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

Behavior of "Sports and Politics" warrants admin attention!

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

---

I would like to draw your attention to "Sports and Politics" (S&P)'s behavior and see if some administrative action is warranted. In a recent ANI post S&P created in which she tried to make some unfounded accusation of another editor (of invoking "a legal threat to try and push forward their POV on an article"), S&P has instead drawn attention to her own behavior, as observed by TP (see this, and this):
"...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war".
True to her spirit, S&P has just demonstrated yet again such a behavior.
S&P has slapped a "revert warring" warning on my talk page while she herself has reverted the same changes 3 times, when I clearly stated in my revert note that "this has been discussed in ANI and DRN. Even the version you proposed contain reference to "high-tech warfare".
Apparently, this is not the first time S&P has shown such a tendency.
If we dig a little deeper, you would notice that S&P has shown a consistent pattern of engaging such and similar tactics in the past: such as this, this, this, this and this.
Time for some administrative action against such behavior?!
Showmebeef (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is purely and simply a content dispute. I'm surprised that I haven't been mentioned here too, because I've agreed with User:Sport and politics. A waste of Administrator time. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not SIMPLY a content dispute (though it has arisen from a content dispute). This serves to demonstrate a certain "behavior pattern" of a certain editor! Showmebeef (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics behavioural problems are quite extensive and is the most disruptive and devious editor I have encountered on Wikipedia, this is just the tip of the iceberg. However, it may be better to focus on revert warring for now. --Andromedean (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe its late....but what is the behavior we are talking about here?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Kim down below--the behavior is "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war". Showmebeef (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And there we have it. The content dispute has Showmebeef and Andromedean on one side, and Sport and politics and me on the other. Sport and politics and I have firmly opposed the addition of masses of what we see as undue content, for months. The former two are forum shopping, and have been for months. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that I have been "forum shopping"? And how do you term this kind of groundless accusation?? Showmebeef (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. You may not have been forum shopping, but the person you have aligned yourself with here certainly has. It may have been unfair of me to group you with Andromedean with regards to that particular behaviour, but when you choose your allies you indicate at least some acceptance of their overall behaviour. I don't really want to get deeply involved in this discussion. When the "Controversies" section first appeared in the London Olympics article I suggested that, just as for all previous Olympics articles, it was a bad idea. You can actually find some thoughts of mine about Criticism sections in any article on my Talk page. It pre-dates this issue by some time. I think clumping negatives together in articles is a very bad look for Wikipedia. I predicted it would lead to bad things for the London Olympics article, and it has. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because I agree with some of the viewpoints or choices of some content of an editor doesn't mean I chose to ally with that editor; nor does it indicate my acceptance of the "particular behaviour" of that editor. However, by extension of your own logic, and by your own admission that you and "Sport and Politics" are on the same side (which I take it as meaning that you two are allies), do you mean to say that you accept S&P's "particular behaviour"? Showmebeef (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist I would recommend looking through Tparis' comments first as an uninvolved admin, along with her aggressive attitude including the hidden part of the talk page which I attempted to display, and refusal to discuss as you recommended in the DRN, until the last few days when made to. However, it may be best to focus on the revert warring for the time being, since her appeal to Jimbo Wales for extended editing rights linked by showmebeef. It tells a story, along with her contribution history during August & September , but it takes time and patience to go through it all.--Andromedean (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You have provided some difs, but have not explained fully what they relate to. I also don't understand "Hidden part of the talkpage" you attempted to display. Yes, I read through TParis' comments and I fully agree with what he said, and yet he felt no need to take an action but suggest edting another article. So, OK...they have not taken that advice, but what is it that they have done since those comments that you feel another uninvolved admin (or Tparis) would step in to level sanctions over. Of course I suggested you not discuss conduct...on the DR/N as that is not the venue to discuss such issues. But if you are asking for an admin to intervene (and I am not suggesting they shouldn't or wont), you should disuss it with enough detail that even someone like myself, that is familiar with the content dispute, can clearly see are actions that cross a line. I guess I am simply saying, please don't make us go through it all just to figure out what the current issues are that you feel are a continuation of that conduct. Its ok to just tell us. (Also, while the legal threat was not an actual threat, I can at least see why they may have thought so and at least believe it was a good faith misunderstanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to say the Andromedean is the cause of a lot of the ruckus more so than S&P. If anything the collapsed section on the talk page shows more of their combatative behaviour rather than S&P's. The endless horse flogging and ad hominems. Andromedean's behaviour in the recent RFC/U for HiLo48 is also illuminating. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would ask the OP to please post some diffs demonstrating actionable behaviour by S&P please. There are several diffs but they are all from other people about her, not evidence of her own behaviour. Please be precise in the diffs and a specific request for action would be helpful as well (eg blocking, page protection etc.)

Can I also caution all who have contributed to this RfC not simply to continue that battle over here. I have already seen enough comments from the familiar names over there. It would be good to see (a) specific diffs, (b) new voices in the discussion, (c) less rehashing of well-established animosities and (d) no more personal attacks in this thread please ("disruptive", "aggressive", "devious" etc...) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kim, for the suggestion. I'd like to say that the trigger for this post was that S&P has reverted 3 times (revert1, revert2 and revert3), and then slapped me with an "edit war" warning after I have reverted the last one. The original change was made with a note in the talk page that "88 and Showmebeef have both confirmed they accept the last change. Please don't revert and misrepresent what was actually reported by the reputable media". When I made revert to S&P's last one, I also did with an edit note that "this has been discussed in ANI and DRN. Even the version you proposed contain reference to 'high-tech warfare'". S&P made the reverts using the reason that it needs a consensus before it can be changed. However, the change referred to a direct quote from a reputable source, and it has been discussed multiple times in the talk page in the past, and then in the DRN, and most recently in an ANI. What consensus do you need? You know S&P is not going to agree to a "consensus", and that's the way she is holding this section of the article "hostage" (as observed by TP in in an earlier ANI, see this. And this "edit warring" trick came right on the heel of TP's observation (see this):

"...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war".

