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

User:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda

User is citing unreliable and inaccessible sources to stamp his Jainism religion on historic figures like Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. Nature of religions keeps evolving over centuries and millenia. It is impossible to tell what was religion of historic figures, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism or some other similar religion. There will always be conflicting sources. It is better not to stamp religion on historic figures but user looks religious fundamentalist with specific agenda on wiki. You decide. I don't want 'honor' of getting blocked third time for edit warring. neo (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jainism by Helmuth Von Glasenapp publisher Motilal Banarasidass is a perfectly reliable source. If you doubt the reliability, you could have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you didn't provide a reliable source to any conflicting claim. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not just about reliable sources. I believe that as you are 'Jain', you are pushing your religious 'Jainism' agenda through dubious sources and edit warring. I googled about Chanakya. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website says that Chanakya studied Vedas. this and this history authors says that Chanakya was brahmin. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing brahmin caste with Chanakya. So I believe Chanakya was Hindu. And on Chandragupta Maurya you again reverted my edit with 1 inaccessible and 1 fake source. neo (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am 100% sure that you are sockpuppet of User:Rahuljain2307 who was blocked after this sockpuppet investigation. I request admins to confirm this. neo (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually Rahuljain2307 is no longer blocked but hasn't edited since 20 January 2013. The Rahul RJ Jain was created on 29 January, so I'd like to ask them if they are indeed one and the same editor. Abandoning an old account for a clean start is not sockpuppetry but it would be good to know the link between them. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the same editor. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He was blocked for a week on 20 January 2013 and he created this new account the very next day on 21 January, NOT 29 January(clearly to create another sockpuppet on very next day). He made first edit on 29 January and resumed as if continuation of previous account. neo (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul RJ Jain has above admitted that he is same editor as User:Rahuljain2307. Above admin indicated that this is not sockpuppetry but I think when user create new account during period of the block his intention is to avoid block, not clean start. He is daring me in edit warring without worrying about block as there is always new sockpuppet. neo (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also suspicious about this account which was created, made some edits during his block period and then vanished. neo (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I admit that I only looked at the contributions by Rahul RJ Jain. But the log states indeed that this account was created on 21 January while Rahuljain2307 was blocked. For a start I have now indefinitely blocked Rahul RJ Jain as an illegitimately created account. I haven't yet looked into the history of their edits about Jainism and historic figures, or any edit wars, so I left Rahuljain2307 and Rk195057 open for editing, but given the past socking activities (The Fake ID) I wouldn't be surprised if there were more incarnations.

Help from fellow administrators will be appreciated as I need to go offline now. Please administer further blocks as you see fit. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After study I think Rk195057 is unrelated. I will remove his religion edits in Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya, Bimbisara & close this matter.neo (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rk195057's edits don't seem to fit those by Rahul Jain. The latter has now requested unblocking so as to participate in this discussion without returning to his old account. I don't see any need to abandon the first account, so I'll leave that decision to an uninvolved admin. As to the claim of pushing an agenda and using poor sources, let me say the following: While he seems to use reliable sources when it comes to Jainism in general (e.g. [1]), I don't see how those sources that were later removed by Neo ([2], [3]) are unreliable when it comes to attributing Jainism to specific persons. What bothers me more is the deliberate creation of new accounts, i.e. Fake ID and Rahul RJ Jain, to circumvent restrictions. While the Rahul RJ Jain account was not used for editing during the masterblock it shouldn't have been created in the first place. De728631 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since my appeal to unblock was declined, I have switched back to my previous account (much to my dislike, but I will honour the decision of the admins). I will continue to edit wikipedia with this account in future. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent edit stalking

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [4] (newly created by me)
• [5]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16] (newly created by me)
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20] (newly created by another editor)
• [21]
• [22] (diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

and most recently, today: [23]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).

In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).

I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]], [29], [30]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Talk:Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], ... [39]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides such that I cannot to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [40]; and another: [41] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [42].

But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How many editors do you see stalking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has written from scratch. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, but it's not an over-simlification, it's a gross misrepresentation. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that infoboxes on Wikipedia are used to extract structured content using machine learning algorithms?" (Yesterday's Main page) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the remarks by the closing admin:

Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.

• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion. (my emphasis)
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

and here is the guideline that the admin is referring to:

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.

I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MOS states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. and that notice above the edit window says Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, Forsbrook Pendant, I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of BWV 103, mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.

Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.

Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia:Infobox is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the only person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The viewed as problematic point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by User:Magioladitis in Talk:Arthur Worsley. Can you point me to the clause in wp:consensus stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to WP:OWN, however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki has said: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward.]". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about this response, but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" further up the road, but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for MANY editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at Peter Planyavsky for the first time the same day I installed an infobox (see talk), and on Andreas Scholl right after I reverted the collapsing of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, letting go of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:David-golota disruptive editing and personal attacks

Since I don't want to start breach WP:3RR rule, I'm reporting here User:David-golota disruptive behaviour in List of Polish football champions article. He simply copypasted a content from Ekstraklasa[43] article and put into existing list[44] which include all Polish championships (not Ekstraklasa only), and also includes second and third places like you can see there[45]. So now, the list of champions is incomplete, there are no champions from 1946 and 1947 listed and there are no runners-up and third places like in other similar lists: List of German football champions or List of English football champions. Also two other tables he copypasted from Ekstraklasa articles [46] are incomplate as they don't include Polish champions from 1921-26 and 1946-47 when Ekstraklasa was not played.

Also this user is not able to comunicate in civil way and always personal attacks me in his comments like[47], [48], [49] or User_talk:Oleola#Not_the_BOSS.--Oleola (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I remind people that this complaint seems to have been left unresolved due to the unrelated drama below? From a quick look, it appears that User:Oleola's complaint is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oleola is a Wisla Krakow fan and many users have complained about him and his way to ruin alot of Polish soccer articles. He always want to make Wisla Krakow a team with 14 championship. But they only have 13. Way do he want to make the article about Polish football champions ugly and bad? Beacuse on the article Wisla only have 13 championship and Ruch Chorzow 14. Im not fan of neither team. Im not fan of any polish football team. I just want to make the articles better.

Oleola did NOT create any of the boxes or any of the text that is in the article of Polish Champion. It is not his work. Somebody else made all the graphs and statistics. He is just being childish. He always wants the articles to be like he thinks they should be. Look at my editing history. All of my work has been legit. Oleola just cant handle something not going his way.

David-golota (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) David Golota

who created the graphics and statistics is irrelevant. What matters is whether they are correct according to sources. From what I can see, the article doesn't cite any sources at all, and without them, nobody can possibly say who is right or wrong. I suggest that rather than slinging insults you find the necessary sources, and then discuss this on the article talk page. If you can't agree after finding sources, you could perhaps try one of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

David-golota your accusations are ridiculous, nobody ever wrote in List of Polish football champions that Wisła was Polish football champions 14 times so please stop lying. If you can't understand that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not a competiton for Polish football championship, that's your problem. And don't know why are you talking about Wisła, because that's not a point. You removed runners-up and third places without any explanations (just beacasue you copypasted from Ekstraklasa the list with one change in 1951 season) and copypasted two incomplete tables from Ekstraklasa article - that's the point. So please tell us why you do that and stop talking about Oleola and stop making personal attacks because it reflects only on you. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Oleola (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. Frankly, though, David seems to have some real problems editing at Wikipedia. I don't know how much of it is language, incompetence, or POV. After he arguably vandalized this board, I left him a message warning him and asking for an explanation as there was always a possibility, however slim, that it was accidental. He then left me this clueless message on my talk page. Still, I didn't feel I could block him for edit warring and not also block Oleola.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic diversion regarding a troll

Here be trolls. De728631 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The accused user is currently being invesigated and we will get back to you shortly. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Really? Investigated by whom? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) AlldiRessie (talk · contribs) looks like a troll. The account is two days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am not a troll, and the investigation will be investigated by us, the Wikipedians. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Someone who complained about the use of "you're" is going to investigate? No thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) User:Bwilkins, please be civil. Pointing out these silly points is childish. Lets go back on track. I am investigating this matter, just give me some time. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am being civil - this is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. You've been here for 2 days, have caused a ruckus, insulted people, told people they need mentoring because they used a contraction on their talkpage, and now you're leading an investigation? Seriously - step back. Your comments may be welcome, but you're not the "investigator", so don't tell people to back off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting text on User:AlldiRessies user page: "User:Kauffner is my friend. I am a product of User:Kauffner and his team of sockpuppets". Thomas.W (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This warning on my talkpage is also interesting ... the sheer lack of a clue here is overwhelming (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) See [50]. Faking posts by Jimbo Wales? Clueless beyond belief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) ... and that is the nail in the coffin. Indeffed. Someone disagree, go ahead and change it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

major blp vio needing revdel

Talk:Ted_Nugent#BLP_VIO Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please contact oversight directly about these issues in the future; I happened to notice this thread, so I suppressed the content in question, but it's much more efficient to just point us to the content privately in the first place if you're an editor pointing out a BLP problem or an admin carrying out an RD2. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter. For those who don't know, there's a list of admins that can be contacted by email at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. The email address for oversight is shown in an edit notice at the top of this page. My experience with that service has been that the response time is excellent (within minutes). -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that that was the preferred process in situations like this. I will do so going forward, thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Adamlouismarre

It seems that the only purpose of this account is to make disruptive edits to this template. I already opened an ANI notice six months ago about this very silly question, and just now I have written him a message on his talk page that he saw fit to delete immediately and went back to revert without even giving an explanation. Could someone please take care of this troll?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

While I've found some problematic edits by Adamlouismarre (battlefield mentality: "I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document", and removal of an other editor's comment), I'm currently trying to understand the statistics behind that template. It's linking to the UN's Human Development Report 2013, and the issue in this slow but long-term edit war seems to be about the number of countries in the document that are ranked in the so-called Gender Inequality Index. On page 31 of the current report, they write that "Based on 2012 data for 148 countries, the GII shows large variations..." That is also the total number in the template as restored in this edit by Underlying lk. At the talk page, Adamlouismarre wrote that one of those countries should not be considered at all because it doesn't have any programs that actively enforce changes in gender inequality. The counter-argument is that the template links to a table of countries rather than to the explanatory text in the document. And that's where I'm having a problem with the current data: The Gender Inequality Index (GII) table starting at p. 156 of the 2013 report lists 186 countries and territories sorted by their Human Development Index, but 37 of them are not ranked in the GII. 186-37=149, which is still incompatible with the statement on p. 31 (data for 148 countries), not to mention Adamlouismarre's counting of 147.

