should be able to choose which account they use and the restriction acknowledged. But since none of the accounts has edited since Sep 28th, there may not be much that can be done. AlbinoFerret 22:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to assume that their arguments and diffs before ArbCom might be given more attention if they had been seen as coming from a neutral/uinvovled editor as opposed to coming from a frequent opponent of some of the parties of the case. Especially since they were warned (in the diff AlbinoFerret gave above) not to use Wikipedia processes to eliminate ideological opponents (or some very similar wording). A1Candidate would have been allowed to comment on the case, but with that history their arguments might not be as credible. So, this is deception by breaking up edit history by use of multiple accounts. Even if somehow the letter of the policy doesn't seem to forbid it, this is the kind of behavior WP:SOCK was intended to prohibit. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a one-account restriction would be fine, except that they seem to be doubling down ("baseless accusations") [35]. They should at a minimum acknowledge the A1Candidate account on their userpage and stop complaining about being called out on it. Geogene (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I am not a clean start of A1candidate; I switched my account because I was harassed by several editors at that time, including BullRangifer and QuackGuru (who falsely WP:OUTED me multiple times and fabricated fake information about my personal life on at least three occasions [36][37][38]). Their evidence-free allegations of sockpuppetry are completely ludicrous - I am not related to User:Levine2112 in any way whatsoever, have never interacted with this user, and I honestly do not know where this allegation is coming from (although I suspect it may be related to this separate allegation). Bullrangifer's most recent claim that I have a "serious COI" is again no more than a fabrication of fake information, but for the sake of transparency, I have requested that the arbitrators look into this issue and query the CheckUser tool to clear my name. I am also willing to consider providing some information to a trusted arbitrator to verify that I have no COIs regarding that topics that I previously edited. To expedite the process, someone has already pinged the drafting arbitrators to look into this [39], so please wait for their responses and do give them some time to verify my identity. In the meantime, I am trying to peacefully leave this site and and be left alone. I can't do this when i) Geogene is stalking me everwhere on the Internet, ii) BullRangifer is outing me everytime he sees my name and fabricating fake information because he can't find anything incriminating, and iii) JzG/QuackGuru are making the most frivolous sockpuppet allegations based on zero evidence RoseL2P (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of ludicrous claims, the only place I've ever interacted with you is on WP, and not until this case opened. Geogene (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster keeps posting speedy deletion notices on photographs that are clearly mine.

I am a photographer with a DSLR. I publish my photographs on Flickr (under my name) and on my website, www.takenbynora.com. I would like to reserve copyright for all my images by default, including on Flickr, but for certain images that I am uploading I choose to upload them under a free license on Wikipedia. It is extremely troublesome to update all the licensing for every instance I have published that photograph under my own copyright. Therefore I am asking to appeal the process here. I do not know why User:Eeekster keeps giving me such trouble and this is an unnecessary process for a photographer who would like to share her work on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also contest if these photographs are really "published" if they were uploaded onto my Flickr account or on my website. They haven't like received notable media attention or anything (except for when I actually present my portfolio) to people. I could email "permissions" from my email (it's not like I have a Flickr email address?) but I am not sure why that must be done when I am clearly the photographer in question. Eeekster says that I could have simply created this account to "impersonate" the original creator of these photographs but I find this assertion kind of silly. Additionally, he keeps linking to an escort aggregator site which has actually used my photographs without my permission, not the other way round. (I am a transgender escort who advertises on backpage). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would further like that an artist I hate clutter in my descriptions (I often post prose or poetry) so having to edit my Flickr descriptions to accommodate every time I repost the photograph to Wikipedia under a free license would be extremely troublesome. I am enough of a scatterbrained artist as it is! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Further proof that I am the photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanping Nora Soong (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's frustrating for people who are the actual owners, this is protecting the cases where peoples' photos are being used without authorization. As a side compliment, I imagine that the quality of the photo and its composition might have made it compelling to ensure that your rights are being correctly represented. Have you followed up on the instructions left on your talk page? I am not certain, but there might be a process whereby your flickr account can be verified once by OTRS that you are the owner, to streamline future submissions. If it doesn't exist, it would certainly help to encourage photographers to continue contributing their quality works.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for some emergency intervention? I don't have time to submit to OTRS right now. I updated my description on flickr for one of the images -- shouldn't that be enough?

Also "Quality" and "composition" are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement. I consider myself an artist. Though I have been hired for gigs, I doubt my own competency every day (I get suicidally depressed sometimes about my own ineffectiveness). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what it says on one of my flickr images: "I have attached this photograph (along with several other photographs) to Wikipedia under my account Yanping Nora Soong under a creative commons license. I would appreciate a speedy resolution of this matter. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Also 'Quality' and 'composition' are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement": They aren't "evidence" per se. I was merely commenting that people are less likely to suspect fuzzy, poorly-framed photos are being passed off as someone else's work. It really is too bad a few rogue editors who steal credit for others' work make it harder for legitimate owners to contribute their photos, but it's unfortunately the world we live in. Tagged photos usually have at least a week to square things away with OTRS. I'd suggest contacting them to see what (if anything else) is needed, and arrange for a more convenient time frame, if necessary. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure I get it. You claim not to "have time to submit to OTRS," but you have time to make multiple posts to ANI? Ravenswing 11:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Great photographs! Some of my photos have also been tagged for deletion in this way, in the past. The people tagging your photos have no ill will against you, but are trying to protect Wikipedia. If you follow the OTRS procedures everything will be resolved. Good luck! -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

convert imagenames from unicode to ascii

@JzG, MarnetteD, and BlackMane:found images whose filename is in unicode letters, almost impossible to type in ascii-limited keyboards, copypasting difficult in android. requesting admin oversight, are unicode filenames allowed to remain?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC) @GiantSnowman and David Biddulph:pinging more adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No filename is mentioned above, but the user's edit history indicates that they edited a template which uses File:বাংলাদেশ কমিউনিস্ট পার্টির পতাকা.svg, the flag of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. That filename translates to "Communist Party of Bangladesh flag". It's on Commons, not English Wikipedia, and was uploaded for use on the Bangladeshi wikipedia.[40] So there's nothing wrong here. (Hint: Although a rarely used feature, Android's OS supports both USB and Bluetooth mice, which may help with the cutting and pasting problem.) Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle, JzG, and GiantSnowman:can admins edit filenames uploaded in commons?also, there is one more image in my edit history with non-ascii nameMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

commons:Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed? says: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just asking, only because I don't know, but is there precedent for creating a copy under a more accessible name? --Jayron32 12:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copies should never be created. File pages have other information like license and description which should be maintained in one place. It's possible to make file redirects but commons:Help:File redirect#Unwanted use of file redirects says: "Creation of redirects in alternative languages is not wanted. Multi-lingual translations on the file's description page are used instead." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Jayron32:file uploads in commons where filename is smilies, imagine problemMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In nearly all cases, a filename which is all smilies could be renamed "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays" Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the OP is using, but my Android can copy and paste Unicode characters just fine. That is once I figured out how to copy and paste. :P —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix:OP make post for sake of all editor, not personalMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with unicode characters for article and file names. The "problem" you mention doesn't actually exist unless your Android device is misconfigured. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP said copy and pasting was difficult, not that it doesn't work, and didn't mention anything about unicode in relation to copying and pasting.

I think the OP's point was probably that on many touch screen devices (and this actually applies to Android, iOS and Windows, except that most iOS devices are in the higher end range), particular a small phone with a low res not that good in terms of touch, screen), selecting what you want to copy and paste can be difficult at times. It gets even worse if it's a link or very near one. I think John Nagle had the same idea, hence the mention of mice. Copy and pasting from an edit window can help in some cases, but that depends on other factors. Plus multitabbing a browser can be slow on a low end device with limited RAM and slow flash (and also CPU although I'm not sure if that's a big contributor), so using a seperate tab to ensure you can copy and paste all you need can slow things down a fair bit. (Let's not even mention some old versions of iOS Safari, where there's no guarantee anything you were typing in the edit window will still be there when you come back to it after changing just one tab.)

In case it's unclear I actually agree it does create problems, even with experience, depending on the device, where you're trying to copy and paste it from etc, however since there's no good solution it's something people will have to put up with. (Remembering that people who don't use the latin/roman alphabet will have problems with any file name that's in it too.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding paid editing results (needs admin/CU + OTRS)

I almost responded to Ticket:2015101610012722 - but an enwiki admin/CU may be better suited to follow this up. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Having failed to garner an admin OTRS member, I've replied to the ticket, but my interpretation of the OTRS privacy agreement forbids me from naming the article or paid editor. Storkk (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Disruptive WP:NOTHERE editor making spiteful reverts on various articles

SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on multiple articles, namely Microsoft, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and Saturn AL-41.