Some of the diff's I listed was merely trying to show a pattern of S&P's behavior as observed by other users. I could certainly come up with a list of more "diffs demonstrating actionable behaviour" of S&P. Just give me a little more time, please! Showmebeef (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be very unclear, vindictive and highly cherry picked, also none of them so far of actual editing by myself. I have looked through the diffs and they have been in some cases entirely misrepresented. For example the diff regarding edit warring here is actually about weather edit warring was any three edits or was only reverts, I was also a new editor at the time. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

S&P, not three hours before you made this post, I asked people (about three edits up from here) to avoid personal attacks. I don't know what else to call the use of the word "vindictive" and I note that in this sorry tit-for-tat you have got Showmebeef turning it back on you lower down this page. This immature exchange is typical of the poor state of relations between the two camps. If anyone from either side further lowers the tone with a personal attack, I'll block them if I catch them quickly enough. Your collective poor standards of collaboration are the issue here in your race to the bottom, behaviour-wise. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest some reading of the collapsed discussion on the talk page which clearly demonstrated there was no consensus and multiple editors took part in it. Andromodean was the only editor to actively take part in that discussion and advocate making the the changes which have now been made. So to claim there is a consensus to make those changes after reading the collapsed discussion is quite frankly a difficult conclusion to come to. In that discussion more editors favoured complete removal of the section than favoured making the changes proposed. A link to the collapsed discussion can be seen here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics' Pattern of Behavior

I have, in my opening paragraph, described the pretty blatant behavior by S&P for edit or revert warring. I believe it warrants some administrative action or at least the attention of this board--the reason being that S&P has a history of engaging such behavior. Here are some examples that serve to demonstrate such a pattern:

• In this example, an editor has observed that S&P has dished out "at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period (diff's for the 5 reverts are listed):

"Not only is this edit warring,[1][2][3][4][5] but with at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period User:Sport and politics also violated the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR, and was lucky not to be blocked. I'd strongly suggest you follow User:Cla68's advice and discuss on the article's talk page instead of continuing to edit war. Neither WP:BRD nor WP:BOLD are justification for edit warring and violating 3RR. I don't see any civility or wikiquette violation by Cla68, on the contrary, Cla68 has been extremely civil throughout, while Sports and politics has been quite uncivil. Dreadstar ☥ 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• In this example, S&P removed (reverted) the whole section (Technologies used for Cycling) twice when other editors noted that "version added addressing full range of issues so they can be discussed" ( this) and "don't revert good-faith contributions" (this)
  Showmebeef (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case. Having only made my first edits on 8 July and things are being paraded as "evidence" against me from 29 July, some context and rationality is needed. I think this whole case has just been shown to be without any genuine basis of fact and is purely perception on the part of the complainant. Also adding content to a wikipedia article simply for the purposes of "discussing the content " as seen in this diff here is not how Wikipeida works. That flies in the face of standard editing practices of be Bold, then Revert, then Discuss, not be Bold, then Discuss, then Revert. There was also no stopping the content being added to the talk page for discussion as opposed to it being threateningly placed in the article, in the manner it was as shown in the previous diff.

I also fail to see how these two edits here and here with comprehensive edit summaries explaining the actions violates anything, let alone act as "examples that serve to demonstrate such a pattern".

This Diff does not mention the quoted section as claimed. It in fact says "Section taken out for some reason, replaced!", when the user had full knowledge that a discussion on that section was ongoing and at the time there was consensus for complete removal of the section, which is not the same as the consensus which developed and the one we have now, but at the time that was the leading consensus.

As for the other three Diffs one is removal of an unnecessarily added word and one is the reverting poorly worded and non encyclopaedic content and the other is the removing of giving undue weight to what the BBC does as the article is not a commentary on how the BBC covers the Olympics.

Sport and politics (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

By no means are we attacking you, we just think that your behavior is breaking the rules and we're merely speeking on it, or is that a crime now? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where the above comment has come from. I am also not sure where I have said any one is "attacking" anyone. I have simply given my opinion, without calling anyone anything and have pointed out where the above "evidence" falls down. Would you please care to elaborate on your statement above 199.101? Sport and politics (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

your statement on how you started on july 8th and people started brading your edits together from july 29th. it's the one that preceids my comment, it looks like you feel that you're being attacked, but i may be mistaken. in any case, i wish for all this crap to stop as it will not help anyone at all, whether it be you or andromedean. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no feeling of being attacked, I have simply pointed out that the diffs provided do not really stand up "as a demonstration" as claimed by Showmebeef and reaching that far back in to a users edit history will show up newbie editing which is wholly different to their editing style being undertaken today. Also the "evidence" claimed has already been dealt with by the appropriate forum and the complained of behaviour has ceased. There was also an apology from me in that forum. I would actually like an apology from Andromodean for their repeated claims of being "partisan and nationalistic", having a "political agenda" and being "eager to censor". It would be nice to get one but I don't think I will get one though. Sport and politics (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am merely providing some facts here, as Kim has suggested, to establish a pattern of behavior. If you consider that as "attacks", so be it. As someone who's involved in editing an article with you, I don't think my words against yours serve as much volume as other (uninvolved) editors' comments and observations, such as this one (on your talk page and was later deleted by you):

"I am watch(list)ing the 2012 Olympics Controversy page, and your talkpage, in the interests of studying how this situation eventually plays out. I believe your editing style, the resultant aggravation and edit warring, and bad faith displayed on all sides has generated an excellent experiment in Wikipedia governance. This article, handled with the proper attitudes and compromises, would have settled down quickly. Thank you for providing a great case study in how broken the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is.→StaniStani 04:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"
Showmebeef (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am again confused by individuals saying I am thinking I am being attacked. I have specifically stated "I have no feeling of being attacked" so I am not sure where the sentiment is coming from that I am feeling that I am being attacked. I am also not sure of the relevancy of the quote provided. Sport and politics (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I misread the part about "attacks", but the rest of my reply is still highly relevant as it is (yet another) editor's keen observation. And it's not about being ""partisan and nationalistic", but about "your editing style, the resultant aggravation and edit warring, and bad faith displayed", a pattern that has been displayed over and over again, as testimonies by other editors can attest to (which I've provided links earlier). Showmebeef (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read a lot of claims by individuals, but that's all they are just claims. Can you please provide some substantive diffs which back up the continued claims which are made. Otherwise it is just unfounded speculation and individual perception. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this current one?! You have reverted 3 times, and then turn around slapped me with a revert warning? And you've done it right after TP has observed that "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war"?! BTW. I have this question to all admins and all other more experienced editors: can any reasonable editor do that? Is it "legal" even on Wiki for an editor to engage such a behavior?? And how about some admin action just for this kind of behavior?! And now since you've asked for it--I will do my due diligence and provide some more evidence to illustrate your pattern of behavior. However, since I do have professional and family obligations to fulfill, I will ask others who are involved more patience as I come up with more evidence. Showmebeef (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the above and to the reference to the edit war. I was issued with a warning and I ceased the behaviour. Showmebeef though then continued reverting after Andromodean and myself stopped. That was therefore continuing the edit war. As was clearly made to me there is no "entitlement" to three reverts. It is in my opinion a little but rich to complain about edit warring when Showmebeef was happy to continue the edit war. The reversion in question from Showmebeef can be seen here, the warning placed against me seen here, the warning placed against Andromodean here and the warning place against Showmebeef here. ShowmeBeef has also not contributed to the discussions on the talk page since 1 September so has made no attempt at discussing the current issue(s). Whereas while Andromodean and I fundamentally disagree at least there is an open dialogue on the talk page regarding the issues at hand. Sport and politics (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage in a war of words here with you. Any interested admins/editors are welcome to check the edit history of the article (and if they can afford the time and patience--the archive for the article and talk page) for themselves, see how that has evolved and draw their own conclusions. And they are welcome to come back here and comment. Showmebeef (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I do think an apology is in order from andromedean, as long as it will stop this drama. to me, i'm not on either side, i'm just one who wants to stop the drama. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andromodean