So instead of reverting each other, I suggest the following: don't try to publish your own version of statistics; both the subjective counting of countries in a table, and the equally subjective exclusion of one country from the list because of its perceived inappropriate preconditions can be stamped off as original research. How the UN calculated their index is explained in the summary on p. 31: "data for 148 countries". That, and only that, should be reflected in the template – not what you think might be the 'real' base of calculations. De728631 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The bigger issue for me is not this (relatively petty) dispute, but the complete and demonstrable unwillingness of this Adamlouismarre to discuss matters in a civil manner, and to make a serious argument to justify his edits. He can't even decide how many countries should be included: one time is 145, another time 147. It's like any number is fine with him, as long as his opponent doesn't 'win'. That's hardly constructive behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Being Vandalized

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

---

The User:Beerest355 has been vandalizing me for quite some time now. The user has been tracking my edits from various articles like for example, Bob's Burgers (season 4); The user has been getting into edit wars with me about the user's own opinions, then the user changes from Fall to September. I undid the user's edit for a reason, when I clicked the reference link next to what the user typed in, that website took me to a Tumblr website created by someone and actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr. I undid it and told the user if he undid the edit, it'd be considered vandalism and I'd report the user. Obviously, I guess he wanted me to report him because what do you know, he undid my edit and told me to check the reference which the user knows that I already did. Honestly, the user has been variously turning my words on me for other articles like Family Guy (season 12), The Simpsons (season 25), Bob's Burgers (season 4), and etc. I don't know if the user is trying to get me annoyed by this or the user wants to cause problems with me. Honestly, I don't even care what the user's trying to do. If the user continues to vandalize me because the user thinks that I have spelling/grammar problems, the user should be blocked. --Archcaster (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• He isn't "vandalising" you (see WP:VANDAL) but he is insisting on using a blog for a reliable source, and it isn't a reliable source. You forgot to notify him using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} tag, and I've done that for you. It is required, ping/linking isn't enough notification. You both are edit warring a bit there, and really this is a matter for WP:DRN, not WP:ANI since it is about content. I'm not sure if he is following you, or just that you have similar interests ('toons) so not ready to jump to that conclusion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think you need to capitalize fall, summer, spring per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS as they aren't proper nouns. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, can you tell him to stop following my edits on various articles, the user is acting like a know it all. What kind of user puts a blog as a reference? I already undid his edit earlier and we all know that he's gonna add it back on when he logs on. --Archcaster (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it could be that he has similar interests. Don't edit war, and again, file at WP:DRN if he keeps reverting. Continuing to revert back, even if you are right, can get you both blocked. As for "what kind of editor", he might say the same about capitalizing the seasons, so it is better to just assume good faith and try to engage outside of an edit summary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember also that this is a global encyclopedia, so fall in the US is spring in the southern hemisphere. For that reason it is good to avoid the use of those seasons, except to the extent they are in quotes, or otherwise relevant, so I would support changing fall to September.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the user or you has proof that the 4th season of Bob's Burgers is premiering in September, it should be remained fall. --Archcaster (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And the seasons are relative to the country to which it is being released. I haven't looked at all the sources, but I bet they are saying "this fall". Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! That's why it shouldn't be changed to September "whatever" 2013 if Fox or the other sources didn't announced anything yet.--Archcaster (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is more for WP:DRN or better yet, the talk page of the article first (per our requirement you try to work it out on the talk page first). This just goes to show that you might be right on some points, wrong on others, and not everyone agrees on yet more. ANI is about incidents, and I'm not convinced he is stalking you, and more likely he just likes 'toons as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if anything else happens like if he reverts or undoes again, I report you, the WP:DRN, or both? --Archcaster (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It means you need to stay calm, go to the talk page of the article, present your case in neutral terms, and invite him to do the same. If he won't participate, or won't in good faith, then go to WP:DRN. Our goal here is always to solve problems with the least amount of interference as possible, and most of these kinds of issues can be solved by the two editors themselves if they will remain calm and just discuss the disagreement. This also allows other editors of the same article to participate. You might read WP:BRD and he would be good to do the same. Regardless, stop reverting back and forth or you will end up getting both of you blocked for WP:edit warring. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you being unwilling to discuss this with User:Beerest355, Archcaster, while the former has made attempts to discuss it with you puts you in a not-so-great light. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Like I asked before..., do I report to you, the WP:DRN, or both if anything else happens? --Archcaster (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did answer your question if you read it fully. You never "report" to me, I'm not in charge. No one is. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What if I report to the WP:DRN, and they don't do anything to make the vandalism of the user stop? --Archcaster (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first step is to raise it on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user. So far you have done neither, so it's nowhere near the stage for WP:DRN or WP:ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please start back at my first comment, and read slowly. This isn't vandalism. There is no need for me to repeat what I've already said. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Archcaster: There is no vandalism going on. On Wikipedia, vandalism is defined at "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Disagreements between editors is not vandalism. And you don't go to WP:DRN to "report" someone. You go there so that uninvolved editors can help resolve the disagreements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

and (edit conflict)For the record DRN rarely acts until a dispute has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages for the article in question. WP:3O or WP:RFC would seem to be the more useful steps at this point in the process. Once again please stop calling the edits vandalism because that is not what they are. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: You should first attempt to resolve the issues on the article talk page which neither of you are using. Attempt to explain why you made your changes, and give them a chance to respond. Continue discussing the matter until you can come to some sort of agreement. If you can't, follow WP:DR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I planned to do if he keeps vadalizing the articles. Also, if he's not doing vandalism, what exactly is he doing? --Archcaster (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I count five times in the text above where people have explained to you that it's not vandalism. Vandalism usually involves the word "poop" or similar juvenilia. You have a disagreement. Discuss it with the other party and see if you can come to an agreement and stop making accusations of vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: Wikipedia's explanation on what vandalism is and isn't is here: WP:VANDAL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I linked that in the first few words of my first comment, and that isn't the only thing that has had to be repeated. Archcaster needs to slow down and actually read what has been said here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I can read, just to let you know. Second of all, I'm not repeating anything, y'all are not being reasonable to the words that you say, that's why I ask the questions that you think that I'm doing on purpose so y'all can repeat yourselves, I'm not doing that. --Archcaster (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here I am. I just want to say that the Behind Bob's Burgers blog is indeed the official blog of the Bob's Burgers writers. Here is the official Bob's Burgers Twitter account posting about it. I should've stated that, sorry. It is a reliable source, and seeing as how the blog states the new season will start in September, I think it is appropriate. "actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr" isn't really nice, or civil. I also really truly fail to see why you are mentioning the Family Guy/The Simpsons articles. I have already told you several times that capitalizing "fall" is not correct. Beerest355 Talk 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you forgot to tell me about how you got "behindtheburgers.com" from, you should of told me on my talk page when you send me a message yesterday. Anyway, I understand now that fall being capitalized is incorrect, obviously. I didn't know that you got the website from their Twitter. I was mostly concerned because when I went on the link, it looked like someone created a blog of the website on Tumblr, that's why I undid your edit. Next time, be specific about what you type in and what it's about. --Archcaster (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "reliable source" is a reasonably well defined term in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. While blogs can be used in some rare circumstances, they are not generally reliable sources, even if they are the official blog of anything. So please do not assert that the blog source is a reliable source, it almost certainly is not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how this blog is related to and is run by the show, I think this one can fit the bill. Beerest355 Talk 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Not unless you get it approved at the RS noticeboard, which is possible, but unlikely. Someone would have to show that it is subject to editorical control, which is possible, but not easy to prove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources such as blogs can be used as reliable sources in either one of the following two situations:

• When its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party reliable sources. This means that we can cite Stephen Hawking's blog (assuming he has one) on black holes if we want.
• Self-published can be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-promotional or exceptional
2. it does not involve claims about third parties
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources

This means that we can cite the official Star Wars web site on AT-ATs, for example. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both Archcaster and Beerest355 have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. A page protection request was denied for a very unusual reason. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think that adding another revert to the edit-war is the way to solve a content dispute.[51] Why not start a discussion on the talk page? Or if the reliability of this source is in question, take it to WP:RSN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For several hours now the two editors involved have been told to start a discussion on the talk page yet it is still pristine. Page protection in such circumstances is normal. Why should GSK have to start a discussion at RSN, or the talk page for that matter, when the two involved editors have ignored all attempts to get them to engage in conversation? MarnetteD | Talk 01:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Because edit-warring is never the way to solve a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion for Behind Bob's Burgers at the WP:RSN. I also do not think this is an ongoing conflict anymore, as Archcaster's reply to me above seems like he is content with the explanation. Beerest355 Talk 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that and GSK was not edit warring. Unless one edit can now be considered an EW. All I can see is that GSK has tried to protect the integrity of the article, has taken the time to file the proper reports and is now receiving unwarranted grief for it. That is sad. On the other hand I am glad that the two involved editors seem to have settled things. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• @GSK, the reason for denying protection was sound. I don't like fully protecting an article because two editors are edit warring. If there are more than two, then protection may be warranted, but why should other editors suffer because two editors are misbehaving? I'm not sure what to do with the ANEW report at this point. I'm inclined to leave it open to make sure there is no further disruption to the article. Beerest has made the somewhat novel assertion that one of his reverts was not a revert because it was done with permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors have been blocked for 48 hours by User:De728631 at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Omdo

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

Omdo seems to have one main focus which is to add bits of 'content' to articles with a view to reinforcing the position that Sabah and Sarawak should have more rights because of "agreements" at the time of the formation of Malaysia. The result is often to transform articles into WP:COATRACKS for these views, with difficult to understand, unbalanced content and irrelevant pdfs/links/documents.

He also makes edits such as adding the 2 states to lists of sovereign nations. He never explains any of his edits, in summaries, or on talk pages, and he won't join discussions even when invited.

The most recent 'incident' is his creation of the formation of Malaysia as an unattributed copy/paste of the stuff we had cleaned out of the 20-point agreement article, from its history. Related posts are at User talk:Omdo#The formation of Malaysia and Talk:History of Malaysia#Proposed merge of any suitable content from The formation of Malaysia.

Talk:20-point agreement is a good example, and provides a good overview of the pattern I'm trying to describe - it's only a short talk page, and illustrates the issue well. This diff, in particular, helps to explain: [52].

Here, there is a short edit war over the inclusion of irrelevant material relating to one of the 'disputes' [53], [54], [55], [56]

Here, [57], he adds North Borneo to the List of sovereign states by date of formation .

At User talk:Omdo#Sarawak Sovereignty Movement logo, it was necessary to create and upload a new image to replace his copyvio image, and to rewrite most of the content so as to be intelligible and accurately reflect what the sources say.

There are many more diffs, available on request, but I didn't want to make this ;tldr. I discussed this with Dennis Brown at User talk:Dennis Brown#Advice before bringing it here, but sadly I think I'm now left with little alternative. I believe that a block may now be the only option to enforce some sort of proper communication and understanding. Omdo does have content and a point of view to contribute, I just wish he could 'play nice' with other editors. Begoon ^talk 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't dug through all the contribs, but what I did see seems to be consistent with Begoon's description. Hopefully, Omdo will show up with a new found desire to communicate, cooperate and and edit in a neutral fashion that doesn't include copyright infringing. Otherwise a block may be needed. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that the reaction since being notified of this discussion appears, so far, to have been to again remove the maintenance tags on 'the formation of Malaysia', and continue adding content with only a very minimal response, here: Talk:The formation of Malaysia. I am stepping away from the issue completely, now, as I feel anything I say or do will not help at this point. Begoon ^talk 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Begoon has summarised this well, and has commendably gone out of their way to try and gain cooperation from Omdo before bringing this here. It is true that Omdo represents a POV that is rarely seen, which has its benefits, but they are singularly focused on this issue. Their edits also contain quite a bit of synthesis based on a variety of primary sources. Discussion with them is difficult, as they usually just state points and refer to various sources without elaborating. (It is made harder by what seems to be a poor grasp of English, but this in itself isn't a fault.) I wouldn't like a block, but as Omdo doesn't discuss the only other options are expending great effort cleaning up the better edits and continuously having to revert the more extreme ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Slandering CT Senators

Somebody has been slandering former Senators Dodd and Lieberman. [58] Jehochman ^Talk 03:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. No text here is slandering the Senators, only pointers to other web sites. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this thread, really. I don't see any specific slander at all. Doc talk 06:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody was slandering the senators by associating them with me. :p Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Must be an "inside" admin joke. Whoosh! Doc talk 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I revdeled the edit summaries in question. I thought of it as a false "outing" rather than "slander", but I suppose a claimed association could be looked at as slander. For either party. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Charmlet

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

---

An illustration from Category:Animals with transparent background --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey all.

So, after the month, and talks with many people, I've decided that I really should return to editing, if okay with everyone. Many of you know about, or have at least heard of, the issues with my old name, and so I'm dropping that and carrying on with this one, if fine with everyone.

Since the circumstances surrounding my previous retirement were "under a cloud" to use the Wikipedia term, I feel it's only proper that I notify everyone here to continue any discussion of sanctions or whatever may have come of that if I hadn't retired at that time. If the community chooses something, I'll gladly stick to that.