• On Microsoft, he has reverted edits by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs), and refuses to accept the talk page WP:CONSENSUS.
• On Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, after I warn him that he should adhere to the Manual of Style at WP:MOS-ZH, he replied that, quote, "I don't need to refer to anything."
• He is being a huge dick on my personal user talkpage. (Per WP:TALK, I have the right to remove comments from my talk page.)

I'd like to request an external third-party to resolve this issue, as they see fit. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just reviewed SundayRequiem's edits, at the least, he needs a stern talking to by an admin. Benlisquare, I know you feel that you are the aggrieved party, but please try to be polite. Darx9url (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He certainly needs a talking to, but c'mon. Reverting warning templates on your talk page isn't being a "huge dick." It's being clueless. Let's not overhype this to be some manner of epic rampage. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "somewhat of an annoyance" would have been a better way for me to word my original line. It was a spur of the moment; my vocabulary tends to simplify when I'm hot-headed, you see. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, their edits in that Saturn article are troublesome. There's no edit summaries, so when Benlisquare says "rv unexplained removal" they have a valid point; this edit of theirs, claiming vandalism, was rightly reverted by BilCat, and the reference to 3R is dickish. Edits on Pakistani cuisine are reasonable except for that there also most edits are unexplained and they reverted a revert there as well. Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning sees the editor edit warring; they've now been reverted by three editors, including Nick Thorne. Comments on Talk:Microsoft are from a few days ago, but they are asinine. SundayRequiem, you're treading on dangerous ground here, combining of a lack of good faith, a refusal to communicate, disruption, personal attacks, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• I agree, I just issued a final warning. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Courtier1978

• Personal attacks and accusations of sock/meatpuppetry: The user has engaged in a recurrent series of personal attacks against me and other users that has exceeded the point of being disturbing and is now discouraging me from contributing.
  • This started on Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus, when he/she was explained that his additions were not properly substantiated by reliable sources and constituted original research: "You are the number one source of POV, in the articles related to Cyprus and yet you continue lying to yourself and others thinking that anyone will believe you. You are imagining things, you blame others for what you are, and then you are engaging in edit warring with anyone adding anything in the articles that you don't like. You will make Cyprus a favor if you stop filling the articles related to it, with your POV". He/she is clearly aware and has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks (as seen below his comment there + previously warned by me, a warning that he removed from his talk page). Following a revert of his additions by User:Alakzi, he wrote "Team work is not permitted by the way, under Wikipedia rules. You may want to tell this to the account that has reverted the article, for you". His personal attacks, along with his persistent refusal of understanding of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and his polarizing (Greek vs. Turkish) tone was at this time so unbearable to me that I just let the article be for months, until Mikrobølgeovn reverted it a few days ago.
  • In the past two days, this has reached intolerable dimensions in a campaign he started across a number of articles: here, he calls me "a massacre denier", says "You don't seem to mind about all that, and the POV degree of the article aren't you, yet you hate the fact that I have said the truth about a totally pro-Turkish POV article and you are trying to distort it and portray me in a very false and negative way. The article at this point, is a totally pro-Turkish POV article, and your edits are highly contributing to this POV. If you are not realizing that, then you don't know what NPOV is and is better to stay away from the articles." Here, he calls a now-inactive user a "totally pro-Turkish user". Mikrobølgeovn, a user who has not engaged in personal attacks and is trying to adhere to Wikipedia policies as far as possible from what I see (he has filed a dispute resolution request), has been dismissed by him saying "I see only one Norwegian to be pushing plain POV here, and only towards and totally to the Turkish side, and no one else, and this is going for a whole year now. I definitely don't see any Greeks here. Stop trying to foul people, it is not working. The only thing that it needs to be checked is your motives and your ego and nothing else". He has written an extensive attack on Mikrobølgeovn here.
  • He/She has even gone so far open a sockpuppet investigation claiming that I and Alakzi are sockpuppets of Mikrobølgeovn! + tried to get me blocked for edit warring when there was clearly no violation, of which he was informed: [41]. I am very, very tired of this.
• A definite lack of understanding WP:BRD, WP:OR and WP:RS: His lack of understanding of consensus-building is very apparent on several articles: the aforementioned article on wars in Cyprus where he kept reverting to his edition and refusing intermediate proposals, here and here. He has insisted on using everyculture.com, a website that is by no stretch of imagination reliable, and supported it by a marxists.org link to support his thesis that the Cypriot intercommunal violence ended with a "Greek Cypriot victory" - and his source from everyculture.com does not even properly support his thesis (it says that only about a series of clashes in 1967 and with no substantiation). He has been referred to the relevant policies many times, yet he keeps making comments such as "Lets add some communist sources then, since everything else seems to be Greek nationalists for you". He has also repeatedly removed information supported by VERY reliable sources: [42] in favor of original research. His lack of appreciation of BRD is also evident here.
• On another note, he/she remained inactive after I let the article on wars in Cyprus be as he desired for about two months, and the moment that Mikrobølgeovn reverted him/her, he/she re-emerged: [43].
• The situation is perhaps best illustrated by the history of this page. He/she has no intention of accepting even this neutral version and keeps reverting to this. This topic is currently open on the dispute resolution noticeboard but this user conduct issue needs to be resolved urgently. The user's activities explicitly display numerous WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability", "Does not engage in consensus building", "Rejects or ignores community input", "Campaign to drive away productive contributors", and honestly WP:NOTHERE: "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground" (extensive activity against what he perceives as "pro-Turkish" across several articles). On a final note, I hate having to do this, but my previous work has included addition of details about the Armenian Genocide (especially on rape), significant expansion of Assyrian genocide and addition of atrocities against Greek Cypriots to Turkish invasion of Cyprus (e.g. [44]), all of which are antithetical to "pro-Turkish activities". Sorry for this lengthy text and taking the reader's time. --GGT (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

-GGT that is making another false accusation as usual, has being edit warring the article list of wars involving Cyprus since April, in cooperation with user Mikrobølgeovn that he has being edit warring the article for a whole year now, and he is also cooperates with user Alakzi in reverting edits of other users. This can be shown from their history. GGT in specific is very active in pushing pro-Turkish POV in the highest degree possible in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey. Anyone adding any NPOV version, is seeing his edits deleted, and then accused by them as nationalist and other false accusations, and then they cooperate in pushing him on edit warring, and reporting him to the administrators. This has being going on for a very long time now. You can see this from their history. They have even permanently blocked other users like this, and now they are pushing the highest degree of pro Turkish POV in the articles related, since no one seems to be editing them for the reasons above. Even on this GGT has asked the help of user Mikrobølgeovn, as it shows from the message left in his talk page.

Due to their actions several users adding NPOV versions have being blocked or stopped editing, and now only pro-Turkish users are editing, which has as a result the articles related to Cyprus and Tukrey to have been evolved to the highest degree of pro-Turkish POV possible.

I will give a few examples.

GGT and user Mikrobølgeovn are keep deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side in the article list of wars involving Cyprus for a whole year now and edit warring the article since then.

GGT is edit warring the article Cypriot inter communal violence since April, pushing a totally pro-Turkish POV version and deleting all the rest. User Mikrobølgeovn is helping him. The amount of POV can be seen from the article. For example in the 1963-64: "Bloody Christmas" and Battle of Tillyria section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated in a very POV way and in the Outbreak of intercommunal violence section, only alleged Greek Cypriot propaganda spreading is stated, again in a very POV way.

GGT is the main one editor for many months now in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Anyone adding anything that he doesn't like, is seeing his edits deleted. The totally pro-Turkish POV nature of the article is obvious for this reason. For example in the First Turkish invasion, July 1974 section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated and in a very POV way. In the article, the Greek Cypriot EOKA is stated as a nationalist group, and portrayed in a very bad way, Greek Cypriot EOKA B as a terrorist organization, while the Turkish Cypriot TMT is stated as an excused resistance organization and portrayed in the brightest and more excused way. The article is saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia, something that is a total POV. In addition only Greek Cypriot alleged massacres are stated in the article, and the 1963–1974 section is given in a totally pro-Turkish way.

Those are just a few of examples on what user GGT is doing. A look in his history and someone can see much more POV pushing in much more articles and much more edit warring and cooperation in edit warring with other users, always in pushing the highest degree possible of pro-Turkish POV that they can, and stop anyone else for editing, using tactics from false accusations to the administrators, to what the rules of Wikipedia describe as meat puppetry.