As we are discussing here poor behaviour I think its time to lay bear the long running very poor behaviour of Andromedean. Below are a chronological list of diffs of contributions which have been made by Andromodean, mainly but not exclusively in relation to this track cycling technologies section of the controversies at the 2012 Olympics article.

reference to the use of a "strawman"
claims of conflict of interest
claims of not acting in good faith and "acting irresponsibly"
claims of "I don't believe you don't understand this!"
claims a source hasn't been read
further claims sources are not read
claims I have a "political agenda" and" An agenda to censor the essential fact"
claims of "national interest" and "censor the article"
claims I "wrecked it"
claims of "removing objective data"
claims of "censorship of hard facts"
claims of bad faith editing
claims of "really eager to censor objective information"
advocating of edit warring "better still revert to this and lock it"
demonstration of ownership
claims of conflict of interest
claims of "Petty excuses to censor the article, failure to declare any conflict of interest."
claims of disruption and bad faith and a demonstration of ownership
demonstration of no good faith assumption
claim of "how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information"
direct personal attack
claims of "blatant abuse"
demonstration of ownership
direct personal attack
claims of an agenda
claims of "you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user"
bad faith claims and indirect personal attacks
claims of bullying
veiled threat of " If they don’t I will resume editing, and expect others to respect that decision"
editing of other users comments on a talk page
bad faith claims and direct personal attacks
direct personal attack
direct personal attacks and claims of "the absence of any coherent argument you has simply waded through the rule book and invented them" and "dilute the article with propaganda."
claims of lying "you have repeated this lie" and "proves it is deliberate deception on your part"
direct personal attacks
claims of deliberate "deception"
claims of "attempt to hide discussion"
claims of "attempted to hide" discussion
claims of "following" and Misleading the community"
assumption of bad faith
claims of a "refusal to comply"
threatening use of language
claims of "Harassment"
direct threats
claim editing has been used to "subvert the meaning"

start of the forum shopping at no original research noticeboard
tea-house forum shopping
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard forum Shoping
Village Pump forum shopping
forum shopping at an RfC/U

Please can Andromodean be investigated as they have shown over a long period of time very very poor behaviour and have engaged in personal attacks, forum shopping and other unwelcome behaviours on Wikipeida. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, slinging mudd and hoping some of it sticks, I see. I read the first five diffs and nothing in those five gives me concern at all. In fact, the third one seems troubling about you should it be true. I'd ask Andromodean to substantiate it with diffs because if it is true you are ignoring some WP:RS for your preferred sources, then I would be extremely concerned.--v/r - TP 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think not. If i am to be investigated. I only think it fair, right and proper that another user who has violated the rules, policies, guidelines and required behaviour standards be investigated. One user or group of users cannot have their cake and eat it. Please also not I am admitting no liability of any kind in this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never said you had no right to investigate yourself, but the diffs you've provided are very weak. I'd suggest you trim them to the 5-10 best (or worst rather). Also, be sure you are putting your paraphrasing in context as well. Your "direct personal attack" for example is not one when the entire sentence is read.--v/r - TP 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is your opinion and I respect your right to hold that opinion. I have to disagree though as while on their own they may not be in your opinion "weak", It is the sheer volume of them and the increasing personalised nature of them and the blanket nature being applied to all who have an opposing POV. also other users have described Andoromodean as "less than collegial". I will do some trimming as you suggest as well and will post that below. Above is mainly a demonstration firstly of how drawn out this has become, secondly the nature of the dispute and thirdly that it is not a one sided situation as is being painted in the original complaint made against me. Again I am admitting to no liability in the making of this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At first glance I have to admit that the reappearance of so many familiar names lining up on opposite sides makes me want to propose interaction and/or topic bans for the lot of them. I fear this AN/I is destined for a long, undignified and ultimately unsatisfactory existence. If we're going to indulge in "he said..." - "but she said..." argumentation can I appeal for less wall 'o' text from all sides? If you have complaints about a fellow editor's conduct, please pick the worst five diffs, label them neutrally and let them speak for themselves. At present I see nothing jumping out as a blockable offence anywhere. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm giving you good advice here (Sport and politics), "volume" means nothing on WP:ANI. What you're doing is throwing as much as you can at Andromodean and hoping some of it sticks. ANI treats that similarly to WP:TLDR. You're get no traction. If you want to have an impact, pick the 5-10 best and editors will pay more attention. The way you're going about it is going to turn others attention away from your point of view.--v/r - TP 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of most serious diffs:

1. [6]
   
2. [7]
   
3. [8]
   
4. [9]
   
5. [10]

Sport and politics (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of diffs to demonstrate forum shopping:

1. [11]
   
2. [12]
   
3. [13]
   
4. [14]
   
5. [15]

Sport and politics (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Nothing here speaks well of Andromedean's behaviour. Equally, looking at the wider context of these diffs nothing speaks well of the behaviour of her opponents either. The only diff that looks really problematic to me on its own is the third; I don't like it when one editor calls another a liar. However on its own, that diff from early last month is not about to get me to block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it is already clear that it is not on its own. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to simply point out that this ANI is NOT about Andromedean. Please don't try to turn this into one and shift the focus here. They could start whatever at an appropriate forum/platform elsewhere. This post is about S&P's behavior. If there is anything, I am surprised somebody is keeping such an extensive list. I can't help it but the word "vindictive" kept coming to mind! And it may well serve to show a pattern in S&P's behavior! Showmebeef (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:BOOMERANG, anyone relevant to the ANI can be discussed if appropriate. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Showmebeef, if you call another editor "vindictive" again in this thread or elsewhere, you will be the one having a short rest from editing. Dressing the word up in an ambiguously worded sentence is not going to make it OK. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, please take that word out of my comment. I will refrain from doing that again. Showmebeef (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I know why that word "kept coming to mind"--because S&P used it first:

"This appears to be very unclear, vindictive and highly cherry picked,.... Showmebeef (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• KDM - In ref to your comment about lying, Andromedean is actually correct that it was a lie. Cla68 expressed support for Andromedean as well as a few others that can be seen here.--v/r - TP 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