Thanks, gwickwire/Charmlet (Thanks SineBot...) Charmlet (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to WP:FISH. (I wasn't aware there was any viable discussion ongoing at the time you stopped editing. Could be wrong.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I remember that particular ANI. I think it resulted in a desysop ofan admin resigning their bit followed by said admin and gwickwire retiring. As far as I remember, there was no real bad blood just a lot of fish being thrown around and Facepalming. (Will need to look for that ANI, it wasn't that long ago) Blackmane (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, here we go. Blackmane (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi gwickwire/Charmlet. It looks like if you wish to have rollbacker and reviewer rights at some point in the future, you will have to re-apply, as you resigned these bits "under a cloud". Continuation of editing was not discussed, because you had stopped editing. So in absence of such discussion, my opinion is that you have tacit permission to carry on -- Dianna (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why WP:FISH? Perhaps you meant WP:TROUT? Anyway, as the admin who actually removed the rights, I'd be willing to restore them upon your request. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, did I get the wrong wikilink? Well, perhaps I shouldn't have been carping on about all that anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your account was created the day after your "retirement". Did you retire to avoid sanctions from the account sharing incident with Riley Huntley? Optimom (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The notification is noted as is the notice you have placed on your userpage. I counsel Chamlet for the foreseeable future to stay well clear of the controversies and types of discussions that led him into disputes under his prior username. I do not believe any further action is required here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your Brad (absolutely definitely on the staying out of trouble, avoiding the usual hotspots for administrators, i.e here, there and elsewhere) but I'd like some clarification on why the new account was created when he had retired, told everybody who asked that he wasn't coming back, but had covertly created the account a day after his retirement vanishing act. Are we being led up the garden path and could we get a clear explanation on everything that happened. It just seems like this was to evade potential sanctions and a proper mark against the account. Instead of a proper bollocking, there's a triumphant return by a lost hero instead.

Oh, and I would prefer Charmlet edits without any problems for 90 days before applying for or receiving any advanced permissions. Finally, given I don't see it anywhere, can we get confirmation this is indeed gwickwire and not someone playing silly buggers, an edit under the gwickwire account to confirm ownership of Charmlet would suffice. Thanks. Nick (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked them to do just that. If they do not manage to do so in a timely manner, I expect them to be blocked as an impersonator. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's him.

As for the one day thing, how many people who "retire", really plan to retire? At least here it was done with rather more openness.

Brad is right to offer the advice he did. I know that Chamlet has indicated a willingness to follow it (or something that means the same thing). How well that works, we shall see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the transparency. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a lot of comments, here goes for a more thorough explanation:

I retired, and it was suggested that I should cleanstart. I'd been thinking about it for a while, but created this account just in case. It took me quite a while to find an account that had no SUL/global account and would have no conflicts, so I registered this one so that it would be there for me.

I quit cold turkey, and then was persuaded by both users and curiosity to hang out in some Wikipedia related IRC channels, mainly the help channel. A few users there would PM me asking for advice, so I just hung around there and helped still.

People asked me why I didn't continue editing. I had no answer. It was suggested I either cleanstart or start back up publicly. I didn't feel like cleanstarting would be in my or others' best interests, as it'd force me to pretend to be new, and not be able to help out where I most wanted to. So after consultation with multiple users, I decided to start up with this account.

To those who say I am evading sanctions with this, I felt I made it clear in my initial post that if anyone wishes to further discuss sanctions on me for the incident before, I would not mind. If anyone wants to support sanctions, I feel that there's nothing stopping you, and please do if you feel them necessary. If I did something to make this less transparent than I tried, feel free to fix that too.

On the issue of confirmation, you can ask any arbitrator, I believe they all have the confirmation I sent them, User:Worm That Turned in particular, or send an e-mail to the old account via Special:Email and I'll try to reply unless there's something barring me from doing so.

Thanks again, Charmlet (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to be unduly dismissive... as "incidents" go, this is a non-incident. Does anyone have anything exciting to add? If not, I reserve the right to add as many additional pictures of fish as the OP has already added mentions of fowl. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet, why can't you simply make an edit with User:Gwickwire to show that you control it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There could be many reasons, I don't wish to ever touch that account again, I scrambled the password, etc. Any arbitrator can provide confirmation, as can any user I trust won't abuse it if they e-mail that user account through Wikipedia. Charmlet (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there 'could be many reasons, one of them being that you don't control the account, and it is your control of the Gwickwire account that I am trying to establish. Your inability to answer simple questions with straightforward answers just reinforces the impression that something is fishy here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I told you - The email to that account is still active, and if you email it through Wikipedia then that account will get it. I will reply from that account, and that will allow you to establish your "control". You saying my inwillingness to ever access that account is fishy doesn't mean anything, I just do not want to access that account again, for any reason. Arbitrators (should) have proof, I know for a fact that WTT does, aside from that e-mail the old account and wait for a response. Until then, unless you have some proof something's actually fishy, please refrain from saying things like that. I come back to try to be constructive and the first thing I get is "fishy". Thanks. Charmlet (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet, surely you must understand why people are asking whether you control your old account - you left, under something of a cloud (albeit it relatively small one) because you were involved in accessing another user's account, therefore there are concerns about your understanding of account security and account sharing. I really do think you need to reassure people that you are in control of your own accounts here at Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions as Gwickwire seemed mostly focused on creating drama, and abusing people who asked for help. Do you intend to change anything about your contributions, Charmlet? Optimom (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can confirm that I had the above mentioned discussions with gwickwire, the email addresses match, there is no reason to believe that they are not the same person. He and I also agreed that he would be keeping away from the "drama boards", so hopefully he can focus on the stuff he's good at. Worm^TT(talk) 06:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Cluckwik

Has apparently opened an account for the main (sole) purpose of declaring an edit war on me and Chongkian. I have asked him or her to cease, and the only response is to harass me on my talk page with two irrelevant, if hypocritical templates. Cluckwik has continued a short pattern commenced by an IP. FYI, this may be of interest and bears some similarities. GotR ^Talk 06:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chongkian made en masse changes about the name of Taiwan/ROC without disscusion and I was reverting them.

GotR attacked me in Edit summarys [59](shabi means "stupid cunt" in Chinese),[60]etc. so I added the NPA templates.Cluckwik (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No startup user should begin by combating established editors, period, since the edits were not unconstructive (unlike your edits). The wording here is coarse, but not at all an attack. And let me remind all that Cluckwik added the stupid templates (two of them, in fact) before the edit summary (s)he was referring to. Typical dishonesty from Taiwanese anons/edit warriors. GotR ^Talk 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There was another edit summary calling me "sihaizi", which means child that should die, before the templates.Cluckwik (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Another shameless attempt to dodge the subject of this thread, which is YOUR conduct. GotR ^Talk 07:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to you, who is notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles, to decide which edits are constructive.Cluckwik (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whose sock are you? You sound horribly familiar to this set of IP ranges. How else would an otherwise seemingly novice editor be so rash to jump the gun and falsely claim, with not an iota of evidence, that I am "notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles"? GotR ^Talk 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see obvious problems about the IP range's edits and there was no consensus in that discussion. However, Hilo48's comment in the thread about the IP range proves my claim. Cluckwik (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a silent consensus by Rschen's (or whoever the blocking administrator was) to block that IP range. That you don't "see any obvious problems" is worrisome. Harassment is the most undisputed of them; WP:POINT in a clearly disruptive manner. Perhaps you yourself were the operator of that range? GotR ^Talk 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything about harrassing in the thread and there was no consensus about which point of view is more neutral. By the way, Rschen, with the last name Chen, seems to be Chinese. It is clear that what point of view he holds about this issue.Cluckwik (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The point of the Nov. 2012 AN/I thread was NOT to establish consensus on which POV is more neutral, which is also NOT the purpose of almost any AN/I thread. The aim was to clamp down on that clearly disruptive IP range, which may be continuing to manifest under the name of Cluckwik. The surname "Chen" implies Chinese by blood, which most people in Taiwan are. But does it imply (mainland or PRC) Chinese? No. You rebels' beloved Chen Shui-bian is a marvelous counterexample.

That you continue to (pretend) not (to) see anything harassing in the thread flies in the face of clear evidence in the form of relentlessly stalking my additions or corrections to DAB pages (links later...I'm going to bed soon). If you are indeed connected to this IP range, then your recent actions and rhetoric show that you are wholly unrepentant and deserve severe sanctions. GotR ^Talk 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Socking accusations belong at WP:SPI. For the record, though my ethnicity is obviously Asian, I don't really care about Asian ethnic wars; what I care about is NPOV. --Rschen7754 10:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that. But that is not the appropriate forum for the time being. This behaviour has only recently surfaced and CU use is not yet apt. GotR ^Talk 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong page moves

User:Chanderforyou moved Aanchal Munjal to Aanchal munjal, then he manually moved all source text from 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal' and redirected 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal'. Now everything looks ok except that history is with 'Aanchal munjal'. I tried to revert but got error message. He has done such experiment with 4 articles. I could move and restore talkpages with history but can't do with articles. neo (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best to resolve it. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Ravi dubey to Ravi Dubey, Aanchal munjal to Aanchal Munjal, Ashika Bhatia to Aashika Bhatia, and Sargun mehta to Sargun Mehta. Is that it? Please note that moving the talk page without the article isn't that helpful — it makes the fixing process confusing, if nothing else because the software wants to move the wrong talk page on top of the right talk page. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no experience of this move thing so I was confused. neo (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and you're welcome. I figured you weren't familiar with it, so I did my best not to sound as if I were objecting. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh User:Carolmooredc, canvassing and other

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

---

I first became aware of this user due to some disputes she is having with SPECIFICO, srich, and some others regarding economics. As I also was having disputes with them both on content and behavior, I was inclined to sympathize and side with Carol, but as I have watched the interactions unfold longer, it seems clear that she may have a WP:COMPETENCE issue. She has been warned multiple times about edit waring, personal attacks, canvassing, etc, and making improper accusations of the same against others. Most recently, she came across an AFD and !voted keep, and made some decent arguments and attempted to find additional sourcing (all good, and good faith actions), however, she then proceeded to WP:CANVASS with multiple postings, in a non-neutral manner, to non-neutral forums, including off-wiki, and further she did not notify the AFD regarding her postings. [61] [62], [63] I propose that Carol either needs blocking, mentoring, or perhaps a (topic?) ban from some of the administrative/maintenance forums until she develops a good understanding of what our policies are, and how to apply them correctly. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In Carol's defense, I notified her this was canvassing, and she struck the non-neutral parts of the notification on the project site.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what BS, in so many ways. First off, calling into question the competence of a user with just under 25k edits and 7 years experience...and a grand total of 1 egregiously-long block (later thankfully shortened) 2 years ago...in this project is beyond the pale. Invoking WP:CIR should be reserved for the clearest of cases, e.g. non-English speakers, very young minors, or brazenly disruptive POV-pushers. I have known of this user for several years, particular work in the Israeli-Palestine topic area which is notoriously nasty and hot-button. Many editors, particularly those sympathetic to the Palestine side, who spend time there get hit with "edit waring, personal attacks" accusations, the bulk of which are completely unfounded. As for canvassing in this case, as I noted at the AfD, there have been long-standing and serious issues regarding women editors and articles, including editor retention, dearth of coverage, and biased coverage. The gender-gap mailing list is not secret or private, it is a WMF list that non-members can view at any time. If Carol's message there broke the technical letter of WP:CANVASS, a guideline, then IMO that can be set aside if the aim is an honest intent to improve the encyclopedia, or to bring wider attention to a critical problem. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be invoking IAR rather frequently. The problem is, your defense of canvassing in the name of IAR and "improving the encyclopedia" can be legitimately used by ANYONE - e.g. "I think the Israel article is not getting a fair treatment, so I'm going to send an email to the Israeli list and bring more editors from my side" - and then a Palestinian-supporter could do the same thing. Someone might say "The Men's rights article is getting trolled by POV pushers" - so I'm going to send an email to the mens' rights reddit to bring attention - I just want to improve the encyclopedia! As I said elsewhere, notifying a list such as gendergap in this case is ok, but the notification should have been neutral, and she should have notified other relevant wikiprojects, not just those she thought would be sympathetic. IAR applies to everyone, and should not be misused as you're proposing here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't think much else is needed here, I disagree with the need for blocking, mentoring, or a topic ban, and a simple minnow across the cheek would suffice. Tarc should be trouted for a useless invocation of IAR OTOH.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, put a cork in it. I invoke IAR rarely, and honestly don't care for it much at all as it is misused 99% of the time. It just happens that in 2 recent cases I have been involved in, there is really no other way to get past the institutional bias and knuckle-dragging inertia that is preventing the right thing being done. Those being this AfD and this movie discussion.