Me from the other hand, it is fair to say that I have being adding only NPOV versions to the articles, adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner and adding what the people of the island have in common as it shows from my history. In addition I have discussed extensively, in the talk pages, and cooperate with other users like that, in adding NPOV versions, in the articles that I am editing, and left other edits after me unchanged. Ron1978 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Disputes involving the Balkan region tend to be polarizing here and do not easily get resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Are there discretionary sanctions that include Cyprus to be enforced, however? Never in my entire editing life here have I seen reference to any such decision concerning Cyprus and it is certainly not referred to in Talk:Cyprus or Talk:Northern Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:ARBMAC, with its associated sanctions, including blocks, is about the Balkans, broadly defined. Greek-Turkish animosity has stretched historically from Macedonia, to the Hellespont, to the currently Greek isles of Turkey, to Rhodes, and to Cyprus. Regards to all. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

False claims of vandalism

WP:VANDALISM states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ", and further that "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." An editor has been following me around to multiple articles , repeatedly undoing my good faith edits, and labeling them as vandalism - see list below. Can someone have word with them and get them to stop? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• [45]
• [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]

This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account of an old editor. Either way, the account's sole purpose here is to make Palestinians and Muslims look as awful as possible, and to remove and soften critical information about Israel. Wikipedia's tolerance for editors whose agendas are to denigrate whole groups of people is a wonder to behold.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a no tolerance for editors like you, who have been repeatedly blocked for harassment. Control yourself, and if you can't, go find another hobby. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has zero tolerance for WP:DUCKs. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for blatantly disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? Dan Murphy made serious accusations without a single diff to support them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The diffs provided against Dan Murphy show reversions of disruptive editing on the part of the op. Not really much to elaborate on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? Putting a single dead link tag next to a dead link (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Having a content dispute about a header (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Removing information inserted by an ip that is not only ridiculously worded, but easily ascertained as false (referred to, again, as "vandalism")? Please be specific as to what exactly is disruptive here, because I'm not seeing it or at least not from the guy who got blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User Jss199

Jss199 (talk · contribs) has made 173 edits since February 2014. I think he intends for some of his edits to be constructive, but he has a pattern of making unconstructive edits even after he has been warned. Some examples: removal of citations, removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content, introducing deliberate factual errors. He has received a number of warnings from several editors. He never responds to a warning or request for explanation or discusses on an article talk page or user talk page. He marks all of his edits as minor, including removal of entire paragraphs and other significant content changes, even after being asked not to do so numerous times. He rarely leaves an edit summary. Perhaps someone here will be more successful in getting him to communicate. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Section and Subsection Titles

I apologize if this is not the appropriate venue to address such a question. Although I’ve been around Wiki quite awhile now, the only time I was ever involved in an incident was the result of a misunderstanding that was easily clarified. (I know the word “misunderstanding” is often overused, but in this case it was literally such and the nonexistent conflict was resolved before we got here.) If this is not the appropriate venue, perhaps an administrator or experienced editors can steer me to where I should have addressed this question for future reference. I am currently not involved with a conflict, though I shortly would (almost certainly) have been had not one of my allies in the potential conflict rendered the question moot. So all that is left is to ask my question.

We all the know the importance and power of headline writing in newspapers and headline writers are often accused of bias. My question is is there any Wikipedia regulation that addresses the matter of writing titles for sections and subsections within Wiki articles? Is there anything mandating that a section or subsection title should reflect the majority content of such?

Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV covers a lot of ground - section titles which appear to show a specific POV would run afoul of that non-negotiable policy. And "headlines" are not written by the reporter as a rule - but by specialists whose aim is t0 hook readers Collect (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick and informative response. It is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: You may want to also take a look at WP:COATRACK. While sections titled "Controversy", "Criticism", and such may seem benign at first, they often serves as "bug lights" for anyone wants to spread negative information about the subject. A section that focuses on a negative aspect of the subject should be rewritten with the relevant information incorporated elsewhere in the article. —Farix (t | c) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Farix Thank you as well. I think you were sufficiently curious as to track my recent Wiki haunts and comments. I understand what you are saying. The curious aspect of this dispute (at least to my mind) was that those on the other side are contesting a mere name change (actually, an addition to the current one) that would bring a subsection’s title in line with 88% of its content rather than lobbying to remove or mitigate the material itself. But as I said, one of my allies unwittingly (I think) threw a monkey wrench into my plans to bring the conflict here. Therefore, I must concede defeat and that’s the end of it. Thank you, again. I have bookmarked both offered pages for future reference.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:SyrianObserver2015

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

---

Let me start by giving some background. User:SyrianObserver2015 is essentially a WP:SPA who opened his account for the sole purpose of disrupting one article (Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War), the associated module map (Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map) and the associated talk page. WP:SPA says: “… a significant number (of SPA) appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed (WP:NOTADVOCACY). (my emphasis added). This person is not here to help build an encyclopedia.

He is very biased and nominated the article for deletion a couple of months ago. After the failure of his Afd, he came back to the talk page and started threatening editors by saying that if they don’t make the edits he wants them to make on the map, he will nominate the article for deletion again. Then he threatens again here by saying: “I am very close to nominating this map again.” And here again by saying: “So you can start to change or you can see your map nominated for deletion every week untill it is gone.”

To illustrate his general attitude, here he calls another user: “degenerate zombie”. And here he calls collectively all editors of the map: “you little terrorist supporting shit”. And here, he deletes a whole section from the talk page (4000 characters, with 5 participants). Here he is referring to another editor and “his support for his foreign invaders.” Here he is talking to another editor: “calm down young boy, don't behead me virtually lol.”

The editors refused his threats, so he went to editing the map by reverting legitimate edits that he didn’t like without providing any source or making edit summary. We reverted his edits and gave him an explanation about the need to provide sources here. We also opened a total of 3 sections on his talk page as well as explained to him again on the map talk page. This didn’t do anything since he came back and reverted back the map many times without edit summary or sources, breaking 1RR twice. Some of his edits were relating to major cities like Zabadani and he gave it a status that is completely unrealistic and unclaimed by anyone. It is hard to argue that these could be good faith edits. This could be viewed as intentional sabotage of the map that he failed to delete (and that he is threatening to delete). His message could be interpreted as: “Do what I ask you to do, or I will make your map a complete mess!” Right after this, an admin gave him a few templated warnings, including one about sanctions.

Unfortunately, all these warnings did not suffice. He kept insulting everyone (for example, he is calling an editor: “ISIS fan boy”) He also kept making bad faith edits on the map. Here is a stark example where he writes in the edit summary that he is changing the town “Al-Basha”, but then you can see that he changed the town “Salma”! And again broke 1RR and got blocked on 28 August. Again, this did not suffice as he kept insulting everyone (for example, he is saying the map “is becoming a scum pit of ISIS and jihadi supporters” and again calling editors: “Jihadi boys”.) Here he is promising “a wave of Government supporting editors coming here to fix it”. Here a user writes a long message trying to reason him and encourage good behavior. This is in addition to many messages on the talk page of article… But again he breaks 1RR and gets blocked on 21 September.

During his latest block, User:SyrianObserver2015 evaded his block with IP sockpuppets. So the insulting continued during his block: Accusing editors: “terrorist supporting editors on this map.”, accusing an editor: “ISIS beheader supporter”, ranting about an editor: “Just another biased editor trying to make things look nicer for the terrorists.”, antagonizing another editor: “The butthurt from you Dajesuz your Isis whabbiboys are burning alive”; "all you can do is cry"; "you do support Isis the terrorists scum".

After his latest block ended, he came back with the same attitude. Here he is calling an editor: “ISIS terrorist supporter”, and “all you Al Nusrat and Free Shit Army guys” and “You support a dirty terrorist organization” and “a fucking dirty scumbag terrorist supporter”. Here he accuses another editor: “you support the terrorist moderate beheaders.” Here he insults everyone by saying: “Hail Putin bitches.” In addition, yesterday and today (October 17/18), he reverted the map many times, breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 Undid revision 686171591 by Rhocagil (talk).
• Edit 2 Revert 2 Undid revision 686286892 by DaJesuZ (talk).