TP you are confusing two different discussions the "lie" diff refers to the most recent DRN and the track cycling section not the Hijab section you have linked to.Sport and politics (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I've invested too much time looking through diffs already, can you point me to the other discussion?--v/r - TP 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Sport and Politics's comment was limited to the post DRN discussion on Andromedeans proposed changes of wording (the closed discussion here). At first glance the claim appears to be true (I took no part in this particular discussion). 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a lot of huff and drama. I've previously had someone edit my posts and reinterpret my posts for their own devices. If anything this should go to WP:RFC/U because its not immediate and while lasting, I don't think ANI is the proper place to carry on such minor disputes at this stage. And if they won't do that, then the both of them need to take a week or more off from editing in the same areas or stick to making new fresh content that will keep everyone out of each others hair. Distance quells anger, try it without going tit-for tat. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to see some fair action taken, that will stop all the drama and that will bennifet the encyclopedia. I don't think we need any more of this "He did this!" "she did that!" stuff, so i'll support whichever decision gets made on this matter as long as it stops or stifles the drama, because the internet has enough drama as it is, we don't need more here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is worrying that some people may be frightened of posting now allowing S&P off the hook again, and some editors are arguing based on good faith edits which conform to wikipedia policy. ; May I also point out the following policy. (The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence). I will post such evidence shortly. Also bear in mind some of us work for a living, and don't have the time to go through volumes of text. --Andromedean (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You may not have to assume good faith when you have evidence of misconduct. For this reason I asked you repeatedly to a) cease making the claims, or b) present the evidence at an appropiate forum so that we can actually defend ourselves. You did neither until I posted my zero tolerance warning on your talk page. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean - it's time for you to substantiate your accusations. Please provide diffs of article edits that contradict reliable sources that show evidence of biased editing by S&P. We've established that ya'all have equally poor behavior, but can you prove that S&P is not following editing guidelines or not? Same goes for S&P if they can.--v/r - TP 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of Misleading Statements in the DRN by Sport and Politics

This is what Sport and Politics (S&P) claimed in the technology in track cycling Dispute Resolution Notice in an attempt to sway it (my highlighting). There were four participants in total including myself, showmebeef , sport and politics and one other unregistered user.

"If Andromodean is the only hold I think its not time to ignore this person as they are just being plainly obstructive. The three of us have made sensible compromises and Andormodean has made wild statements and nonsense "straw-man" claim simply to attempt to demonstrate their POV and OR as the one which must be accepted. If Andromodean cannot compromise in anyway like the other three involved editors have then they are being obstructive and are disrupting Wikiepdia. I can agree to the version placed boldly in the article with no hesitation. Amadsceintist has pointed out their first draft was not taking BLP in to account fully and had unweighed criticism which skewed the piece. All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean."Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact S&P will have known views were equally split, and near agreement between myself and showmebeef with compromises made before and after the DRN by myself. and showmebeef was reasonably agreed with several pre DRN versions as can be viewed from the talk page. The objection was hers and the other IP editor.

"Thanks for both your inputs. Certainly showmebeef views are similar to my own and the first version of amadscientist is near to what I would agree to….."

.--Andromedean (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

In fact we were very near to a 75% agreement at this stage, with sport and Politics who was the odd one out

Moreover, I subsequently quoted the following statement by showmebeef to Sport and Politics to prove that he wasn’t in agreement with the post DRN version

"Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call." Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

however Sport and Politics just kept on misleading editors post DRN. (bear in mind that the volunteer recommended further discussion and not mediation)

"Agreement was reached leave it at that, or it will simply be seen as wholly unnecessary disruption." --Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Diff here

"There was very very strong consensus that the version before the DRN case was opened was not fit for purpose, was misleading, biased and a violation of BLP policies." Sport and politics (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Diff here

".....there is now only one editor actively attempting to make any changes, no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process. ….." Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Diff here

However, why should she have ever agreed to any version? Because the post DRN version misquoted and misrepresented the source to make it sound much less controversial. Bear in mind this section was about the controversial use of technology in cycling.

The original article I quoted, and the actual BBC source states this:

"But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."

However S&P wanted this version to remain

"When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." Reference Here

Now remember the original accusation by Sport and politics

“All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean.” diff here

Neither am I aware of any other misquotes I made.

so she is misleading people into claiming I am being obstructive and uncooperative using selectively misquoted material at the same time as supporting text which obscures the whole point of the controversy! This is only the tip of the Iceberg, but I would additionally recommend looking through the talk page from the start to examine Sport & Politics aggressive and misleading behaviour and that I was trying to be civil and reasonable. --Andromedean (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This provides objective proof of serious incivility violations quoted in the guidelines of

(d) lying;

(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;"

and in addition it unambiguously demonstrates her bad faith editing, which undermines the encyclopaedia's value.--Andromedean (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by involved IP proposing interaction bans for all involved and suggesting further sanctions for two editors

I did not want to post here, but Andromedean quoting AGF deserves a comment. His arguments where from before my responding to an RFC full of ad hominem attacks (several diffs provided above and in previous discussions). The claims where that other editors where working against the principles of Wikipedia, specifically WP:NPOV. This is a very serious personal attack in my opinion; it is an attempt to completely discredit the person you are discussing with. Unlike Kim Dent-Brown above, I see this as at least equally serious as a claim of lying. I asked him repeatedly to refrain from using such claims (or alternatively take them to an appropiate forum) as they made his genuine argument hard to see. In the end I posted this warning on his user talk. This zero tolerance policy from me had the desired effect. It was possible to discuss conduct without repeated attacks on your integrity. After he was unhappy with the outcome of the DRN he reverted to his previous conduct, if slightly more mildly phrased. I reported him (seen here), per my warning and I must say I was disappointed that no warning or admonishment was administered. Just saying that the conduct was against policy and that repeat offences could lead to bans would have defused the situation far better than "no administrator action required". As you can see he has continued with using ad hominem arguments since then. (I'll point out that my simple warning improved his conduct for over a month.)
Sport and Politics conduct is not flawless, and I don't condone all of it. She is often balancing close to WP:3RR, however she does accept consensus against her, as well as the DRN result in this case, and 3O when I disagreed with her.
Showmebeef has almost without fail remained polite. Some lapses over the cause of a content discussion that has dragged on for so long is understandable.
Interaction bans seems logical to avoid further escalation (include me and Showmebeef). An article ban for Sport and Politics and Andromedean also seems like a good idea. Frankly, I would also consider stricter sanctions against Andromedean, as I cannot see how repeated claims that all editors who disagree with him is working against WP:NPOV, a pillar, benefit Wikipedia in any way. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