well, the wiki is certainly lucky to have someone who knows so well when to use IAR. Now that I think about it, why don't *you* put a cork in it. Your general incivility across every thread I've seen you in is disruptive. Why not take a little break and let the editors do their work without your bullying.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say I really enjoy when those who are screaming "BIAS!!!" use such wonderfully sexist language.[64] Arkon (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And I equally enjoy when people profess a belief in reverse discrimination, a thing which doesn't actually exist. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooo! Ooo! Who said such a thing? I bet he was just a teenage boy, or an editor acting like one. We all know that's the problem after all. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be deteriorating rapidly. It does not appear to me that there is any action that needs to be taken here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The AfD is caught up in (a) one or two people who routinely oppose any deletion of articles on "non-mainstream" topics, and (b) a steady stream of people who see that there are sources and do not address the criticism of those sources already recorded in the AfD. Tarc's rant against keeping fancruft and deleting this article meets my approval halfway, but he is now one of several people turning what I see as a routine case of undersourced puffery into a crusade for ostensibly neglected topics. I don't really see that there is anything for an admin to do here other than be aware of what's going on when it's time to close the discussion and make a resolution. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Complaint

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

---

I am here to make a quick informal complaint about User:AndyTheGrump, he called me a troll, just for asking a question at the help desk? I did not mean to do anything wrong but I think this is out of order. Look at this please. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was me that raised the question, not Andy. Anyone else reading this, just look at contribs for the basis of our suspicions. At the very least, WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. — The Potato Hose 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh. The Potato Hose should not have asked if the OP was a troll, Andy should not have agreed with them, and the OP should not expect any action to be taken because of this. Does anyone disagree with that assessment? --Jayron32 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• What is the basis of The Potato Hose and Andy believing this editor is a "troll"? GiantSnowman 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you read the contribs? This is also relevant. — The Potato Hose 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Admins are (believe it or not) regular people, not Mystic Meg - we don't know the editing patterns of every blocked/banned user. The SPI was submitted one minute after I posted my question so forgive me for not being aware of it. GiantSnowman 16:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Don't get snippy with me. Did you read the contribs? I pointed out that the SPI was relevant in the knowledge that you had not yet seen it. — The Potato Hose 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
        • What in the contribs was supposed to make me realise this was a sockpuppet? GiantSnowman 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
          • WP:BEANS, if you catch my drift? — The Potato Hose 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• I find it very odd that when I go and make a minor complaint against another user, it turns on me. I think there is a small number of high-up admins that think they are superior and can rule the roost, while us ordinary Wikipedians have to be subjected to this nonsense . --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Neither The Potato Hose or Andy are admins. No they should not have called you a troll, although I agree with them that your edits are slightly suspicious, but you should not have brought your admittedly "minor complaint" to an Admin noticeboard. GiantSnowman 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• If I want to make future complaints then where should I go? --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Future complaints about what? Please note my good faith towards you is rapidly wearing off, I suggest you drop the stick, pronto. GiantSnowman 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Future complaints against agitators and other provocative editors. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why would a "new editor" like yourself worry about having to complain about people? Final warning - either drop the stick as previously advised or I will block you indefinitely for tolling, regardless of the SPI outcome (though I have my suspicions as to the result). GiantSnowman 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for answering my question... not. I still do not know how to go about complaining so I am drafting an e-mail to Jimbo Wales as we speak. the following users will be mentioned:

• User:GiantSnowman
• User:The Potato Hose
• User:AndyTheGrump

Good day to you, sirs. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ivilbderoneday blocked for trolling, also increasingly likely they are indeed a sockpuppet. GiantSnowman 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• You do know that now they will put in their letter that an involved admin blocked them to hide the truth, don't you? ;-) And yes, I had previously endorsed the CU at SPI in my clerk capacity and I agree with this block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm just happy that Jimbo will get to see my name! GiantSnowman 16:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:May122013 and issues at Rob Ford

May122013 (talk · contribs) - Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous accounts:
  • Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs)
  • Mr.grantevans (talk · contribs)

For clarification, I have not edited the Rob Ford article or talkpage, I was made aware of this issue via BLP/N.

The facts: in May, Gawker reported that a staffer had seen a video, allegedly of Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, and making homophobic and racist statements. The Toronto Star picked up the story, and two of its reporters saw the same video. Since then, the story has been picked up by approximately every single news outlet there is, been discussed on talk shows (Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Stewart, if my memory is correct), and generally become Kind Of A Big Deal. The article as written at the time of this post is neutral, sourced, and reports factually on what has been said in media outlets.

User:May122013 has tried everything they can to remove this information from the article, including:

• At least a dozen outright removals of the content, all of which were reverted quickly, with multiple edit summaries telling May122013 that there was no consensus for the removal
• Many attempts on the article talk page to remove the content, starting here with an attempt to paint it as unreliable when Gawker and The Star had a minor difference in one thing that was said about the video. Then a claim that the video is a hoax. Then attempts to (mis)use policy to remove it, different attempts at BLP/N to have the material discredited, most recently claiming that Gawker and The Star are primary sources. I could go on but I'm tired of combing through diffs. Just see the user contribs and the talk page. Basically May122013 wants the material out and will use everything and the kitchen sink to try and remove it.
• And has wrapped it all up with accusing me of sockpuppetry, refusing to offer any proof of the accusation, and refusing to retract. (Including an attempt to evade responsibility by saying they only said 'possible', and they suddenly have 'time committments' until June 18 which do not allow them to address the accusation. Which is without merit, by the way. I removed the accusations after telling May122013 twice to do so. An admin has also told May122013 to provide proof or retract.)
  • User has retracted the above accusation. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In summary, May122013 is essentially an SPA, is editwarring (in slow motion), and refusing to listen to consensus. I suggest either a topicban or a block until s/he agrees to stop disrupting the article and talkpage and wasting everyone's time. — The Potato Hose 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on the sockpuppetry accusations, I did indeed ask May122013 to retract or take to SPI, which has been backed up by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) here. GiantSnowman 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN link - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rob Ford. GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had already warned the user previous that a WP:BLPBAN or block may soon follow if they continued to edit war against consensus. There is a lot of wikilawyering going on with this user, and a single-mindedness that smacks more of agenda than neutrality. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier - but some of their concerns are, indeed, BLP concerns. I find it hard to totally dismiss a person who is right on something at least -- too many are right on seemingly nothing at all. <g> Collect (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article is in decent shape [65] and a number of editors have ensured it is neutral and not violating BLP concerns. Then we have an editor who many times a day shows up and reverts and wikilayers attempting to expunge a neutrally reported incident. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I striked [66] the "possible sockpuppet" comment. 2 editors suggested that I do that on my talk page and I do regret saying that. I right now publicly offer my apology to User:The Potato Hose. May122013 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot more than usual work activities over the next 10 days which severely limits my access to the internet, so please allow me at least 12 hours to respond to any other matters that anyone wishes to discuss. May122013 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the delay. Having editors with different views is our strength here, but you have to know when to pull back and accept when consensus on an edit is against you. We all are sometimes on the short side of consensus, you aren't unique in this. Calling someone a sockpuppet is disruptive and looks as if you are trying to undermine their argument using ad hominem. If you think they are socking, by all means, file at WP:SPI or ask an admin for assistance. There is a fine line between spirited debate, and wikilawyering and disruptive behavior. I don't think that blocking you is a done deal here, but it is on the edge. It is up to you. You need to demonstrate a willingness to work on these issues by both your words and deeds, or you may force us to consider other actions as a last resort. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting, given the ad hominem attacks, that the user in question has repeatedly complained about them, while happily using them him/herself. Without devolving into ad hominems myself, it's useful to consider that someone who complains about others doing something, while doing the exact same thing themselves, is probably therefore not acting in good faith. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support BLPBAN May1222013 has been arguing and edit-warring against consensus using poor arguments, as mentioned above. Also, in his two previous accounts he was tendentious in arguments about including rumours that the American president Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and that his autobiography was ghostwritten by a former radical left-wing terrorist. He also argued for including salacious details of allegations of sexual assault made against a former president of the World Bank. While he claims that the Toronto Star is not a reliable source for Rob Ford, he presented the far less respected Canada Free Press as rs ifor another article. He appears to apply different standards for BLPs, depending on his perception of the subject. TFD (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to TFD :TFD I want to also apologize to you for having been un polite towards you. I'd also like to address your points above, which you have caused me to think about intensely. It is reasonable for you to be saying that I apply different standards to different BLPs, as that may well be how it appears. But in actuality I apply the same 3 standards to all BLPs; which may be standards that I may have to drop in order to be more objective here on Wikipedia. Those standards are "consider the source"; "no censorship when it comes to public officials", and NPOV.

• With Ford those standards conflicted in my mind, yet I could not get above the fact that all of the "smoking crack" allegations originated with anonymous drug dealers and also the general perceived bias against Ford in the BLP ( as has been mentioned by dozens of other editors over the past 3 years ), so I thought exclusion of the crack allegations is the best path.

• With the Obama birther event, that's been about 2 years ago and please note that I even received a barnstar for my work on that subject: see User_talk:Mr.grantevans2. That event, to me, fell into the category of "no censorship" because the origination for those allegations came from several elected and high profile politicians and established business leaders like Donald Trump.

• With DSK, the head of the IMF at the time, the details of the alleged assault originated from New York City police investigators and had been published by RSs so they fit into my "no censorship" standard as well. In that case, I feel the details were important because they painted a much more of a predatorial attack than most of the mainstream press pictured. Also, DSK at that time was an employee of all of the taxpayers that contribute to the IMF, like you and me.