This person is not here to help build an encyclopedia. I do not recall him making an edit to the map that did not get reverted. Also, you can notice that the article on which the disruption occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am requesting for User:SyrianObserver2015 to be permanently banned from editing Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map for WP:NOTHERE. Tradedia^talk 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

i totally agree with Tadedia.that editor is soo annoying and is definitely not here to contribute.Alhanuty (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015 better have a good rebuttal, else an indef block is certainly on the way. Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

His contributions more than speak for themselves. Despite the OP being a bit lengthy, a mere skim of it should convince the community that this user is definitely not here to contribute meaningfully. He first came to my attention when he mockingly proposed a page on my watchlist for deletion in August. All of his contributions are clearly agenda-driven and in favor of the official Iranian regime POV. I would endorse any type of block, or perhaps a broad topic ban from Middle Eastern topics. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another indef. GAB^Hello! 01:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like these isis fanboys are having a field day, better make 5 new accounts the lies is sickening here, you all support isis terrorists, and Tradeia you have made many vandalizing edits . You can ban me all you want but remember this, your losing the war. And many scores of Government supporters now reside on your biased map because of me. You yourself tried to delete all the edit history because the person investigating would see all Ducks un edited sources and AlAboud aswell there is currently a topic about your many un-sourced edits. A little pack of isis fan boys trying to get me banned, good luck with that, I have made no edits in the last month(only re-sizing) also, so what are you trying to get me banned for now?? I do not support head chopping civilian killing terrorist like all you here that have come to blacken my good reputation on your biased map?? Every edit I ever made was sourced. ISIS are terrorists and their supporters are terrorists meaning all of you above.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For that comment alone I support an indefinite block if not a site ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever come across a more blatant case of WP:NOTHERE than this one. Can an admin just levy the indef and we can all move on. Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

better make five new accounts is also an interesting comment, though maybe my sarcastometer is just broken. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Its amazing all these people coming here making rash judgements and none of you besides Tradiea have anything got to do with the map in question, just let them ban me for some reason they will make up. We all know wikipedia is run by Jihadi fools sitting in a basement, go on ban me please give me an excuse to rally a few hundred Government supporters to this biased map, and show you terrorist supporting fools real moderation.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As entertaining as this is, can an admin do the honors? GAB^Hello! 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Sweepy

Ho hum, User:Sweepy continues to mass sort dabs alphabetically. This is against the consensus and warnings of several editors [52] [53] [54] [55] final [56] (and WP:MOSDAB). This disruption hasn't stopped after a final warning, or threats of being blocked for this the next time by User:Xezbeth. Several of us are spending time undoing them before the dabs get edited. The disruption has been going on for months, and apart from dab edits, the editor is making good edits so it's a shame that all attempts at persuasion have failed. (details at User_talk:Sweepy#Sorting_disambiguation_pages User_talk:Sweepy#Talkback Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Mass_sorting_dabs) Widefox; talk 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the problem. Alphabetical makes it easier to find what you're looking for, rather than all jumbled up. I think Sweepy's doing a great job, and , yes I saw you point to WP:MOSDAB, remember, however, that it's a guideline and not a hard and fast rule, and common sense needs to be applied. I believe Sweepy's doing just that, it's more common sense to use alphabetical ordering than anything else. Also, "order of importance"? Important to whom, that's subjective. KoshVorlon 11:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not doing a "great job". Many of these dab pages have sections in chronological order, which is equally as valid as alphabetical. Even more of these dab pages have two or three topics that are vastly more significant and likely to be searched for than the others, and should not be shunted down the page just because of where they rank alphabetically. Sweepy has given no thought to any of that, they have just indiscriminately sorted random dab pages for months on end without anyone stopping them. They were reverted on a few dab pages by several different editors, but Sweepy simply ignored that and ploughed ahead anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

He's obviously not applying common sense since many people are complaining about it. Do you know what the "common" part of common sense means? Also, just because WP:MOSDAB is not policy but a guideline, doesn't mean you are free to ignore it. It reflects general consensus on how disambiguation pages should be organized. You are free to take it up there if you do not agree with it. Kudos to your powers of persuasion if you can convince everyone the World Toilet Organization should come before the World Trade Organization on WTO--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Sweepy is probably acting in good faith (albeit stubbornly, which may justify extreme measures such as this), but their edits aren't possibly justified by common sense since they go against consensus that was established specifically about that topic (not even some related topic it is being transposed from). Alphabetical order "making it easier to find" things is debatable, it depends on the specifics, and clearly the community has decided that in the case of these disambiguation pages, it does not; that should be respected. LjL (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to me it's common sense to arrange in alphabetical order, the list he's changing around is not designated in chronological order ( like a bibliography or a discography would be ), therefore, yeah, he's not doing anything wrong changing the list to alphabetical. Atlan remember, WP:IAR is ALSO a guideline, which actually does give us permission to ignore all rules to improve the wikipedia, placing the see also pages in alphabetical order does just that. Also, note that he (I'm assuming) doesn't speak English very well, judging by his English, he likely speaks Hindi, so we may also be facing a language barrier. KoshVorlon 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Their mother language is German, it's stated on their user page. I thought the changes being made where not limited to "See also" sections (which I do believe are meant to be in alphabetical order), but to disambiguation pages at large. LjL (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So the answer seems to be no, you do not know what the word "common" in "common sense" means. WP:IAR is policy, not a guideline. It is a invoked when a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. It is implied that when one invokes IAR, one is aware of the rule that is ignored and that consideration has been given to ignoring it. That is not the case here, as Sweepy is indiscriminately alphabetizing DAB pages. IAR is not a blanket permission to ignore all rules whenever you feel like it. Your interpretation seems to be that it is. And like LjL says, this is not about "see also" sections but about DAB pages. Do some basic fact finding before commenting on threads.--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:KoshVorlon: Congratulation to you! You are a rare user understanding the sense of all encyclopedias, namely to edit so, that all users find all his informations he want, faster!

@the others: By sorting DAB alphabetically their's not any advantage for anyone!, p.e. clubs, religions, sports clubs, parties, companies and so on, and so on! Coincidence is given and all administrators or controllers have therefore no problems to prefer somebody! Is'nt wonderful for all of you in your WP? Please consider this... -- Sweepy (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help change the consensus and guidelines on disambiguation pages, you should discuss on a relevant talk page. This is not the place for it (nor is it the time to be bold and just change pages, when you have met with clear opposition). LjL (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlan Comment on content not contributor, ok ? I'm well aware that IAR is not a blank check to do what we want to do. It's to be used for the purpose of improving wikipedia, even if the house rule says we can't do what we think would improve it. His contributors do just that, hence the application of IAR. KoshVorlon 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And now an expample for not alphabetial sorting: Hayes High School DAB. Please clear me up, why an alphabetical sorting is undesired in your eyes because neither the sorting now or the towns are alphabetical sorted! The reason, please for my correct doing an your reverting? Looking forward for the Councils answer and the rule for it, as always done...-- Sweepy (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss (not ignore) MOSDAB is there, not here. The correct place to discuss a dab is on their talk. Both can be discussed at the project (where Sweepy has not replied). Here is the correct place to discuss an editor that willfully is ignoring consensus (edit, MOSDAB MOS:FORLANG, + warnings + block warning) on mass. The mass disruption isn't confined to dabs. Widefox; talk 17:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not enough for me! You point to -daily another- rules and so on...Be confidently, your depiction in this issue is not generally accepted! Please accept it! -- Sweepy (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. The fact that there is presently you and another editor going against consensus doesn't make the state of things "not generally accepted". LjL (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello together, I'm not ready to hear always the same...! Do what you all want and block me if you dont need my help for your WP! -- Sweepy (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in re: editor Trackinfo on Caitlyn Jenner article (Result: )

• Request for Discretionary sanctions

• Editor

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

• Article

In re: [[Caitlyn Jenner]] article:

• Warning

Diff to Discretionary Sanctions Alert (with "pa" parameter): [57]

• Latest edit

Diff to latest edit in violation: [58]

• Reported by

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments

What exactly is being reported here? Is Trackinfo subject to a 0RR sanction on articles relating to transgender issues? @Checkingfax:, you're going to have to do better than just vaguely report another editor with no request for administrator action. Are you asking for a block? warning? editing restriction? You should not expect admins to play a guessing game. Also, if you're asking for sanctions, which are covered by arbcom cases, against another editor you should go to WP:AE Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[[Caitlyn Jenner]] is a DS page, not an 0RR page. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the editing guideline we all work under:

The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline,[[MOS:IDENTITY]]. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion.