85: As I only wish to speak for myself and not for others: I don't wish to take myself out of editing the article in question here (as you may have volunteered yourself, if I am not mistaken). Showmebeef (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No need. To avoid escalation I have proposed IBANs for all four (so unless you enjoy debating with Sport and Politics you should have no problem). I propose ABANs (including the talk page) for Sport and Politics and Andromedean. I also propose civility restrictions for Andromedean for his repeated lack of good faith demonstrated in a large number of diffs provided in this and previous discussions. (PS:I entered the edit window prior to the close, and didn't notice it was closed during my fixes. I did not intentionally add to the discussion after the close.) 85.167.109.64 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why I want to subject myself to an IBAN, as I have shown to be able to carry out a rather civilized conservation or a discussion, with any editor. I don't think I've lost my composure even with S&P. As I've mentioned early, please speak for yourself, and I don't wish to be spoken for. Showmebeef (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and hope you think the same of me. I have no idea if IBANs can be one way though; and I don't see why you would wish to enter a discussion with her at a later date. I'm sure the IBANs can be lifted when no longer neccessary. (Edit conflict. In response to your change: An IBAN is not voluntary, though I'll leave whether it is required for us up to the admins.)85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I want to make it clear that I don't want an IBAN. If you want it, then that's your wish. Thanks! Showmebeef (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I, but it may be in Wikipedia's best interest if we get one. However it seems IBANs can be one-way, so perhaps they won't be neccessary for all uf us. In any case that is not our call. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need of an IBAN between you and me. If there is an ABAN as you proposed, then it should take care of the things. Showmebeef (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I agree. 85.167.109.64(talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding too, as I do have to carry my credential around and I for sure don't want to carry an IBAN under my user id. Showmebeef (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor procedural point. If you folks can sort this out with voluntary, mutual agreements about not editing particular articles or interacting with one another that would be great. Voluntary, mutual agreements like this are not bans. And when bans do occur, they are not voluntary, rather they are imposed upon editors by the consensus of the community. Nobody gets to decline a community-imposed ban, which is why it'll be much better of you folks can sort this out between you. Good luck with doing that, which will be much the best outcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that happening for all the editors involved, but I hope they'll prove me wrong. I'll back off now as the article seems stable, and I see no benefit to adding more here. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you 85.167, i agree. it's what i've been trying to say all along. they need to stay away from each other and if that means not editing the article for a shot while, then so be it. so thank you very much, i do support. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

solution from concirned ip

Ok people, just as mentioned in the previous section, there should be an interaction ban between the users in question (ading showmebeef into it) because this is only causing more arguments and is getting a little annoying and i hate to say it, childish. i mean we're just going in circles here, nothing is going to come of this unless all of this stops. i've seen this kind of shit before, in which some people were having a feud over an article, and they kept on trying to blame each other. Once the blame was focused on them, they kept on denying some of the evidence and stuff (not saying there's denial in this even though it looks like it), then it goes in circles and gets annoying to the point where blocks are handed out. i don't want to see blocks being handed out, so i'm going to suggest an interaction ban and maybe protection on the article from now untill let's say December 22nd, (a period of 7 days) so this shit can straiten out, and we can get back to our lives again. how's that for a suggestion? i sure hope we can stop this so everyone involved can be a little bit more merry for christmas and the hollidays, mmkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

• Maybe it's time for an uninvolved admin to step in and close the thread before things get more out of hand. This whole thread is just a mess with little to no actual evidence being presented of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the most serious diffs provided can be seen as unproblematic. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

second that one. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not my fault i'ts your fault

here's the thing sports and politics, as much as i feel that both sides should be held accountable for their actions, i notice that you're trying to deny the blame for your actions. if i murdered someone then it would still be my fault even if that someone injected poison into my arm. so, in the same way, even if andromadean is as guilty as you say, you still have to except your portion of the blame and stop trying to go "It's not my fault it's your fault." because that will only draw out this disgussion more. i move for a closure of this threat and all parties concirned to except the blame for their actions, because otherwise blocks will be handed out and i don't want to see that at all. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now provided evidence to back up my assertion as the admin requested.--Andromedean (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

good man. now i think it's time that s&P owns up to her portion of the blame. 199.101.61.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Closure notice

The various complainants here have not brought sufficient clear evidence to prove the need for admin action. They may be disappointed at the lack of interest shown by admins in contributing to this thread, but I'm afraid this may be because of the way the complaints have been made - as well as a "plague on both your houses" feeling that each side is behaving about as well as the other. I will close this thread in 12 hours time as "no action required" unless anyone comes up with a better option. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think wording it as a warning that the conduct is not in line with policy and that future offences may lead to a block would be preferable to "no action required". It is the third time this has been at ANI and "no action required" hasn't worked. A warning may work, as I pointed out above it did work for a while when I did it. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe "no action required" was a hasty way of putting it. What I mean is that it is not clear what action could possibly help here. Is this a conduct issue? In which case whose conduct? Is it a content dispute, in which case it doesn't belong here? Is it about page protection? It's certainly not about one single incident, which this page is meant to be about. Certainly no action has been proposed which has gained consensual support, and in that sense while action may be required, it can't be taken because the community can't make its mind up about either the problem or the solution. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that this (content) "dispute" has been going on since the London Olympic Games back in July and August. Andromodean in particular has taken it to many forums. Many words have been posted. Without making any further comment on the content, is there a way we can stop further dramas about the bikes at the Olympics? It's gone way beyond the silly stage. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that you'd suggest "a way we can stop further dramas about the bikes at the Olympics" as you've contributed to the "silly stage."--v/r - TP 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I have made very little comment on content since the early days of the discussion. I have made comment on the attempts by a very small number of editors to put more and more negative material on this topic in the article for several months since the Olympic Games all happened. I don't apologise for trying to stop the drama. HiLo48 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wouldn't ask you to apologize for trying to stop the drama. Had you done that, I'd be supportive. Instead we're left with "Don't try to convince me otherwise. Enough words have been written and enough crap thrown already." and "This is absolute nonsense" and "I do highlight ignorant bigotry and outrageous, stupid generalisations, like yours." Please spare us your self-appointed sainthood and join Sport & Politics in the corner while the uninvolved discuss fair and non-partied solutions to your mess.--v/r - TP 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are unwarranted and phraseology such as "Please spare us your self-appointed sainthood" and "join Sport & Politics in the corner while the uninvolved discuss fair and non-partied solutions" Kim clearly stated from the outset that no personal attacks would be tolerated i cannot see why the above have been allowed to slide. I was warned Showmebeef was warned at the very least TParis should be warned. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I say again, all of that was said with the goal of stopping more attempts to add more garbage (yes, I believe it was) to an article that is designed primarily to collect crap anyway. My POV was stated BEFORE any bike staff was written. It is that the article itself is a bad one. Most of its content is bad. The bike stuff is some of the worst. It's non-constructive, non-encyclopaedic soap-boxing by editors with axes to grind. HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can buy that you believe it was supposed to curb drama, but I don't think that it actually helped. What really would help is my suggestion below. Andromodean takes a break on the issue and tries again in 6 months. See below.--v/r - TP 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe my frustration was beginning to show. My frustration at the fact that it had gone on so long already. That Wikipedia allowed Andromedean to take his axe to so many forums looking for a new grinder, wasting so many other people's time along the way. There seemed to be no stopping that behaviour. That even now, he is not seen as the primary problem here. S&P may not have been an angel, but all along had better motives and was more rational than the virtually single issue, UK bike team obsessed Andromedean. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

protect the article. that's all i can say. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(RE to Kim Dent-Brown), if you're not willing to say it, I will. A plague on all the houses/groupings/alignments/coalitions/editors who are dragging along this dispute that will not end. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