So, ironically, as you perceive that differing standards are my problem, I think, now that I've had the night to "sleep on it", that my main problem has been applying any of my personal standards when editing Wikipedia. So my objective, should I be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia, is to leave all of my personal standards out of my thinking about how an article can be improved. That may not be ideal, but I think that in my case its necessary. May122013 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't edit 'long thread'. Request to move this to thread /* User:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda */

So as User:Rahul RJ Jain is blocked, as per admins decision he used his previous account User:Rahuljain2307 and reverted my edit on Chanakya. He said on article's talkpage that Indian Goverment site, academic site of Chanakya National Law University, Bihar Chief Minister are unreliable sources. Further he said that being 'Brahmin' or reading Vedas does not mean he was 'Hindu' (nobody can say he was Hindu because 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' term came into existence after 15th-16th century). Basically user is trying to say that being Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra does not mean that they are Hindu. I don't understand how to respond to this. I am saying that sources are conflicting, religion field should be blank but user is hellbent on POV and edit war and admins are silent. Please resolve this matter. neo (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that being Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shutra does not necessarily mean they are followers of hindu religion. I can point out why most of the sources you mentioned were unreliable, but the fact is, none of those sources mention anything contradictory to any of the claims that is made in the article; therefore attacking their reliability is useless as of now. As I mentioned here, if you provide reliable source which mentions anything cotradictory, we can give it their due weight in the article. I was willing to discuss the matter on the respective talk page, but it seems you don't really want to talk. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look that you are in your senses when you write outragious things like Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudras are not necessarily Hindus. Are Catholic and Protestants followers of Christianity? Are Shia and Sunni followers of Islam? And please teach us whether Earth is flat or round. neo (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a place to answer that. If you really want to know whether earth is flat or round, consider studying about it. Same goes for other questions as well. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. this article on Outlook (magazine) website also refers Chanakya as Brahmin. But now you have taken bizzarre stand that Brahmins are not necessarily Hindu. Anon IPs are inserting outragious unreferenced statement that jainism declined due to growth and opression of followers of hinduism and islam and you are making edits as if you support it. You remove thousands of kb from articles citing that magical word 'unreferenced'. Why you support unreferenced 'oppression by hindus and islam' statement? You are pushing your POV to new level. neo (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss the issue on the relative talk pages? Rahul Jain (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already stated that I resorted to this forum because I believe that you are pushing your jainism agenda through dubious sources or no sources in various articles. I can't run discussion on talkpage of every article simultaneously for same problem. Also very few users are active on jainism related articles so your dubious edits will go unchallenged for many months or years on talkpages. So I came here. Have I made myself clear? Now you have reverted my edits, you have what you want in articles, you are sitting outside and laughing by making extremely weird claims that (1) Indian Government website, Chanakya National Law University website, Bihar Chief Minister and other dozens of sources are not reliable sources but your book sources, which are not available online to verify, are reliable (2) Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra are not necessarily hindu (3) Reading and preaching religious books like Vedas by Chanakya does not mean that Chanakya was hindu. neo (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for an admin to comment on this. My case being that User:Neo. didn't even try to resolve dispute through the talk page (or any other means) and denies any intention of doing so. He is consistently blaming the sources to be dubious, but isn't explaining his position as to why the sources are dubious. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Oleola disruptive editing and statements of me being blocked

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

---

Oleola Accused me of a lot of things. He says that my article dont have any source, when they cleary do in the external links. He also keeps acting like he is an admin or boss. He keeps posting things on my talk page, that I will be blocked. Then he puts me on this page, when cleary he is not better than me at all. He has disruptive edits too.

David-golota (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) David golota

So... What administrative action are you requesting? From a look at David and Oleola's page, they seem to be involved in an edit war on Polish football players. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:DracoEssentialis

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

---

I suspect these edits [67] [68] [69] are worth some attention. --Cyclopia^talk 17:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. Their knowledge on the Commons situation suggests that they are quite familiar with Jimbo's page. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem, Cyclopedia? I would feel honoured if it were me, and it seems a pretty good likeness. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if some dude stuck their penis in a bucket of paint, then rubbed it on canvas to produce my likeness, I'd be all like "wow". Tarc (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How sure are you that that hasn't already happened? Maybe even more than once!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, the edit to Jimmy Wales is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Cyclopia should have followed WP:BRD and especially shouldn't have used Twinkle to template DracoE for vandalism. Discussion about that is here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism, even if the editor in question seems has some questionable methods and summaries. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And in fact I templated for disruptive editing, not vandalism. Or am I missing something? Calling it a content dispute is quite amusing. --Cyclopia^talk 18:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering he made the same edit to Jimbo's userpage (which I reverted, and then he reverted me, before being reverted by someone else), I think we can lighten our stranglehold on AGF here. I didn't see anything wrong with Cyclopia's warning; it was for disruptive editing (and a very light warning at that). Replacing a photograph of a person with a painting from some random person is mildly disruptive (emphasis on "mildly"), regardless of what body parts were used in the painting's creation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask around Jimbo's page to see if should be added. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like Jimbo didn't take too kindly to the art. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy wasn't interested. I'm still a bit disturbed by the brush, admittedly, but if you take the painting at face value and ignore the brush, it is actually a decent portrait and manages to captures some of his essence. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries and image caption show quite obviously that the editor wanted to troll by calling attention to the, ehm, brush. --Cyclopia^talk 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, in light of the caption and summaries, the editor knew what he was doing. Maybe a little hasty of me to call it trolling, but I still think he knew. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he was being pointy in the addition and the image caption made that obvious, but I'm not inclined to block for that one act. Others may feel differently. I can't fault the artist for the act, only the editor. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was more than "one act", apparently, she did several times. As you wish anyway, let's see. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm... why exactly is Draco a rollbacker? And a filemover (1 file edit ever)? And an autopatroller (4 articles created)? The latter two rights are rather limited in their distribution, and the former probably shouldn't be given out to someone who'll use it in an edit war. SlimVirgin added all three rights (along with reviewer, but who cares about that) without any summary back in November. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence they're misusing any of those privileges? NE Ent 22:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well she violated the rollback policy with this revert. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Holocaust denial trolling

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

---

95.150.129.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) With the exception of one edit last year, the IP's only contributions have been:

• to repeatedly troll the talk page of Zyklon B using classic Holocaust denial language, using a piped link to describe the Holocaust as a "great lie", insisting that the extermination camps were instead "resettlement camps for enemies of the state", and referring to "the Jew who fabricated this lie" (the "lie" being that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill their victims)[70] [71] [72] and
• to respond to messages on their talk page with further Holocaust denial language[73] and to call me a bigot and mock Wikipedia administrators[74].

I sought a second opinion yesterday regarding the original edits from an uninvoled administrator (thread here), confirming my basic premise, but would prefer that someone else revert again. There are plenty of discussion boards on the Internet for anyone who holds these views and wants to chat with like-minded others; there's no reason we should host their propaganda at Wikipedia. Block requested. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the admin Rivertorch approached for a second opinion., as listed above. I'm not previously involved with the topic, I don't know the editor under discussion, and I don't believe I've edited this or any related articles. While I understand that detecting the line between POV edit warring and trolling can be subjective to determine, I came to the conclusion that this is the latter, in large part based on the quote from 95.150's point 5 that Rivertorch quotes above. I'd support appropriate any policy-compliant measures consistent with this determination. Give me a ping if you have questions, I'm not intending to follow this thread. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and reverted the comment again. It doesn't matter whether this is trolling or POV-pushing, either way it's disruptive. Hut 8.5 18:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope a few more people will add the article to their watchlists. It's subject to this sort of thing on occasion. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Indefblocked editor User:Shaushka and his disruptive socks

A SPI was already filed this morning by another editor here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaushka however the wheels of justice seem to be cranking awfully slow today, and the editor is being very disruptive, as soon as his IP was blocked a moment ago for breaking 5RR on Yazdanism, he comes right back with a new IP number. With the level of constant disruption, attacks, contentiousness and bigotry I'm seeing from this user, I would like to see his IP rangeblocked soon. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think the wheels are cranking slowly - I think you're cranking fast. :-) I'm having trouble keeping up with the many IPs and with you, even though your heart is in the right place. I've removed one report filed by the IP at ANEW. I've closed your report at ANEW. I've commented at the SPI. On balance, I think SPI is the right forum for this, although SPI is often slower than ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Raycom Sports

• Raycom Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a farce, and an abuse by well-meaning accounts; I've tried numerous times to remove a wholesale copyright violation and purely promotional content, placed by the articles' subject, and am persistently reverted by numerous accounts. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• You do have to wonder what the hell those three editors are doing. Perhaps they're under the impression that a large removal of content by an IP editor is automatically vandalism. Well, they're clearly wrong, and they need to be far more careful in their editing. Anyway, it's been removed now, and I shall watchlist it; it may be worth others doing so. Thanks for reporting it here. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's probably the thinking, but I wouldn't want to presume to know others' motives. But I am more hopping mad than a man at a computer ought to be. I've reported the eponymous account. Thank you, Black Kite. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have learnt that lesson myself tonight. Apologies again 229. You really should get an account lol. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkingYouth

This user is being reported for contravention of the following policies despite repeated advice from various editors.

• WP:OUTING This diff [75] posted to my talk page implies that I am a "senior" person connected with "Humjanenge" organisation. When I requested [76] him on his talk page to explain it, he immediately blanked his talk page [77].

(NB: As per the policy (and to protect my privacy) it is immaterial if the alleged "outing" is true or false, and I am not required to confirm or deny the truth of it).

• WP:DELTALK and WP:CSD Another editor had advised this user (on the user's talk page) to respect my edits / revert on page India Against Corruption which is locked (on my request). The user gave a TLDR reply. I also gave a short request [78] to him to correct his edit which had disrupted the formatting of the concerned talk page. His response to these was to blank his talk page and place a WP:CSD template. When I undid his blanking (to preserve the record of our disputes), he insisted it was my talk page and blanked it again [79]. I explained WP:DELETE and CSD / G7 to him indicating my tolerance was running thin [80] and he blanked his talk page again [81]

, [82] with the edit summary "Stop spamming my talk page with your poetry ;-)."

• He has also "spammed" a Talk page Talk:India Against Corruption to the extent it is unreadable by new editors who are being called in to resolve intermediate edits almost at WP:WAR. For almost 2 years from 2011-till 2 June 2013 (ie. when he entered this talk page for an article rated as "High Importance" for India) the talk page's size stood at a mere 2,493 bytes. In the space of just 6 days it has reached 48,545 bytes of TLDR and highly unformatted / unreadable text with allegations of NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI WP:SPA etc etc. I frankly admit I allowed myself (as the page maintainer) to be Trolled under WP:AGF and the impression I was assisting a newbie, and I went out of my way to help with equally TLDR edits explaining WikiPedia's policies and norms (which in hindsight I regret).

• I mention in passing (but not formally as yet) coincident edits (by a "11th class student") like these [83], [84] which quack with a "12th class student" who stopped editing Arvind Kejriwal just 3 days before this editor created his account to do complex edits like these [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] on his first day at Wikipedia.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked into his edits yet, but I will point out a few things:

• He's allowed to blank his talk page if he wants. If an editor removes messages from his talk page it is taken to mean that he has read it. You haven't any business commanding an editor to restore your edits to their talk page (with the exception of block notices).
• That isn't outing. That's a very obscure inference you're making there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:DELTALK, "User talk pages ... are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users". I am currently locked in a dispute with this editor, I need his talk page to be preserved or archived for my reference while our dispute is on. His placing a CSD (ie. admin delete) request at this stage is not a sign of Good Faith but a sign of obfuscation. Furthermore CSD:G7 says "... If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. Note that this does not apply to user talk pages, which are not deleted except under very exceptional circumstances: see WP:DELTALK"
• I shall comment on the seriousness of the "outing" later. In brief, WP:OUTING says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment ... Personal information includes ... job title and work organisation ... and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia". Specifically, if I am NOT connected to this organisation but another editor here wrongly implies that "Humjanenge" is behind what he says is defamation and abuse of "Leaders of the JanLokpal movement" on Wikipedia, it may have serious physical consequences for those innocent office bearers of IAC who are named in the article as being with the "Humjanenge". Please see this [90], [91] to see the bitterness which exists between the 2 factions, they had no qualms beating a cop to death.
• I don't mean to "wiki-lawyer". AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right in saying generally user talk pages aren't deleted, which is why a more experienced user removed the CSD template not long after he added it. Blanking messages on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Archiving user talk pages is preferred over blanking, but users are not obliged to do so and may remove posts from their talk pages if they wish. Your need for an archive of your squabbles is a secondary consideration. If you want to keep track of what's been said you can look at the page history.