There is also a DS that takes it a step further. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the violation basis:

Request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions;

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From your diff, Trackinfo reverted reverted to a version where there was no gender pronoun, so I can't see how your "editing guideline" applies. Also, Trackinfo is correct that there is a discussion currently underway. A notification was posted here, talk:Caitlyn Jenner#MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? with discussions going on at WP:VPP#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals and WP:VPP#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From the diff, Trackinfo changed [...]"Jenner married 'her'"[...], to: [...]"Jenner married"[...]. That is the pronoun removal. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Talk page boilerplate regarding pronouns

Because this article contains material about one or more [[trans women]], it should adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity, even if it is not a biography. According to [[MOS:IDENTITY]], such a subject should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed [[gender self-identification]]". This applies in references to any phase of her life. Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child). Finally, please note that this talk page is [[not a forum]]. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to [[WT:LGBT]] or, in the case of living trans women, to [[WP:BLPN]].

Your report is inconsistent. First you complain that Trackinfo is changing a feminine pronoun to a masculine pronoun. Then you point to a pronoun removal as the problem. So which is it? In any case, the discussion at WP:VPP will establish a policy to dictate this. IMO, this is a total non issue. Admins may disagree with my view. Rather than fill this thread up as a discussion between you and me, I'm going to step back and let others comment as I've made my stance clear. Blackmane (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting the pronoun removal ("her"). There is no inconsistency by me. It's right there in the diff I submitted above. We are supposed to leave pronouns in articles and not make transgender articles gender neutral by removing pronouns. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the phrase:

Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child).

Clearly 1) the pronoun was unnecessary. I wrote the original phrase without a pronoun. 2) Inserting the pronoun is thus deliberately forcing a clear WP:BLP violation on Chrystie Crownover. Is there a sourceable statement that she approves of wikipedia stating that she married a woman? Is there any question that a rational reader might get confused by this phrasing? Trackinfo (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK and his chronic edit warring problem

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

---

User:Beyond My Ken has been at the heart of a discussion under active discussion at WP:AN, relating to a matter where he was blocked for his actions regarding the article Anna Politkovskaya, for which he made eight separate reverts of give different editors in one day. With much tendentious arguing and wikilawyering, BMK was able to convince an admin to undo his block.

The problem is that BMK is no stranger to edit warring, having a block list that includes five previous blocks for edit warring in the past five-plus years, including two blocks this year alone; three if you include the aborted block for his edit warring at Politkovskaya.

Those five blocks are just a small sample of his actual edit warring history, which includes a total of 22 reports at WP:3RRN from 18 different editors. Six of those have resulted in blocks, and a handful of these reports may not have met the 3RR standard. But there are several other reports where BMK had managed to evade blocks through various warnings and other evasions. The edit warring pattern here is chronic and largely unaddressed.

In addition to the Politkovskaya article this past week, BMK was also caught edit warring at Union Square, Manhattan and reported here. As he had already been blocked for his actions at Politkovskaya, the Union Square case was closed as "already blocked".

With the block for Politkovskaya lifted, it seems that the best way to deal with this issue is to reopen the Union Square case and impose a lengthy preventative block for a situation where BLP is a non-issue and where the evidence is open and shut. I'm not sure why BMK has been allowed to evade justice here and persist in his edit wars, but we in the Wikipedia community have a way to end this chronic problem once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[59] BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your comparison, the last time Alansohn was blocked was in 2009, ample time for them to learn from their mistakes. clpo13_(talk) 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you speak of what you know not of. Check the AN/ANI database. BMK (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to enlighten me? I don't feel like digging through noticeboard archives looking for who knows what. clpo13_(talk) 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like Forum shopping to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I could not have said it better. This is not forum-shopping, this is a long-term problem with no end in sight. I don't recall if I have ever reported BMK for edit warring but I sure as hell have experienced it. He edit wars everything and when he's not edit warring, he's throwing out insults and constant personal attacks. If this behavior was anything close to the norm here, I'd have been gone long ago. I truly don't know how he wriggled out of this latest block on such a specious claim that his behavior was excused by BLP. I don't actually dislike BMK, I just wish he could see himself as others see him and recognize just how unpleasant and unnecessary his behavior is. Everything is a WP:BATTLEGROUND with this fellow. It's time to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude toward this stuff until and unless he gets the message and stops once and for all. Msnicki (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Time to start escalating block length for edit warring. Clearly somebody who has been around as long as this editor has knows better; time to fire a shot across the bow. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's not forumshopping, so where is the evidence of the misconduct that BMK has done since the ban was lifted?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the condition he agreed to in return for the block being lifted was that he was going to stop reverting and if he had BLP concerns, he would take them to BLPN. That lasted a mere 50 hours before he was at it again, [60] and [61], again asserting the same specious BLP claims related to Anna Politkovskaya that got him blocked. Msnicki (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking BMK for the Union Square edit war would be unproductive, as blocking is preventative, not punitive and the disruption there appears to have ended when BMK was blocked for the Politkovskaya edit war. However, given the history of edit warring, future consequences should be more severe if the behavior continues, like a 1RR restriction sitewide. clpo13_(talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Msnicki can we get a little better than your understanding, like perhaps the diff that shows his unblock conditions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NP. Here is Drmies insisting he should take it to BLPN rather than reverting: [62] and again [63]. And here is BMK agreeing to those terms: [64] and [65]. Msnicki (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Unblock conditons:

• "BMK, I do want to hear from you that you won't return to reverting (Anna Politkovskaya‎‎), at least not for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Yes, I will take my own advice (see above) and "let things go", take the article off my watchlist, and never return to it. It won't be my concern anymore. BMK (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Well, I don't want it to not be your concern anymore, and I would like you to take the matter up again at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Thank you very much for the unblock, I appreciate it. I have taken the article off my watchlist, and will post to BLPN. BMK (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Diffs: [66], [67], [68], [69]

Later comments on User talk:Drmies:

• @Drmies: Regarding this, I don't need or expect you to say anything about it, but I would appreciate your letting me know if I do go beyond what you intended to be the conditions on my unblock. I don't believe that I have, and because of that I don't think I'm testing any boundaries or editing in "bad faith", but if you think I am, I'll pull back (which, as you know, was my initial impulse in the first place). Thanks, BMK (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [70]

• BMK (and Volunteer Marek), I asked you to not to return to that article and I would unblock you. Whatever you do elsewhere is really not my concern: it is not my place (and not my intent) to issue some sort of a topic ban. The problem, and the reason for the block, was the edit warring. So you removed it on an associated article as well, I believe (don't really want to start digging around right now), but if you're not edit warring there, I don't see what the problem is. I think (sorry Marek et al.) that the focus should be on the more important matter, not on what BMK is messing with this time. Removing the material until there is some sort of consensus that it's not a BLP material should be the proper way to go--call me old-fashioned. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [71]

So it appears to me that Drmies, the unblocking admin, has no trouble with my subsequent edits, including to the article Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, to which I made a single revert, and have not edit warred on. (Nor, for that matter, have I edited the article Anna Politkovskaya since my unblock, which was the actual sole condition of that unblock.) As for Msnicki's comment concerning BLPN, she seems not to be aware that I fulfilled Drmies request, and started this thread on that board, even though I would have preferred to walk away from this mess, because I wanted to honor Drmies request to do so, even though it was not a condition of the unblock.

I will note for the record that Alansohn-- an inveterate edit-warrior himself] -- has had a bug up his behind about me ever since I commented on AN/I that I thought he was the primary problem in the I-Ban dispute between himself and Magnolia-whatever-his-number-is, and that Msnicki and I have been unfriendly since she helped to railroad Dangerous Panda, someone I considered to be a valuable admin, off the site. I see nothing in this thread except blatant retaliation for old and moldering beefs, and I shall not comment on this silly thread again, especially since I've had to deal with this untrue accusations on the BLPN thread, and on a thread just closed on AN. How many more times, and in how many more places am I going to be required to defend myself against blatantly false accusations of bad faith editing from users with an axe to grind? BMK (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no question BMK has been nasty to me, so I'm glad he's not denying it. But I have never returned in kind, not in the Dangerous Panda discussion nor anywhere else. For more, consider the interaction last month at Talk:Flatiron Building#Concerning edits to "Original tenants and subsequent history" where BMK repeatedly insults me and another editor, claiming neither of you will ever be a good writer and that I must be a piss-poor judge of writing, repeatedly questions my good faith, insists wrongly I must be following him and claims WP:OWNERSHIP as his excuse for edit warring and bullying: being the editor with the most edits to it (316, as opposed to your 3), who took it from 8,600 bytes to 15,000 bytes, and then from 18,500 to 37,000 bytes, so you'll excuse me if I have something of a vested interest. Nowhere on that page will you find me responding in kind. I behaved myself. All I did was keep repeating my request that he WP:AGF and, when it still continued, I threatened that if couldn't drop the WP:STICK and persisted with the insults, that I would take it to ANI. I didn't back down but I was NEVER disrespectful. That's just not me. Msnicki (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not responsible for your, or any other editor's, inability to write or edit. When I see bad writing, or bad editing, I revert it, as a matter of course. AGF does not require me to lie to you about your capabilities or lack thereof. My primary responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to the quality of our articles, not towards making you feel good about yourself inappropriately. If you want that, I suggest you check into a self-help clinic, where they'll be glad to take your money and assure you of your self-worth.