again, i'm going to say it, and people, please listen this time: protect the article in question, and put an interaction ban on Sports and Politics, Showmebeef (to a lesser extent) and andromedean. simple solution, i don't know why it's taking so long for people to realize it. and no i'm not attacking anyone, i just think this is taking too damn long for a simple solution to be carried out. so interaction ban, and article protection please. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I could protect the article if necessary as a solo decision. Any ban has to be enacted by community consensus however and I'm seeing no community interest in this discussion, never mind a consensus. I'll be closing this in about 6 hours unless a viable consensus seems to be emerging. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, protecting it should work for now. let's hope that stops the drama. thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion There are two sides to this issue: On the one hand, Sports & Politics and HiLo48 have refused to participate in recent discussion citing previous discussion as non-consensus developing. I believe this non-consensus has suited these two just fine because it's helped keep their preferred version. S&P and HiLo48 argue that the article is not whitewashed, but rather that the issue of technology in cycling is broader than the Olympic games themselves and the games are broader than the topic of technology in cycling and the two should be in a separate article. On the other hand, Andromedean argues that the topic is relevant but has not been able to gain consensus or much of any support for their argument that the article is whitewashed. Article content is dynamic and there is no such thing as binding RFCs (we're all aware consensus can change). Andromedean has also taken every advantage to mention this content dispute in other forums to draw attention and has failed to do so. At this point, it's bordering tendentious editing (WP:IDHT-type behavior). My suggestion is this: Andromedean will refrain from another RFC on this matter for 6 months. In 6 months, Andromedean will propose a 1-2 paragraph change for the article to cover the content with WP:RS. S&P and HiLo48 may participate in this discussion or not, but the disruptive avoidance tactics that are being employed now may not happen at this RFC. If Andromedean continues to argue on this specific matter until then or S&P and HiLo48 continue the avoidance routines at that point, then they face a topic ban. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair. (By the way, the current version is neither side's preferred version.) 85.167.109.64 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a workable solution. I also want to second 85's suggestion that this current version is neither side's preferred version. Due to some miscommunication during the DRN on this article, it was closed without anything close to a consensus, leaving this highly contested version there. My recommendation would be to actually take the volunteer suggested draft (first version), which has received most consensus, as a replacement for the current article. This will help reduce the chances of future conflict. Showmebeef (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea, as the current version has been reasonably stable. The first draft was not close to consensus as two editors thought is was including way too much. All four editors in the DRN agreed to include at least as much as the later volunteer proposal (approximately the current version), thus there is a consensus to include at least that much and no consensus to include more, though Sport and Politics only agreed to this as a compromise and still thinks it should be removed entirely. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was "stable" because any attempt to modify it, even as simple as a direct quote from a reliable source (which eventually led to 3 reverts by S&P, and this ANI here) was blocked by S&P and HiLo48, as TP have observed. "All four editors in the DRN agreed..."--I think that's rather stretching the truth; as I have stated earlier that the version that is currently in the main article is NOT even close to what I, and I would assume Andromedean, would have agreed to. "still thinks it should be removed entirely"--there was an early decision by the volunteer that the inclusion was warranted. So let's not go there. Anyways, I think this discussion is drifting off the topic. We are deciding, or at least making proposals to the admins so that they can decide, what the appropriate actions to take to prevent further deteriorating of the situation around this particular article here. I can stress it again that I support TP's suggestion. Showmebeef (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that first version to amadscientist months ago but received no reply, and have linked it in the 'misleading comments' section on here, but received no answer again! Solutions exist, but is anyone really bothered in solving them? Didn't 85.* agree to it at one stage? However, it doesn't solve stopping the wider behavioural tactics though, which undermine the encyclopaedias integrity, so I also still support Arbcom in addition to this as below.--Andromedean (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, that is where I agreed to the second volunteer proposal amended with your suggestion immediately above my comment (very close to the current version, in fact). The volunteer, as you desired, had final say over which version was put into the article. In the page history you will notice he made a minor fix, so he knows which of his proposals was implemented by me. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I agreed to a temporary intermediate version of his choice to work to prior to closure, that is true, but this is not the place to discuss that again!--Andromedean (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In your comment above my comment linked to above you seemed to agree to a version nearly identical to the current version. With that in mind, would you agree to defer further suggestion of changes for six months per the suggestion above? 85.167.109.64 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to showmebeefs comment, and your post intervened. I have just clarified by including the word first in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tparis' suggestion sounds OK, but you just changed it a few days ago, so it is only fair to see showmebeefs comments --Andromedean (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified all the editors involved with a link to the diff, I asked them to revert if they disagreed in the edit summary (which also explained my reasoning), and I know all the editors have been active since then. For this reason I consider the current version stable. Glad you agree with TParis's suggestion. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have to agree with 85 and Hil48 and the proposal put forward by TParis, Andromodean has taken this everywhere and in the words of Hilo48 it has become like an "obsession" I endorse the proposal put forwards by 85 TParis. I would also like the forum shopping by Andromodeanto be investigated as that appears to be the root cause of the beheaviour. Andromodean cannot find friendly or supportive people in one forum, they move on to another after attacking those who disagree with him. I will admit I am not perfect, no user here is, but the actions of Andromodean are in my opinion by far and away the worse. I also have to dispute the claims I am a "liar" which have been put forwards by Andromodean. There has been no "lying" on my behalf, the diffs provided in an attempt to support that claim are cherrypicked, selective and do not give the full picture. The DRN was closed and then a discussion was closed by MilbourneOne with the title "Suggestions failed to gain consensus". So when a disinterested user posts that it is is not "lying" to say there was no consensus. I would also like to drw attention to this diff which shows a very agressive attitude by 191, which is a borderline attack. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Proposal

My preference would be for it to go to an Arbitration Committee; in that way I would be satisfied that any dispute that could be solved has been assessed by an experienced independent panel. Moreover their decisions would have to be abided with which should bring this process to a close.