As for the outing, we'll have to agree to disagree. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the user who removed the CSD template. Had I not done so it is probable that the request would have been carried out and the user talk page deleted with the diffs removed. Requesting deletion was neither "general" nor "normal" behavior and ought to have been explained. For eg. when another editor informed him on 08:49 4 June that his account was WP:SPA, the user at 11:11 is on a spree of machine gun edits to boost his "edit count" and obscure his edit history. (Comment: it seems that this kind of unWP:CIVIL editing is now the "norm" at Wikipedia and "uncles" must drop all pretense at civility). 04:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)

Good work on removing the CSD template, but I can assure you the patrolling admin would not have deleted the page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My Talk Page Needs To Be Unprotected

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

---

The protection has expired, yet it is still unable to be edited. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird -- I can get to the edit buffer logged out. Not sure why the ip can't edit? NE Ent 22:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You just edited it. And while I'm here, unless you have something useful to contribute at Wikipedia, go somewhere else, or you will be blocked for much longer. Your "warning" on Ymblanter's talk page has been removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The IP has already edited his/her talk page with no admin involvement, however, I'm concerned that one of their first actions upon un-blocking was to issue a templated harassment warning to the admin who blocked him/her. It's hard to imagine this as something other than tendentious editing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now been warned as well. I feel much better now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Todd restored a shared template to the talk page, noting WP:BLANKING. The IP reverted Todd. I have restored the template and again semi-protected the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Todd restored a shared template, noting BLANKING and then edited BLANKING, to replace something removed a month ago. AGF that the IP expected that it was an acceptable item to remove. --Onorem (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any question that the same behavior is being repeated here? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the addition of IP templates as something that cannot be removed was added to WP: Blanking TODAY by the SAME EDITOR who put the template on my talk page (Toddst1): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_pages&diff=558826192&oldid=554775646 RIGHT AFTER I removed the template from my talk page. What's going on? 68.50.128.91 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the IP talk headers had been done a couple months ago ... but such a change should have gone through an RfC to ensure consensus before that clause had been removed. Toddst1's edit reverted that removal to restore the previous long-standing version per BRD, until such time that consensus does support the re-removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, RIGHT as my block expires, the policy that had been in place for MONTHS is changed by the VERY EDITOR who added the template, and I am sanctioned for violating it. This is harassment. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• If any admin wants to lift the protection I imposed on the IP's talk page because of the confusion, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, YOU need to lift the protection, since YOU erroneously put it on there. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So, how is that barking orders at people instead of asking politely working out for you? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 is admitting he's in the wrong, but is refusing to take responsibility for fixing his error, let alone apologize for it. I'm not being uncivil, but I'm not going to beg him to do something he's supposed to do. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And politeness pretty much went out the window with his comment above: "And while I'm here, unless you have something useful to contribute at Wikipedia, go somewhere else, or you will be blocked for much longer." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As someone not involved in this mess, why doesn't the IP just register an account and be free of the bothersome template? Also, disruptive and grating attacks on anyone, especially admins at ANI is likely to turn out badly. I suggest 68.50 stop, take a breather and realize that Wikipedia is not going to tolerate abusive comments. No one is "required" to do anything and given the circumstances, being nice and polite goes a lot farther than commands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

First, please review WP: Human. Next, you should review my talk page. It will fill you in on what's been going on. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This does not make any sense. 68.50.128.91 has edited his/her talk page within the last hour.[92] So why is he/she complaining here?

On his/her talk page he/she complained on 24 May 2013 that an unblock reviewer had "also referred to me as a "troll" twice before". The posts on ANI seem like trolling to me. I suggest that this disruptive IP editor be blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this disruptive? That unblock reviewer did refer to twice as a troll before, and I listed the diffs ([93] and here: [94]). Also, please read WP: Assume Good Faith. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A better suggestion to fix the problem. Unlock the page and tell the IP that BLANKING has been restored to a prior version that doesn't allow for removing the template. --Onorem (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is more important than the blanking confusion and the protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Deal with the underlying problem then. Using false reasons for the protection just gives them more ammunition for their anger. --Onorem (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. The underling problem is you refusing to take responsibility for your mistakes and your comments that generally run counter to WP: Civility and WP: HUMAN here. You've been warned about this before by other editors. What you should have done, and could still do, is say, "You're right. I made a mistake. I'll fix it. My apologies." And that would be the end of the story. But for now I'll settle for you just unprotecting the page and leaving me alone. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 68 started this thread solely to make a very simple request: to have the protection removed from his talk page so that IP editors can comment. I don't know if he made this request anywhere else (I haven't looked), but instead of just obliging the request, this has unnecessarily turned into yet another war with IP 68. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that talk page protected from unregistered editors, let alone for the two weeks it's been in place already. 68's block is over so please, just remove the protection and end this silly, pointless battle. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, I just saw all the warning templates you put on various admins' pages. Just stop it, please. Instigating a fight with everyone is definitely not going to work out well. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to fight with anyone. I'm just warning a select few admins (Ymblanter, Toddst1, and Bbb23 specifically) to stop harassing me. Apparently it's become necessary. One of my warnings was to Bbb23 regarding his inappropriate removal of your comment from my talk page (he responded with taunting me with a potential block: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABbb23&diff=558826342&oldid=558825803). I'm not the only editor who has warned them or brought up ANIs regarding their conduct. I just want these editors to go find some articles to add to instead of adding unwarranted protections etc on my talk page. I'm not going to give out anymore warnings, and won't even bother bringing up another ANI about their conduct. I just want my talk page unprotected. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's really not a good idea to template administrators. Plus, I wouldn't call their actions harassment, but rather their job. If you continue your disruptive behavior, you can be blocked. It's not harassment, it's basically what will happen. Just like parents and children. If a parent wants their child to do something and they retaliate, the parents tell them they will get a timeout or grounding if they don't. It's not harassment. If you want more info on this, you should read up on WP:HARASS. - Amaury (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation. I'll assume good faith and say that you are mistaken. Read through this entire ANI to understand what occurred before commenting again. In the meantime, refrain from personal attacks (i.e. comparing me to a child that needs to be punished by a parent), and read this: WP: Civility. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Amaury, I hope you don't think that you're helping with comments like that. You're not. And you failed to mention that you put a warning template on 68's talk page about in the past couple hours regarding the exact same thing you just lectured him about, so one might wonder why you felt it necessary to come here and do essentially the same thing again. You have your own history of being blocked, so perhaps you should stop going down this unproductive path you're on. And for the record, your analogy of of parents/admins vs. children/non-admins can be perceived as consdescending. And bogus. There are some really great admins, but they are editors just like everyone else. The only difference is... they have tools. Anyway, it always amazes me when uninvolved editors make comments that do nothing but escalate an already volatile situation, rather than trying to calm the waters. Now, 68, you say you don't want to fight anyone, but slapping all those warning templates on various admin talk pages doesn't make it seem that way, especially when it's admins you've been at war with for the past month. It's like a kamakaze mission. (Maybe someone should create an essay titled "Wikikamikaze".) You know full well that there are some edtiors who would love nothing more than to see you blocked forever. So why would you give them any ammunition that could help them make that happen? Some admins are looking for any reason to kick your ass off of Wikipedia permanently. You were absolutely right about the issue of your talk page being protected from unregistered editors; it's complete bullshit. It should never have been done and should be removed immediately. But launching non-stop rockets and grenades is crazy, particularly when you know there are so many editors who have no problem making your life on here miserable. Some apparently even enjoy it. So if I were you, I'd register for an account and never edit any of the pages you've edited previously. Start fresh and move on. After everything that's happened, it would be nearly impossible for you to ever get a fair shake and establish a good reputation, even if you deserve it. In the meantime, hopefully a reasonable admin will look at the one sentence with which you started this discussion, and just take care of it so that yet another completely unnecessary drama will put to rest. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to fight with anyone, that's why I warned them not to harass me. I want to prevent it from happening. But anyways, I'm willing to walk away from this without any further action so long as my talk page is unprotected like it should have been once Bbb23 realized he had screwed up: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=558828573 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, are you seriously going to ignore everything I just said to you? What are you doing?? Please, stop. I wish an admin would just do the right thing and unprotect 68's damn talk page and that 68 will stop his damn attacks on everyone. I hate these fucking drama boards. I don't understand why so many editors have to be so fucking stubborn. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not templating anyone, or attacking anyone. What are you even talking about? Calm down. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm one of the only editors (perhaps the only editor) who has treated you with kindness and respect, and has tried to help you. I spent all that time (just above) asking you to please stop the attacks (and to create an account). And what did you do? You came back and didn't even acknowledge one postiive piece of advice I gave you. Instead, you went into full defensive mode (again) and posted a comment that ended with "once Bbb23 realized he had screwed up". Maybe now you can understand my frustration. And it's not just with you; it's with many of the editors involved in this war you've been in for the past month. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your treating me with kindness and respect. I've said as much. And I've also pointed out that you're one of the few who has. If you want me to thank you for that again, then yes, thank you. But, I'm not going to just "create an account." You, editing with an IP, should understand that this is not the correct way to solve this issue. That Bbb23 screwed up is not a "personal attack," in fact, he admits he did in that in very diff I posted a link to (did you read his comment in the diff?). Your frustration should be directed at him, not me. He protects my talk page, says "oops," then wonders off with a "well that's someone else's mess now." Hence most of this ANI. This is the same editor who removed your comment from my talk page (which I restored, during the time it was briefly unprotected, by the way) and then protected it. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, here you go again. Every time you post a comment, it's to insult someone and be defensive. These ongoing gripes about Bbb23 are getting you nowhere and hurting your cause even more. Everyone gets it... you're pissed at Bbb and think he was wrong. So why do you feel the need to pound everyone over the head with it? And apparently, you just want to keep ignoring everything I've said. Did I not state (more than once) that it was completely wrong to protect your talk page? And that I fully realize that there are editors who'd love to see you banned forever? If you do not understand why repeatedly saying that someone "screwed up" is uncivil and counter-productive, then no one can explain it to you. Regarding my advice that you create an account, you say that I "should understand" since I'm an IP, too. Actually, what I understand is that your reputation is essentially ruined on here. And that doesn't mean I'm saying you deserve it. I'm simply saying that that's how it is. So if you don't understand why registering would help your situation, then, again, no one can explain it to you. If you'd prefer to continue with this ongoing path of hostility between you and many other editors, no one can stop you. But I think there's a very good chance that you'll eventually be indeffed, even if you don't deserve it. In any case, I hope you'll choose to stop this constant pleading of your case and trying to convince everyone that you are right and others are wrong about things. Even if you're right about everything, it's getting you absolutely nowhere. I'm sorry if I ever gave you the impression that I was defending your behavior when it was uncivil. I wasn't. I was defending you on some editing issues and trying to get other editors to ease up on you (if you would stop attacking or insulting people). Being really senstitive and having a bad temper are not good traits for someone who wants editing Wikipedia to be a pleasant experience. Especially for an IP. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not to add more heat to the fire, but the IP editor seems thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia and was so from the very beginning. Check the contribution history.[95] By the fifth edit made remarks about deletion review.[96] and hit the edit filter as the very first edit.[97] Also the Bell ANI seems to be much of the same here.[98] I think the editor is concealing their identity and takes a hostile approach to scrutiny. I think an explanation is in order. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is a bunch of nonsense. Doc talk 03:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is, nor what you are asking. I seem "thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia." I disagree, but, thanks, I guess? "I think the editor is concealing their identity." Please read: WP: ANONYMOUS, especially this part: "Many people refer to IP editing as 'anonymous editing.' But in reality, IP editing is less anonymous than registering a username. IP addresses in many cases can be traced to an exact location." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 68, where in that comment was I comparing you to relations between parents and children? I was simply giving an example. The "you" was third-person. Furthermore, I know about civility. I've been here since December 30, 2008 and have read it several times.