In the case at hand, that's really not an issue, except that you have decided to use your own hurt feelings as an excuse for expressing an opinoon about an issue which you have not been involved in, and apparently know nothing about, simply because you assume that anything I do must be wrong. I suggest that you would be better off putting some effort into understanding the issue before you sound off about it. BMK (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. Msnicki (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So... you believe you've proven (or, rather, I've proven) that I should be blocked? Because I think your writing and editing is sub-standard? Is there a particular policy you had in mind that I should be blocked under? BMK (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK was edit warring on Anna Politkovskaya. He was blocked. He agreed to stop edit warring, was unblocked, and has not been edit warring since. He is, of course, mistaken about his responsibility: his responsibility is to follow the Terms of use, which specifically include:

• Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
• Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.

Therefore while he is not responsible for the quality of any other editor's edit, he responsible for acting like a dick. Unfortunately with the closing of WP:RFC/U as ineffective and the lack of an effective civility policy (see WP:Civility meme), there's no quick solution. The majority of the time is he on point (i.e. knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and reasonable in expressing that), but I have observed the chronic pattern Msnicki notes. Personally I find it easiest to ignore his ad hominem nonsense (see WP:Other duck and User:Heimstern/Ignoring_incivility) and refute his occasional misrepresentations of Wikipedia policies with wikilinks to the actual policy. Presumably an interested editor could collect sufficient (i.e. lots) of diffs to show a pattern and present a case for some sort of sanction, but that would be a huge time sink. This ill formed ANI thread -- invalid grounds (edit warring) and wrong forum (this is not "an incident") is unlucky to bring about anything usefulNE Ent 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I am responsible for my edits, just as you are responsible for your lack of content contributions. BMK (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The BLP issue

This text, which some of you are arguing for keeping in the article, is a blatant BLP violation. Just because Putin is unlikely to file suit against Wikipedia is no excuse for attempting to put him on trial within Wikipedia. You all should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is an RfC concerning that text at Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. BMK (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That there's even a debate about this is an abomination. If it were an American or British leader instead of Putin, that text would be shot down, and those pushing for it would be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. Msnicki (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying it IS a fact that Putin orchestrated the assassination? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations cannot be tolerated. Allowing gross BLP violations to stand is thousands of times worse than "incivility". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You realize that incivility towards our editors are generally against living persons? Why is it that saying something negative against a living article subject is "thousands of times worse" than saying something negative against a living editor here? I personally find our volunteers to be as deserving of protection as our article subjects. HighInBC 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Which editors here are accusing other editors of engineering assassinations? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, HighInBC, as an admin and a long-time Wikipedian, you know the emphasis that the WMF puts on the BLP policy being followed. It may have come later in the game, but it -- along with the renewed emphasis on getting rid of copyright violations -- has to be considered the prime-est part of the Wikipedia Prime Directive these days. You also know that "saying something negative against a person" is not' the same thing as a personal attack, and you've surely seen that the trend in WP:CIVILITY enforcement has been towards a more liberal interpretation, not to a stricter one.

NE Ent mentioned above the dismantling of WP:RFC/U, which I thought at the time was a mistake -- and I still think so -- not so much because it was a particualrly effective mechanism, but because it at least provided an outlet for people to blow off steam in a very structured way. Now, every time someone writes "fuck" or "shit", an editor is sure to post on AN/I whining about how they're being mistreated by the "uncivil" behavior. You must know as well as I do that such complaints aren't going to be acted on, except in the most absolutely virulent instances.

Given all that, to equate "saying something negative against a living [Wikipedia editor]" with a BLP violation which accuses by implication a living public figure of being involved in a murder... well, that's just absurd, isn't it? BMK (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree with BLP rules. However, in this particular case, that was not a BLP violation, but simply something that all reliable sources tell [72]. Not telling something that almost all RS tell and removing reliably sourced information (that is what BMK was doing) was an outright violation of WP:NPOV, which is our main policy. Based on their comments, I believe that BMK and some other contributors simply do not know this subject, which is rather complicated. If they knew, they suppose to discuss like here. Please note that among five contributors who reverted edits by BMK on this page four contributors were people who knew these subjects. That was also an edit war by BMK against WP:ConsensusMy very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You say it's not a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs is not the first one to say that it is. As for "knowing the subject", I am not sure what kind of inside knowledge is necessary that cannot be gleaned from the sources. One might as well way--gasp--that those five are not neutral on the topic. I don't wish to make that argument, but it's one that you yourself used in these matters against your opponent. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am only telling that one should really know the subject to make a qualified judgement. That means to study a lot of available sources and to know the underlying political and historical background, writings and biography of the person described on the page, etc. And no, these four contributors have very different views. I have argued a lot with two of them on various noticeboards. If they agreed about something, that means a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So, your theory is that only specialists in a subject area are allowed to make determinations of BLP violations? Funny, I don't seem to find that in the BLP policy itself. BMK (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not a specialist (and I am not a specialist in this), but simply someone familiar with the subject, which frequently requires a lot of background knowledge. For example, I would not edit much on Chinese history and would not blame anyone in this area of BLP violation, unless I knew the subject in depth. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh ffs. It's not a BLP violation. It's something that every. fucking. source. about. the. subject. matter. says. I have not seen it explained a single time how that is supposed to be a BLP violation. Just a bunch of people smugly proclaiming "it's a BLP violation" - that's not enough. You can assert whatever the hell you want as many times as you want but that does not make it true. You are suppose to EXPLAIN and ELABORATE, based on policy, not just mindlessly parrot the same thing over and over again. I have seen it explained more than a dozen of times about how it's not a BLP violation.

Anyway. Why is this is even being discussed here?  Volunteer Marek  21:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of sources can also be found to talk about Richard Gere and gerbils, but that's not a ticket to inclusion in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are they reliable sources? LjL (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Why is this is even being discussed here?" Exactly. User:Beyond My Ken's strategy is to obfuscate about his edit warring. The same guy who before last week was a five-time loser on edit warring charges, managed to trigger two bright line 3RR violations in one day. By shoveling the bullshit as thickly as possible and claiming that he was justified on a BLP basis to revert five different editors on eight separate occasions at the Anna Politkovskaya article, he hopes to avoid scrutiny for his four reverts that same day at Union Square, Manhattan, where BLP doesn't apply. Anticipate more of this tendentious wikilawyering from BMK and his apologists. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I guess I must have used my "Baseball Bugs" persona to bring up the BLP issue in this thread. Sorry, I meant to use my "Jimbo Wales" persona to give it more gravitas. My mistake. BMK (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In any event, I do agree with Volunteer Marek that this is really not the right place to discuss the BLP issue per se, as opposed to how it relates to my editing. The proper place to discuss it is in this thread I started on BLPN, although I guess I'm duty bound to note that someone started an RfC about it here, even though that is not the proper place for it once the BLPN discussion had been started. BMK (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As for Alan... well, he's the proverbial boy who cried wolf. Sometimes it's a fox he sees, sometimes a poodle, and occasionally a German shepherd - he gets close, but never quite hits the target. And, of course, he never mentions the wolf costume he's got hanging in the closet. BMK (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Next steps

The problem here is that User:Beyond My Ken is using his usual song and dance to evade scrutiny. It's always someone else's fault; There's always an excuse; There's always some reason to ignore the crux of the problem, which is that BMK has failed to learn that edit warring is a violation of a fundamental Wikipedia principle. I'm willing to ignore the Politkovskaya article for now, as it only serves to perpetuate BMK's excuses. That same exact day, he had four separate reverts at the article for Union Square, Manhattan, where BLP is not an issue. He committed a bright line violation for the 22nd time on top of his six existing blocks for edit warring. Reopen the Union Square report and let justice take its course. Maybe a seventh block for edit warring will help prevent further such abuse by BMK. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Alan, I am very quick to admit that I'm wrong when I'm actually wrong. I actually enjoy finding out something new that I didn't know before, or having my previous beliefs corrected. I hope I never stop learning new stuff. You would know all this if you were reading my talk page without a jaundiced eye, instead of doing so to glean more data to use against me. BMK (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Geez, I've already admitted that I'm an evil person. Tell ya what, send your butcher over to my place and he can carve out a pound of flesh for you; I need to lose some weight anyway. BMK (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Yeah, I know, I said I wouldn't comment on this thread again. So I'm human, so sue me. BMK (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oh, right, he is suing me! BMK (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, "song and dance"? While my singing used to be adequate (All-State Chorus, leads in high school musicals), it now just provokes groans. On the other hand, my dancing is... not so much. BMK (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In respone to Alansohn, I believe it could fairly be said that there exists a very real chance that only a part of the problem can be said to be due to BMK. Although I am rather grateful that Alansohn has managed to avoid discussion at the various noticeboards for six months, the older discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles I think indicates that BMK can hardly be said to be the only one whose conduct might in and of itself constitute a problem. I think a very thorough review of the entirety of this discussion, and any recent interactions between Alansohn and BMK, is probably called for, something I personally, unfortunately, am not in a position to do myself today.