What would they specifically investigate? The conduct and decisions of everybody who has been involved with this article, not only the editors such as myself and sport and politics, but also whether administrators have interpreted the dispute/complaints procedures correctly, have acted fairly, and have assisted these editors in reaching consensus in accordance to Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. --Andromedean (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

either way, the article still needs to be protected. Kim if you can, please do so, even if just untill the new year or something, thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Earth100

Earth100 has had a history of problematic editing. Over the past 2 weeks, he has been involved in an edit war, and I brought him to AN/I for continued personal attacks and fighting against another editor. As of that AN/I he had added original research to articles ([16]), reverted edits that had cleaned up references and removed grammar errors ([17]), and was warned for what another editor labeled a personal attack ([18]). I've been a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a couple years, so I have a lot of cyclone articles on my watchlist, and I noticed that even after I had tried to explain to him the rules of original research ([19]), he was still adding original research ([20]), removing maintenance tags without adding references ([21] and [22]). I have attempted to explain to him numerous times what is and is not allowed ([23], [24], [25], and [26]), but he has continued, and refuses to listen ([27] - the only thing actually in the reference that he listed was the crossing of Palawan after going through the Sulu sea. There was no mentioning of weakening to a category 2 or 1 storm, and there is no mention of decreased convection on its southeastern side). The pattern of disruptive editing has just continued, and any time I have tried to actually have discussion and get proper sources, he just tells me that the sources are wrong, and he's an expert, so it's not original research ([28] and [29]). For the most part, he is helpful to the project, but errors end up getting introduced when information is not properly referenced (and even more so when information not in the source) is placed in. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Inks.LWC, please look closely, i'm not without my sources. Besides, the storm itself and the track shows it, and also in wunderground map(history track info from JTWC) showing it's intensity in dates. Please look closely at where i got the sources.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats not the point. If Earth100 has sources for information, they need to include them in the article and not simply remove the maintenance tags. In fact, an editor inserting a tag instead of removing content is doing less than they could. verifiability policy clearly states All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that Inks.LWC initial post here is fairly well done as it contains many diffs and not so much verbiage. Two suggestions: First, never call anything vandalism which is not blatant and intentional disruption -- use the term disruptive editing instead. Secondly discussing on a talk page is highly preferred instead of relying on edit summaries, so this User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha is good but it would be better here: User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha Talk:Typhoon_Bopha because you get more help for other editors than way. NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)fix NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He should be made to understand that he must use sources for anything he wishes to add to Wikipedia. It is far easier to go by the rule of 'If you are contributing, tell us where you got your information from.' instead of claiming it and referencing improperly. A bad reference or one which doesn't state the information is one that I consider an offense because if you do it once, you might have done it many times before which brings all your contributions under scrutiny. Though I see that discussion is starting on the page and that is a good thing. Does this really need to be at ANI still? Its not that big of a deal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be best to leave this open until Earth 100 acknowledges the concerns expressed -- Inks.LWC has been patient while working towards maintaining WP quality and verifiability so I'd liked to see their efforts supported. NE Ent 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, disregard my comment about it. It would probably be for the best, that it be acknowledged here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. That was supposed to be a uw-tdel4 template (Removal of maintenance templates), but it somehow got changed to a only warning for vandalism template (I'm thinking perhaps I bumped an arrow key or something... I'm honestly not sure). I should've checked the template after posting it, so again, that was my error. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm assuming that your second link wasn't supposed to be a repeat of the first link? Were you intending to say that discussion should have been on the article talk page? I did that for Typhoon Bopha, since the addition of unsourced/incorrect material was the result of several editors. I didn't want to clutter up the talk pages of the other two articles since the problems there were specifically with Earth100's edits, so I thought it more appropriate to keep the discussion on his page. (Also, at that point, I was trying to keep it more personal and explain to him 1-on-1 what was incorrect with what he was doing, so it wasn't on the talk page of an article that was getting more and more attention due to the news.) So if it would generally be better to keep discussions like that on article talk pages, I'll keep that in mind in the future as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, oops. Fixed. Anyway I'm just offering an opinion based of past experience in DR -- it certainly wasn't wrong to page on the user talk page, I just think it works better long term to use article talk. NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Earth100 is going to acknowledge that what he's been doing is inappropriate or disruptive. He's still not properly citing claims ([30] - where an image made for the Wikipedia article was used as a source in that very own article, this morning), he's engaging in original research ([31]), and he's becoming more antagonistic against me ([32]). I don't want to badger him into coming here if he doesn't want to participate in the AN/I, but at the same time, I (and the other WPTC editors) don't have time to correct disruptive edits (nor should that be our responsibility on this large of a scale). Inks.LWC (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just warned Earth100 on the need for civility. While her/his comments so far are still probably within WP:CIVIL, they're clearly starting to head in the wrong direction. Let's see if there's a response... Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Earth100 simply removed my message with an edit summary indicating that I don't know what I'm talking about. The removal, of course, is fine, but the refusal to take on board constructive suggestions is worrisome. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive deletion of content

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

---

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a campaign of deleting tagged "uncited" material from pages. His contribution history is quite extensively bolded red.

The policies primarily involved here are:

• WP:V and WP:CHALLENGE in particular;
• WP:Editing policy and WP:PRESERVE in particular.

I have seen two of his edits on articles on my watchlist, All Hallows' School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anglican Church Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He removed a section from All Hallow's on Dec. 6 (diff) and from Churchie on Dec. 16 (diff). On both occasions, he removed content that could have been sourced with a very simple google search, which I have since done. The latest diff, on Churchie, shows that in his enthusiasm for deleting content, he also managed to delete cited content.

There are many other articles where he has done the same, however, most are outside of my interest area (actually a lot of the ones that I can see are on subjects that are in non-English speaking countries and are therefore subject to the WP:BIAS in favour of English language articles. I was unable to find sources for the couple that I tried, but I don't doubt that someone with an interest in those areas might be able to do better than I.

While, technically, WP:V allows uncited content to be removed, it also states that "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (in the section titled WP:CHALLENGE). This doesn't appear to be happening.

I have tried to talk out the issue with Epeefleche twice, first at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section, and then again former revision (the content has since been removed).

This is part of a pattern of behaviour which is disruptive, per the definition given at WP:DISRUPT, because, while it isn't vandalism, it is definitively deletorious towards the goals of creating a detailed encyclopedia.

It is also the latest round of Epeefleche's disruptive and tendentious approach to his work on Wikipedia, the last (in which I was involved) was his nomination of just under 200 school articles over a 3 week period over New Years 2011 to 2012, many of which were ill-considered (on at least one occasion it was because a school region was mistaken for a primary school). In that episode, questions were raised by myself and many other editors as to whether Epeefleche was aligning himself with WP:BEGIN, especially considering AfD's were being made with very small gaps of minutes/seconds.

The outcome I want from this is for Epeefleche to work towards WP:PRESERVE and seek sources for tagged content rather than delete content. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm....are you seriously complaining because an editor deleted content with no source? Really? And the other "Churchie" source was a primary source (Henley Royal Regatta - List of Entries 2012) which would require a secondary RS as well...but didn't have. WP:V: "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." So you are a mind reader as well as an editor? I don't know about this pattern you speak of from the other editor....but I am beginning to see one here. But of course if an admin wants to force Epeefleche to "work towards WP:PRESERVE and seek sources for tagged content rather than delete content", then go for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Without really looking into it, I would argue that WP:BURDEN trumps WP:PRESERVE, particularly considering that preserve says "Preserve appropriate content...should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research)" It seems to me WP:PRESERVE is more about not deleting content because it is badly written than it is about keeping unsourced content --Jac16888 ^Talk 11:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing content with no source given is not the same as removing unverifiable content. Unverifiable content should be removed, and content where nobody has bothered to give a source, but that is verifiable, should stay until it is challenged based on its contents, not based on the fact that nobody has given a source. —Kusma (t·c) 11:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Per Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) not every word needs a source right now and (b) not everything that needs a source needs to be removed right now. It is unhelpful to go around removing things that are most likely true. —Kusma (t·c) 13:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At least this edit removed a reference too. --Cyclopia^talk 11:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that was a primary source and should have a secondary RS to support it.(uninvolved observation)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