IP 76, my block history has nothing to do with this. - Amaury (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess it hasn't sunk in yet. You brought up an analogy of adults punishing children in the context of a topic about my interaction with three admins. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I think you meant, "Not to add more heat to the fire, but I'm going to anyway." What a bunch of pointless crap that serves no useful purpose whatsoever. And let me remind you that alleging that someone is a sock without filing a report at SPI can be considered harassment. And while you think "an explanation is in order", 68 owes you nothing. If you think he's a sock, report it. And you better have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, knock off the disruptive rhetoric. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Amaury, you obviously don't want your block history to be a part of this, but when you do the types of things you've been doing in this situation, it will become a part of it. When you keep choosing to unnecessarily intensify the drama, rather than trying to cool things down, you always run the risk of being boomeranged. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just giving my two cents, like anyone is freely able to. However, seeing as I'm not involved in this, this will be my last comment on the matter. Have a good night. - Amaury (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, I should have asked this originally: Why was coming here to AN/I the very first thing you did after your block expired today? Why didn't you just go to Bbb23's talk page and say, "Can you please unprotect my talk page?" I think all of this crap could possibly have been avoided if you had done that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted the first admin available to remove the protection. It was supposed to automatically expire, and it didn't. I thought it was a tech issue, so the first admin who could figure out what was going on would be able to fix it. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. Cruising for a bruising. Can't see another point opening this thread. Doc talk 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Doc9871, please read WP: Assume Good Faith. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Never heard that one! Quit harassing good-faith users. Doc talk 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please read it in its entirety. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Contributions, and especially history of the user_talk page of 68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as attacks against Toddst1 and against Bbb23 reveal an obvious WP:gaming the system pattern. I think it’s a time to put the end to IP lawyers who waste the time of legitimate editors for many weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the links you posted. You'll see that that they aren't attacks, but rather are warnings. Also, read WP: HUMAN. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your last statement is well-meaning, but a bit sweeping. This particular IP just needs to stop opening the AN/I threads, pronto. And this thread should be closed and archived as a waste of time. Doc talk 05:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You can thank Bbb23 for wasting everyone's time. As 76.189.109.155 wrote above, "IP 68 started this thread solely to make a very simple request: to have the protection removed from his talk page so that IP editors can comment. I don't know if he made this request anywhere else (I haven't looked), but instead of just obliging the request, this has unnecessarily turned into yet another war with IP 68. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that talk page protected from unregistered editors, let alone for the two weeks it's been in place already. 68's block is over so please, just remove the protection and end this silly, pointless battle." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

He also said you shouldn't have come straight here. You're here to make trouble. Let the others sort you out. Doc talk 05:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He asked why I came straight here. And I responded. This is your second warning: follow WP: Assume Good Faith. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the second warning. You are currently an edit warrior who attacks admins with ludicrous warnings. I AGF of the admins I already know way before you and your foolish warnings. You don't seem to get what vandalism or harassment is. My AGF of you is low. So pipe down and learn the site's rules. There are quite a few. Or open another thread like this. Doc talk 06:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, again, I'd like to wipe my hands of this, and I'm sure others would too. No further warnings back and forth, bickering, or anything else. Just unprotect my talk page, and we can all go on with other things. Also, any ANIs regarding admin or editor conduct regarding this topic won't come from me. Clean break. That's my proposal. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, please. Unblock the talk page, archive, move on. Enough. Doc talk 06:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Doc. Will someone please just unprotect 68's talk page and close this thread. As you'll see from all of my comments above, I've tried to help 68 with the issue that brought him here, but his behavior in this discussion is getting out-of-control. I have a strong feeling that if this discussion continues, he's going to end up getting blocked yet again. For a long time. And I don't want to see that happen. So is there an admin (Bbb or someone else) who will just please unprotect his talk page and put an end to this useless conversation? Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is depressing that this little bunfight has gotten far more attention than actual content-related threads occurring above. Could we all (myself included!) work a little more on tilting the signal:noise ratio a little further to the left? — The Potato Hose 06:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  There is one simple solution. An admin removes the talk page protection. The thread is then over. Doc talk 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Point of information Can an IP edit their own talk page while it is semi'd? NE Ent 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Unless they have had their talk page access revoked for other reasons. Theoretically. Doc talk 11:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Geebee2 & Murder of Travis Alexander

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

---

user:Geebee2 is a WP:SPA and has serious COI, see this talk page section foe details. issues on the Murder of Travis Alexander article. Quite simply Geebee2 is engaged in advocacy as she believes the woman convicted of killing Alexander is innocent. She has used her own wiki as a source, even after being told she cannot. She uses her own wiki and her research on it to support her arguments on the talk page. She is a regular at the jodiariasisinnocent.com and has used that as a source[99] Her most recent edits show she is incalpable of following NPOV, here she says in her edit summary "Moved media interview information to Discovery and Investigation section, removed summary" What she has actually done is remove that Arias had give nthree different stories over the killings. Here she removes the section on the discovery of the body which according to GeeBee2 "it adds nothing to article" I request she be topic banned from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I will support a topic ban for the user as the user has proven it can not objectively edit material about the subject. The user is ofcourse entitled to their opinion about guilt or unguilt but it can not be the users aim to remake the article into a pro-Jodi article a Wiki article should remain neutral. The user has so far been unwilling to change even though several users has tried to reason with it and an admin has warned the user. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are very badly informed.

(1) I am male not female.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(2) I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(3) It is you who has repeatedly vandalised the work I have done.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(4) There are issues which I have probably got wrong, related to the use of primary sources. The wikipedia guidance on this is extensive and ambiguous, so I make no apology for that.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(5) My POV is certainly that the article is wrongly titled. There is nothing whatsoever notable about the death of Travis Alexander, and everything notable about the trial.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(6) Notwithstanding (1), there is a misogynistic double standard at wikipedia. See the Trayvon Martin article, which is nothing other than a defense website.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per my note further down in this thread, and because of Geebee2's belligerent and uncollaborative attitude in this very discussion, I'm changing my support for a ban to a proposal for an indefinite block. Please don't let's stand by and see constructive editors worn out by trying to contain this timewasting disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC). I agree with the descriptions above by Darness Shines and BabbaQ. I'll also note that Geebee2 is clearly an overwhelming contributor to collaborate with. Apart from his large demands for detailed talkpage discussion on every point, merely reading the history of Murder of Travis Alexander is exhausting. (Unfortunately that'll probably also affect people here who try to get a grasp on the issue.) I was in fact asked to help on my page recently, but had to (whinily) decline because of time constraints.[100] The trouble is Geebee2 makes a myriad edits with extreme rapidity, most of them small but with larger removals intermixed, and that method makes it hard to pinpoint the problems. He started editing Murder of Travis Alexander two months ago and has made 468 edits to it since then, accelerating all the time. The last 36 edits were performed in the space of three hours.[101] I'm not suggesting he's being deliberately overwhelming in order to OWN the article, but it's in fact impossible to keep up with this. Darkness Shines deserves our thanks for giving diffs to some problematic edits hidden in the jungle, especially this removal of important material with a misleading edit summary. That edit alone makes me worry about GeeBee2's claim above that "I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer." Incidentally there also seem to be problems of advocacy in Geebee2's editing of David Camm.[102] Possibly all BLP-related articles broadly construed should be included in the topic ban? Finally, Geebee2, please don't be so free with your accusations of WP:vandalism, here and in edit summaries; they're baseless and uncivil. You see how nobody's accusing you of vandalism? Bishonen | talk 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• I suggest the burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation. I repeat, I do not believe I have removed any significant content, certainly not within the last 24 hours. The page history is available. Please substantiate, and we can discuss what was removed, otherwise Darkness shines should withdraw his false allegation. The edit Bishonen references is because I resourced that material with proper dates today Note, one part went into the pre-trial section where it logically belongs. Geebee2 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the "burden of proof" lies with the user that makes 36 edits on a single article within the space of 3 hours and over 400 within a 2 months time span. Also you bring up discussions but from what I have seen everytime users try to discuss with you, you simply say they are wrong and you justify your edits and are not interested in discussing it further. When I contacted you, you stated that I should remove my comment. You need to realise that if you want to have discussions you have to be willing to have discussions and not see them as people "attacking you" at every given time. And all of this combined with you throwing accusations around against Bishonen and Shines who is just trying to reason with you makes me think a topic ban for you is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I said you should move the comment out of that section, as it was not relevant there. I have been subject to multiple attacks, but none of these people are contributing to the article, and generally the attacks are non-specific. I'm sure I have made mistakes, for example, yesterday someone supplied source, and asked for that to be included somehow, I went ahead, but it turned out the source was not appropriate, and the detail was not appropriate, and now I get the criticism. Other criticisms I get are completely non-specific. e.g. Darkness shines "I object to everything you do to this article". It is not possible to respond to such a vague charge. Geebee2 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• See how you edit too fast? Why would you include something somebody else requests, without even checking if the detail is appropriate and the source is appropriate? You're simply making work for others. Yes, you will "get the criticism" for edits that you do to the article, it's no good blaming the person requesting them. Don't add anything you can't take responsibility for. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• Support. This is very difficult to sift through, but it seems to me that Geebee's only real objective in editing that article is to obfuscate any hint of criminality directed at Arias. Some of the removals performed to further that goal, such as fundamental information about the finding of the body etc. are particularly damaging. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• : Can anyone say what was actually wrong with the article when it was reverted by Darkness shines? [103]. My POV was (and is) that testimony belongs in the trial section, that was why I moved it there. There seemed to be some kind of violent objection - so I offered to move it back, but that was rejected, and 2 hours of hard work is lost. Sure I work quickly, and I make mistakes, the antiquated user interface at wikipedia is frustrating. I do make small edits, this is intended to allow people to see what I'm doing, not obfuscate. Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? And by the way, have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?Geebee2 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support a topic ban. In fact, I support an immediate block for every edit that even smells of advocacy. It is indeed hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in those many edits; the edit pointed out above I did see yesterday, but it was one of many and I wish I had looked more carefully to see what it was sourced to (I believe that edit was reverted as a BLP violation?)--that edit alone, after a week of such voluminous editing and warnings/discussion, is probably blockable already. Geebee is active on a few other articles as well and those articles and Geebee's edits are very problematic. Given the evidence of external interests I think it is established well enough that this editor is here to make a case, and it's not an encyclopedic case. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I encourage editors and admins to look at this edit I just made to Trial by media--an edit invited by this list of contributors and further explained on Talk:Trial by media. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Drmies's edit absolutely - the material removed was nothing but WP:OR and advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, does your account need to be blocked for being compromised? No cussword, no disagreement? :) Thanks, BTW. I pondered doing this yesterday already, and having slept over it I was sure that it needed to go. Pity there's little left right now of what could be a decent and important article. I wish we could require "only academic articles and books" as sources for some articles. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That re-insertion is a big problem, but I believe the burden of the editors to prove their accusations still remains. The ongoing edit war alone needs to be stopped as that alone is blockable.[104][105] Edits like this also show unacceptable POV pushing. But other edits seem to be acceptable, and useful.[106] Other additions to articles like Trial by Media push POV; which Drmies just took care of. [107] Over 150 revisions to that article made for one huge BLP concern. Geebee needs act within BLP policies or else should be blocked; the speed of the edits aren't the problem, its the edits and POV pushing itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see the point at "Trial by Media", I would point out that when I came across that article, it was already a list of cases, I just added some extra cases I happened to know about, and thought it would be interesting to do a comparison, looking at things like motive. Sure there is some kind of subjective selection here, the cases added are obviously cases that people for whatever reason perceive as miscarriages of justice, whether rightly or wrongly. Are there not places in wikipedia where lists get built in a collaborative way? I did ask a talk question about it a day or so in advance, and got no response. But Drmies thinks that is unacceptable, fair enough, I'm not going to argue, I think the article may as well be deleted entirely, there is nothing left except a single dodgy reference to the Bill Clinton case and an external reference to India.Geebee2 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Geebee2, this is the administrators' noticeboard. It's primarily for getting comments from uninvolved, neutral, users, so you're shooting yourself in the foot with your repeated complaints that people here haven't contributed to the article. That's the way it's supposed to work. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battleground, it's a collaborative site, and your response to the complaints about your editing methods is the last straw for me. "Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? I want to change my "support" for a ban, above, to a proposal for an indefinite block. Over the years, it's been my invariable experience on this site that when new users are urged civilly to avoid editing in a way that inconveniences others and they respond by demanding to be directed to a policy that forces them to comply — then they're not here to write an encyclopedia, they're here to wikilawyer and get their way by tiring everybody out. Never fails. Go ahead, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I can't make possibly controversial decisions for a few weeks, you know; it hurts me in the ratings (in the court of public opinion--Trial by media, you know). I am not yet at the point that Bbb apparently is, but also I have not yet seen what I'm hoping to seefind--a commitment to encyclopedic editing and an acknowledgement that they haven't been doing that so far. And I must say, Bbb makes a convincing case in his latest post. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I support an indefinite block. I realize that jumping to an indef without any preceding blocks is unorthodox, but a review of Geebee's edits warrants the sanction. I have been reviewing his edits since I read Basilisk's support. During that time, Drmies posted his views, which largely coincide with what I found in my review. I spent a fair amount of time working on the David Camm article, which Geebee extensively edited (280 edits, or almost 75% of the total edits to the article). Putting aside sloppiness, there were a significant number of copyright violations, which I have removed from the article, and Geebee committed at least some of them (I got tired looking). This edit is a copy-and-paste from the source. this massive edit (220 consecutive edits) includes other copyright violations as well. This edit is absurd. Geebee copied text verbatim from the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion, didn't give it any attribution, and incorrectly cited the Indiana Supreme Court. I don't believe it's a copyright violation so I left it in as a long quote and attributed it properly - probably should be done differently. Then, on top of all this, you have the edit removing the death section, which has already been mentioned, and this edit, which removes negative material about Arias in the guise of summarizing. Then, there's the off-wiki blog, which was started by Geebee at roughly the same time as he started editing here again after almost five years of inactivity. If others are still uncomfortable with an indefinite block, then I propose broadening the topic ban to any pages on Wikipedia that are law-related, broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did not remove negative material about Arias, it was either moved to another section in the article or expanded giving more detailed date information derived from CBC News timeline ( and possibly redistributed elsewhere in the article to the most logical point ). It might look that way looking at a single diff, and maybe I did it the wrong way, but that's the truth. Geebee2 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's false. It's true that some of the material you moved to other locations, but you often removed material at the same time as you moved it. Moreover, some of the moves shifted the emphasis. Thus, for example, where there had been a separate section about Alexander's death, now his death was deemphasized by being put into a much longer section about the investigation. I'm not saying that I disagree with every single edit you've made. You've made far too many for some of them not to be problematic, but the bigger picture stands out that you have a clear bias and an agenda, whether you want to admit that or not. The diff I noted above was part of another of your infamous series of consecutive edits (32 of them in this instance) and is here. Interestingly, the article was reduced by 3,410 characters - hard to say that would be an expansion, isn't it? After you removed the material, you edit warred with Taroaldo and Darkness Shines about it until you realized you were in danger of breaching WP:3RR (DS left a warning on your talk page), although you already had.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, let me describe what I believe I did. Yesterday, I found an updated timeline, which gave dates for the televised interviews. Next I added these dates, and then thought these items belonged in the discovery and investigation section, so I moved them there from the media section. I think I also added another interview with "The Republic", and did some other minor changes. The 2009 interview went into the pre-trial section. Now, as a result of these changes, the "summary" (which has a hint of OR about it I think and also differed in style from the other entries in this section), was redundant, since the information was in the adjacent paragraphs, so I removed it. As a result, the number of characters in the article was reduced, but the information was increased. I also did some other changes to the discovery section, putting things into chronological order, but with Arias and Alexander treated separately. Finally (and I admit this was probably a mistake) I thought Dr Horn's testimony belonged in the trial section and moved it there, with the result that the "Death" section had no information left in it.Geebee2 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not real keen on endless back-and-forth. However, I'll reply once more. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you say in your last comment is true. You have't addressed the edit warring. You haven't addressed the self-righteousness with which you edit, either ignoring other editors' warnings or at least pushing it to just one step before you might be sanctioned. You haven't addressed the major changes you make to this and other articles without any real discussion with other editors (I've read some of your intense quibbling on the article talk page, driving most other editors crazy). You apparently plunge ahead. You haven't addressed the copyright violations in the Camm article. It appears to me that you are very biased and that those biases impel you to contribute in the fashion that you do, including occasionally apologizing so as not to appear to be a fanatic, as well as generally keeping your cool. We need neutral editors, or at least editors who try to be neutral as we all have our biases. You came here to edit in a certain way, and it's unacceptable. You eat up too many resources. You cause too much disruption. Whatever positive things you might contribute are far outweighed by the negatives. And I see no likelihood you'll change.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• On the copyright issue, at the time I wasn't properly aware of the need to reword. I hadn't noticed your post on the talk page previously, I will go and attend to that now.Geebee2 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion in this thread and a review of Geebee2's editing, I have blocked him indefinitely for tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