In response to BMK, thankfully, singing and dancing talent are rather irrelevant here. And, if you knew me personally, you would know that I am very, very grateful for that being the case. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all of us are blessed with talent, and thank goodness for that, otherwise there'd be no critics (ba-dum-bum).

You're right that Alansohn's problems with Magnolia677 aren't appearing regularly on the noticeboards anymore, but that has less to do with greater control on his part, and more to do with M677 just giving up on editing New Jersey articles ([73] and search for "New Jersey" or "NJ") due to the constant problems. On the other hand, Alansohn is sure to pop up and spout his spiel about me whenever anyone accuses me of edit-warring, never acknowledging, of course, his own checkered past in that respect.

Doorbell! I wonder if it's the butcher?BMK (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's only one way out if this morass: upload a short, 30 second clip of you singing a tune, any tune. If it's good, you won't be blocked. Problem solved? :) Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm doomed! DOOMED I tell ya!! BMK (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How about "All Apologies" sung like Ethel Merman? Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was think more along the lines of "I Gotta Be Me" sung in the style of Tiny Tim, or Sinatra's "My Way" as performed by Spike Jones. BMK (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So, WP administrators, you've been presented with a problem here. You're charged with moderating user behavior, so how do you handle this one? Are you going to kick the can down the street like you all usually do when it involves an established editor who has a group of supporters who are also established editors and admins? I can't wait to see what innovative solution you all can come up with. I'm sure you all will handle it with astute aplomb and this problem will be put to bed for good. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

They will do what they always do: protect the wrong version, block the content editors, and unblock the crazies. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, tricky one. Can we block the peanut gallery first and see if that makes life simpler? Guy (Help!) 00:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Given his history of edit warring and incivility, I would support blocking Beyond My Ken the next time such issues arise. Previous warnings don't seem to have worked well enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem

The problem here seems to be that BMK is waving the "BLP violation" card , which he knows very well gives an exemption to most policies around editorial games of silly buggers, in order to remove material that is merely crap. The most recent edit war at Anna Politkovskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) might be interpreted as removing a BLP violation but is much better stated as conspiracist bollocks that should be taken to Talk, with the onus placed on those seeking to include it, to obtain consensus. Since that article seems to be the motive for this report, which appears to be retaliatory, protecting that article looks like the best next step. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And, unfortunately, I guess it could be argued crappy content in a BLP might qualify as a BLP violation of some sort, maybe, I guess. One way or another, though, protection looks like a good idea. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Its also possible that Arbcom is a better path, if it wasnt already overloaded and slow. AlbinoFerret 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Guy: When the "compiracist bollocks" implies that a living person was involved in some way with a murder, there's really no doubt that's a BLP violation, even if the living person is Vladamir Putin. BMK (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure "conspiracist bollocks" is on the mark; The Economist, for example, does not generally engage in wild-eyed conspiracy theories. More a question of WP:WEIGHT. A larger concern is that dubious invocations of WP:BLP risk degrading the community's concern for real BLP problems. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but (1) The Economist simply does what all the other sources provided by the advocates of inclusion do, which is to confirm that the speculation and theorizing exists, without actually providing evidence for the connection. There has never been a dispute that the conspiracy theory exists, so it does not serve to solve the problem.

(2) I look at the BLP issue from entirely the opposite view. The reason there's a BLP exemption to 3RR is to provide protection for the violation-removing editor, who is simply trying to protect one of our articles, much as whistleblower legislation protects those who serve society by revealing problems in businesses or government. Because of that, there is not (or should not be) any requirement that the BLP violation is absolutely proven beyond any doubt or is blatantly obvious on its face (although I believe that in this case it is), but simply that the editor removing the BLP violation had a reasonable belief that it was a true violation. In this instance, I had that belief, drawn from the previous 3RR report, where a commenting admin agreed it was " very well-grounded BLP concern" and "[t]hinly-veiled innuendo". Given that, I should have been afforded the protection called for in 3RRNO. Instead, an admin used their own idiosyncratic and non-standard interpretation of BLP policy enforcement to block me. That block was overturned, so it really should not be an issue, although there are those here who wish to keep it front and center. BMK (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the Economists and other sources doesn't just "confirm that theorizing exists". It does not say "theorizing exists" or anything of the sort. The Economist, like all the other sources say "this happened on this day". Volunteer Marek  02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There has never, at any time been a dispute about the fact that the murder occurred on Vladimir Putin's birthday. That you don't seem to understand the difference between a dry fact and the libelous innuendo that reporting the fact carries is disturbing -- but, then again, the material you're so desperately trying to get into the article does a lot more than simply say "such-and-such happened on this day", it actually goes into the conspiracy theory, the speculation about the date being an indication of a connection between Putin and the murder. That you cannot see that that is a extremely serious BLP violation brings me to believe that you just don't care if it is or not, just as long as anti-Putin material gets into the article. BMK (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, the problem is that the BLP edit warring exemption is only for unambiguous instances. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. This is from WP:3RRNO:

7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

There is no mention of being "unambiguous". There is a suggestion to consider going to the BLP noticeboard instead of removing, but it's not mandatory.

In many instances of BLP violations, there is going to be a block of editors intent on keeping the material in the article, usually for POV reasons, which is why there's an exemption, so that a single editor can work to prevent that block from biasing the article, without being dinged for edit-warring. For this reason, comments on this and other threads about the number of editors I reverted, or the number of reverts I made are irrelevant. If the BLP exemption doesn't cover multiple reverts against multiple editors, then it is not an exemption at all, and attempts to interpret it in that manner are, in fact, gutting the intent of the exemption. BMK (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The above applies to material which is poorly sourced or unsourced. This material is so well sourced that you couldn't source it better. Volunteer Marek  02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Gee, you overlooked "libelous" and "biased", as well as the fact that the connectior between the terms is "or" and not "and". I wonder how that happened? BMK (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you. It's a BLP violation and there should have been an exemption. But just let those who want to push the Fringe conspiracy crap into the articles have their way. The Admins who have permitted this can take the hit if there is one. I would say it's time to step away, ignore these reports, and move to different articles. It should also be obvious to the editors making these reports that there is not going to be any action taken on this issue. Any editor who does not believe that there could be no good faith objection to inserting that material on BLP violation grounds, should not be allowed to edit BLPs. But it's time for everyone to just move on. Dave Dial (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Dave: I am no longer editing the article, or the companion article on the assassination itself, and the only reason I'm still here is to correct inaccurate information, claims, and charges against me. I'd be more than happy to put this behind me -- in fact I tried to do so immediately after my unblock, but the hits just kept on coming, with everyone and their grandmother wanting to have their say, and making the same errors of fact and interpretation over and over again. I can't turn back time and undo the block that was improperly levied against me (giving more ammunition for the Alansohns of the world for the future), and, to be honest, I no longer give a fuck about whether that one article is biased or not. On the other hand, I am concerned that people -- even long-time admins -- seem not to understand why we have a BLP policy, how it is policed by the community, and the proper role of administrators in protecting BLP "whistleblowers". That does not auger well for the encyclopedia as an accurate and unbiased source of information. BMK (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not "fringe conspiracy crap" if it's mentioned by every single source on the subject. *You* think it's fringe conspiracy crap because it just "sounds" like fringe conspiracy crap. To you. But that's not how it seems to sources, which obviously think there's a connection between the date of the murder and the murder itself. This complete unfamiliarity with sources (and complete disregard for sources!) is what I believe MVBW was referring to above when they pointed out that competence is required. Volunteer Marek  02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This conversation was already held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive275#Request_of_independent_evaluation_of_my_actions_in_Anna_Politkovskaya, page was already protected, then unprotected when the edit warring ceased. The Rfc on the talk page will end, and a consensus will be determined. NE Ent 02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you closed the AN discussion -- which really had very little actual discussion about Ymblanter's action in blocking me -- before there was a consensus. Aside from that, as a participant you shouldn't have closed it at all, and as a non-admin you shouldn't have closed a discussion thread about a highly contentious subject. But that's water over the bridge, or under the dam, or whatever. BMK (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Australian dollar article needs a lock

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

---

Australian dollar is being targeted by vandals who think they're funny, on the back of a petition to change the article to "Dollarydoos" (The Simpsons reference). Can we please put a temporary lock on the article until this fad passes? Ck786 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's vandalism but it seems attached to a current active movement to rename Aussie Currency Dollarydoos. I don't think it's to be funny per se.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN has protected the article for a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

By odd coincidence... (Most of the jokes would probably only make sense to residents, but do note the "A" from AC/DC as a security feature on the $ 50 note.) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please block this obvious troll?