ip user 80.255.199.135 repeated vandalism after final warning - can you block?

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

repeated vandalism after final warning. most recently to The Voice UK where incorrect and unsourced information was added, as well as irrelevant speculation on Simon Cowell's sexuality.

Diffs

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_UK&diff=558796880&oldid=558791480
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_UK&diff=558762113&oldid=558683663

Link to final warning

• User_talk:80.255.199.135
• 31.54.144.215 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, 31.54.144.215. Unfortunately it's a dynamic IP, but I've blocked for 24 hours to begin with. For the future, please consider Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism reports. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

Ccroberts123 back from block, resuming same behaviour

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

---

After returning from a recent block by Kudpung for edit warring for persistently adding unsourced content to article Mattel and edit warring over it, user Ccroberts123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this and this edit again, as if nothing happened. - DVdm (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User notified. - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Syngmung

Section header shortened because it was messing up the display of the TOC on this page. Original title: User:Syngmung engaging in WP:SYNTH, WP:CANVAS and inserting references to rape and flawed comparisons to numerous articles — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's there in the title. I would like to propose a TBAN on "rape" for the foreseeable future. Syngmung apparently has some sort of axe to grind with the US military stationed in South Korea and the South Korean government that facilitates them. I am not a fan of either of these parties myself, but I can't condone any of the following actions:

• SYNTH on 1995 Okinawa rape incident, insisting that kidnapping and forcible rape of an elementary school student "is compared to" prostitution, citing two sources, one of which does not appear to mention Okinawa and the other of which mentions the incident but makes no such comparison.[108]
• Pretending in the article body to be citing a book but in fact giving a review of the book in the reference, implying that he/she has not in fact read the book but is inserting an out-of-context blurb in the article nonetheless.[109]
• Inserting disproportionate discussion of rape by U.S. soldiers after WW2 into an article about brothels and apparently using a hypothetical suggestion about setting up brothels as an excuse.[110]
• Canvassing numerous users with a misrepresentation of an ongoing deletion argument (accusing the delete/merge !votes of trying to "hide" something)[111][112][113][114] and canvassing numerous peripherally related WikiProjects with a misrepresentation of his/her opponents arguments/motives in an edit war.[115][116][117][118][119][120]
• Inserting links to articles on prostitution (particularly in South Korea) to the "See also" sections of unrelated/peripherally-related articles.[121][122][123]
• Adding a subsection about rape to the "Dramatizations of the invasion of Normandy" section, and then failing to get the point on being reverted numerous times.[124][125]

I know the user is going to accuse me (again) of being an SPA whose purpose is to edit war with him/her. This may be taken as true, given the circumstances, but please consider that I was editing Wikipedia (anonymously) some years ago, and came back when I noticed during my browsing that someone was adding inappropriate rape/prostitution references and comparisons to an article (the Okinawa one) that I just happened to be reading. Now that I have that out of the way can we focus on Syngmung's behavior? The user got blocked a few days ago for edit warring and when unblocked went straight back to adding the same kind of questionable material, and I just wanted to bring this to the community's attention, at least to the point that it hasn't already.

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(BTW, I know my diffs are a little bare, but in order to give a full context for this user's violations, I would need to basically cite every single edit the user has made for the last week or two. A look at the contributions page should not contradict anything that I have just said, though. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC) )

Nonsense. I have already talked some of my points according to reliabled sources. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone argued according to his OR without sources. Besides, I have already been bloked as being edit wars. It is unfair, cos Eh doesn't afraid of anyone are bringing the former issues. So, now I make great effort to talke in talk page. But Eh doesn't afraid of anyone ignore my effort to talk in talk pages and try to exclude users who dont match with his view.--Syngmung (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing material is never OR. Drawing a completely original comparison between the forcible rape of a child with prostitution is OR, even if one has two separate sources that each mention one but not the other. Please stop making personal attacks against me if you can't demonstrate with diffs -- which users have I tried to exclude? What is my "view"? I have engaged you on talk pages every chance you have given me -- remember that one not long ago where you accused me of promoting a POV by deleting your rape subsection, to which I responded immediately?[126] Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Syngmung for one week for resumption of edit warring at Rape during the liberation of France and for canvassing. The topic ban discussion can continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent copy violations from User:Gunkarta

I was checking out a series of bilateral articles created by Gunkarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and found a persistent and serious pattern of blatant copy violations. Gunkarta is an experienced editor so there is no excuse for this blatant violation of WP rules. I would suggest a topic ban for creating bilateral articles but leave it up to the community to suggest a course of action. Below is only what I believe is the tip of copyright iceberg:

• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]
• [133]
• [134]
• [135]
• [136]
• [137]
• [138]

LibStar (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Libstar, I examined [139] for numbers 31 through 69.  The pattern I found is that articles you create with over 1000 bytes are copy and pastes that are missing attribution history.  #30 is a special case which I have addressed here.

• [140], [141]
• [142], [143], [144]
• [145], [146]
• [147], [148]

Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste#How about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I will use an edit summary in future, but I am curious why you are not commenting on the serious copyvio in my original complaint. Is there a reason why not? LibStar (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright attorney, are you?  In your edit comment you identify [149] as a "blatant" case of copyvio.  The text transformation is not cut and paste.  What criteria did you apply to determine that there was a copyvio?  What criteria did you apply to determine that it was "blatant"?  Point 4 of Copyright#Fair use mentions "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".  Have you developed an opinion about the change in the potential market value of the copyrighted work?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your goal here? Are you looking to catch me out? The point I am making is that this user has a history of copy violations, yet all you are interested is trying to paint me as the bad one. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:GagsGagsGags

Despite being warned for creating 3 similar hoax Beyoncé Knowles tour DVDs, User:GagsGagsGags has created another: The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (album). —JennKR | ☎ 18:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged: topic ban

Laurel Lodged has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties. Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North). Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus).

The problem with Laurel Lodged making changes like these has been raised at WikiProject Ireland-related pages on many occasions. At this stage, Laurel Lodged knows that these changes are controversial and that the community does not appreciate his/her contributions of this kind. One of the last times this happend, I raised the question of a topic ban. There wasn't consensus then as to whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned or forced to first seek consensus before making changes like these.

A new thread has been opened on WikiProject Ireland to do with a new set of mass changes Laurel Lodged's has made. I propose now that Laurel Lodged be topic banned from making changes to do with Irish counties and their names.

I've left a message on the WikiProject Ireland thread inviting comment here on whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned. --RA (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit comments over the top

I've never posted here before. Was patrolling recent edits and came across IP User 207.207.28.141 who left unnecessarily inflammatory edit comments on this diff [150]. Is this the right place to go? Should I use the ANI notice? --Godot13 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for two weeks. --RA (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we get that summary suppressed? It really shouldn't stand in the history.  davidiad { t } 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama‎

A second set of eyes would be welcome here. As an involved editor, I don't want to press a revert war with an anon who obviously feels quite passionate about this topic. I may have already gone a bit beyond the pale in reverting. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP-violations by IP. Besides their disruptive editing and warring, they're adding unsourced and unreliable sourced content in violation of BLP. Some admin please look into this. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, then removed their talkpage access after they started using it as a soapbox. Several other editors have exceeded 3RR, but given the IP's battleground attitude and use of the article for soapboxing, the IP was the locus of disruption. Their edits after blocking confirmed my view, and I'm semi-protecting the article for a month. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That just proves you're part of the Wikipedia tree-hugging liberal pansy conspiracy, I think. (Thanks for the assist.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)