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

---

User:Udoks is an obvious troll. For those not in the know, some Gamergate supporters have a plan to destroy Wikipedia by making it so "pro-SJW," that no one can take it seriously. This guy is clearly trying to execute such a plan. The obvious sarcasm in their actions can be seen by reading their comments at Talk:Air conditioning (I've left an analysis below the hat). Now they are pulling similar crap at [Breitbar News Network https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_News_Network&diff=prev&oldid=686104089] and on its talk page. Can someone please block this person so they stop wasting our time. Brustopher (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE, and there's a good chance that they're already blocked under another account, the rhetoric looks familiar. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

OWN TV and User:RobinColclough

• OWN TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RobinColclough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today saw the latest in a long series of attempts by the self-serving single purpose account User:RobinColclough. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia but instead considers Wikipedia a personal soapbox, advertising platform and legal battleground possibly centered on Trademark trolling. I've no idea what to do about. Please help. Here is the latest diff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OWN_TV&type=revision&diff=686485073&oldid=659963762

Thanks. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#OWN_TV before seeing this. Deli nk (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through their contribs and can't see a single edit where they haven't been promoting their products/trademark. e.g. [74] [75] which added information about ViewPoint 3D (deleted at AFD). WP:NOTHERE appears to apply. Note that this came up here in April but no action was taken. SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SageGreenRider what is your problem?! OWNTV is my legal trademark, if someone tries to use it for their own business, such as Oprah Winfrey Network has, then you seem to think I should shut up, and let them also promote it through Wikipedia? Any page or reference to OWNTV or so very similar OWN TV must only refer to the legally registered trademark, not a commercial business. Clearly a lawyer needs to give you some advice on this. I start to wonder if you have a commercial or personal interest in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And look at the ViewPoint3D page that you guys took out! Its a viable 3D software, with a growing user-base, but you decided to erase it because its not got a big enough following? I thought Wikipedia was about sharing information, as you´re not 3D experts, why should you be able to decided to remove a page about a new 3D software, the only one that directly produces multiview autostereoscopic output with live data? Are some of the wiki decision makers, in this case two of you, making decisions that don't follow public interest? RobinColclough (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE, as noted above, and the user seems to carrying an external legal dispute onto Wikipedia (with associated possible WP:NLT implications in some of RobinColclough's statements), perhaps an administrator should just block the user and refer them to Wikipedia's legal department. Deli nk (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@RobinColclough, I have no commercial or personal interest in Oprah Winfrey. I'm aware of her, but I'm not a fan and I don't ever remember watching even one of her shows. At most I've see a few clips here and there. My issue is clearly stated in my original Notification here. Wikipedia is a community-built encyclopedia, not the righter of wrongs, not a champion of the underdog, not a legal battleground, not a soapbox, and not an advertising platform. Please see WP:FIVEPILLARS SageGreenRider (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Very much WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Keynesian economics page "criticisms" in edit war

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

---

There was disagreement between several users about how a criticism of Keynesian economics should be worded. As per wikipedia rules, I so stated on the "Talk" page, and requested third parties to give their input.

Instead of complying with wikipedia rules, two users took it upon themselves to undo my edits, without discussion or consensus. User "Darx9url" even went so far as to complain on the talk page under my request for discussion -- so he obviously knew there was a debate. Yet he arrogantly deleted my edit as though he was the final arbiter of a debate that never happened. His stated reasons were hopelessly hypocritical, accusing me of using the same "non neutral point of view" words that are all over the austrian economics page. Why are these criticism words it OK on one page, yet not on another?

And what possible excuse does this biased "journalist" Darx9url have for deleting another users edit when he sees the matter is up for discussion and comment? What happened to the idea that wikipedians are supposed to build consensus and not have a select group of arrogant users dictate opinion? The user Darx9url must be suspended for wikipedia to maintain any credibility on any economics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogreggy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:81.156.94.220

For at least the last couple months, 81.156.94.220 has been removing content without explanation and making other strange edits. The user most often removes dubbing roles (i.e., roles originally in another language) from Japanese voice actor articles (e.g., these edits [76] [77] and tons of similar edits - see Special:Contributions/81.156.94.220). The user has also made some other nonsensical edits such as [78], which seemed to edit a character description to add information on a completely different character from a completely different TV show. The user has already been blocked once for these edits, but continues to make the same kind of edits. As far as I can tell, the person has never given any explanation for the edits or communicated with anyone anywhere. Can something please be done about that user? Calathan (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried AIV but my request was deleted. The IP edits also delete properly sourced information. The IP also changes subsection headers to violate MOS such as "Other dubbing" to "Other Dubbing". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

While I initially thought the edits were vandalism, I not so sure anymore. I think it is more likely that the editor honestly thinks the edits are improving the articles in some way, but is unwilling to discuss them or to listen to the people who keep reverting them. The edits are definitely problematic, but I don't think AIV is the place for this, which is why I brought this here. Calathan (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

After looking at what happened with the AIV report, it looks like it was removed by accident. This edit [79] was meant to remove rejected reports, but it took out your report as well even though it hadn't been addressed at all, apparently because someone else indented their report under yours by mistake. I still don't think AIV is the right place for this, but if you do think it is the right place, you could probably just add your report back in. Calathan (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Jithan 2

On the page, Jithan 2, there are two IP addresses that have changed the producer and director to Rahul. I have a difficult time believing that the producer is also the director. I'm sure there are mistakes in there, but I don't know exactly what they are and who made them. CLCStudent (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat and clear COI

I just received a legal threat after I reverted a change the article by an official of the party concerned. This sort of thing needs to be stamped on if an admin would pick it up? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will also note that the obviously WP:COI-encumbered editor also created a parallel WP:Fork at English Democrats Party (Official), aside from trying to introduce their party's official POV into the main article. LjL (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I indef'ed User:Ste.Morris for the legal threat, though I also see editorial/ToS violations that would need to be resolved before allowing this editor back. I deleted English Democrats Party (Official) as COISPAM in addition to the speedy-FORK tag added by User:RichardOSmith (User:CorenSearchBot had also marked it as copyvio based on the cut'n'paste from the fork'ed parent). DMacks (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As a COI issue, I was worried that we might have to deal with this at WP:COIN. But with the POV fork gone and the COI editor out of the picture for now, I put my notes on that on Talk:English Democrats, where others can deal with the relative right-wingness of the five or so minor parties to the right of the Conservative Party (UK). John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As a further note, the now-blocked editor has posted a line on their own talk page which I was thinking might amount to another legal threat, so it might benefit from being looked at. LjL (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RBI'ed. Per WP:NLT, not allowed to do anything here except revoke the threat, so I've removed his editorial discussion and further/re-interated threat (guess I could have left that, but he didn't seem to need more ROPE) and reblocked with talk disabled. User:Mooregraham is another likely COI-editor on this same article who will need to be watched. DMacks (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Spammer at work

User:Bennett5555 is an SPA all of whose edits appear intended to promote "Bennett Awards", a high-end supplier of trophies for award ceremonies. While their edits ostensibly add information about awards to celebrity bios, most if not all the awards are non-notable, and the references cited are promotional pages/press releases on the "Bennett Awards" website and typically describe the article subjects as "recipients of recognition awards custom designed by Bennett Awards for the" awardgivers, making the trophy maker more prominent/important than the awardgiver. It's clear the editor needs at least a username block; my only question is whether all their edits should be rolled back (my impression) or if any of the awards are significant enough to call for cleanup and resourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)