While WP:V does say that content can be removed, it also says quite clearly, that an effort should be made to seek sources as an alternative to removing content. In these cases, that material was readily available if an extremely cursory google search was conducted (as I said, the sources came up as the #2 and #1 results). If the intent of WP:V isn't to actually improve the encyclopedia by making people do the tiniest little bit of legwork, then why even state that "it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? Why have WP:PRESERVE as part of the Editing policy if it's viewed just as a guideline? It seems to me that Epeefleche has decided to ignore that part of the policy which actually involves improving the encyclopedia, which is an issue. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well WP:V doesn't require people find sources, in fact it makes it clear that ultimately it's up to people who want to keep the info to find sources. And PRESERVE may be part of policy, but it makes it clear it's not required to preserve information which fails verifiability. To be clear, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be helpful if Epeefleche changes the way they deal with unsourced or poorly sourced content, perhaps it would be I haven't looked enough to comment. I'm simply saying nothing is happening here since there's no clearcut policy violation, and ANI is way too soon anyway. (I'm not entirely sure how you even hope to achieve your desired outcome by coming to ANI. Are you asking for a block until the editor agrees to change their behaviour?) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:V states that it is better to find sources rather than remove. That's not the same thing as saying that finding sources is "not required". Furthermore, it's not unverifiable if a google search turns up the information in 3 seconds, it's just that the sources haven't been provided. I've stated what I want in the opening. If Epeefleche can't cooperate and edit per policy, then, at that point, we can talk about how to enforce the point.

Separately, just took a quick look at Epee's last 500 edits and saw too more articles which seem to have undergone the same treatment, and are also easily fixed with a simple google search:

• [33]
• [34]

This is disruptive because it could have been done by Epee in the first place (and WP:V and WP:PRESERVE states that it should be done). So I suppose my question is, if removal is preferred to spending 3 seconds doing a google search, do we need a dedicated editor going around restoring content where Epee refuses to use google? I'm sure if I went back further than 500 edits, I'd find yet more examples, but is it my (or anyone's) job to do what Epee won't? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you may say, the point is it's not required. Someone is unlikely to be blocked solely for removing unsourced information, even if sources can be found, except in exceptional circumstances or when the community has expressed clear concern over their behaviour (such as with an RFC). Remember this is ANI, so we should nearly always approach things from an ANI POV. If you're not doing so, there's a good chance you're at the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are we seriously talking about sanctioning someone for removing unsourced content from articles? Is today opposite day? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we're talking about sanctioning (guiding someone to do the right thing, in this case, I'm not asking for a block) someone for removing unsourced content from articles which could/should have been sourced with 3 seconds on google against both WP:V and WP:PRESERVE. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not going to happen. June 2010 and 2009 is a long time, we shouldn't be leaving in unsourced material that long. And the material deleted at All Hallows about houses, home groups, etc probably didn't belong anyway, our guidelines say don't include "Trivia which is only of interest to pupils in the school (such as school timetables, bell schedules, class-by-class rules, daily lunch menus, location of the toilets, or a room-by-room description of the school facilities)". Sloppiness is another issue but sanctioning would only take place after considerable discussion with the editor and failure to change. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is the same old tired PRESERVE vs WP:V argument that has gone on since day one here. Who wins usually depends on who shows up at ANI that particular day. Removing contentious material that isn't sourced isn't the usual problem, it usually boils down to reasonableness. And primary sources are acceptable, removing them really isn't unless the fact is very contentious. Here I don't really see the sea of red, however. I did see this edit [35] where he claims in his summary he is removing uncited material when he is infact removing cited material and cite. This [36] seemed unnecessary since there is a cite that lists all the movies. The editing seems sloppy, which isn't good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so you are saying that the primary source actually supports this claim:(bolding done for emphasis) "In 2012, the Open 1st VIII participated in the Princess Elizabeth Challenge Cup at the Henley Royal Regatta, the first Churchie crew to do so."

I would argue it had to be removed as not being supported by that primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And , oh my god that other article is a huge mess. Sloppy is right...but not from the deletion. The thing has an outright raw external link in the article. This is a BLP and none of that was sourced. A flmography or cite that simply lists all the films wont support all the claims being made on the biography.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see mention of Churchie being in any of the competitions before then. Should I reference all the lists of entries going back however long to prove the point, or is this a red herring? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would find a Reliable Source that actually makes the claim and not synthesize it.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's likely mentioned in the school newsletter, but I can't access it. If you know a kid at the school, you could help out here. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A school newsletter is a reliable source?! Is this Wacky Day on ANI or something? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wacky Dan on ANI? What are you talking about? Is whether or not Churchie went along to a rowing regatta a matter that is so contentious that an WP:SPS would not be acceptable? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

For schools, the school website and history books published by the school are acceptable primary sources for non-contentious material. School newsletters and such are never acceptable sources for anything, and if I saw something "cited" to one in an article I'd remove the material and leave a polite but firm message on the editor's talk page not to use them again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At least for the schools with which I work, there is no difference between the school website, publications, ASR's and anything else published by the school on the one hand and school newsletters on the other. They all have to be approved for publication by Principals (or equivalents) and usually have to follow a format set by policy. So, really... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I was on both my high school & college newspapers, and none of them needed pricipal/dean approval or had any editorial oversight aside from the editor, who was just another student volunteer and would correct typos but not verify articles. There was a teacher who supposedly gave guidance but didn't do much relating to content aside from telling us not to curse. There was no fact-checking whatsoever. Simply put, they are not reliable sources even for basic information. Additionally, anything for which a school newsletter is the ONLY extant source and has never been covered elsewhere is almost certainly too trivial to be useful in a general-interest encyclopedia anyway. That said, evaluating reliable sources is out of scope for ANI so I won't elaborate further. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

8I have always interpreted the rule about removal of sourced material as having an implied "reasonably" -- along with essentially all other WP rules. If applied literally, it would be contrary to the spirit of WP:BUTO. What Epeefleche is doing is apparently designed to show us the absurdity of taking it literally--or at least that's the basis for it. Even in BLP, unsourced non negative non judgmental uncontroversial factual material is not removed automatically or single-handedly. If Epee is absolutely convinced that this is the best course to pursue, I will consider whether I and the rest of us should start doing so also to the most prominent articles I can find. (What I think the best course is to explicitly insert the word"reasonably" where it belongs.) DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently? I don't see that. That is an assumption. I see someone trying to improve articles and being dragged through AN/I over it. Applied literally. No. I also do not see that. BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The only thing I would question is whether or not the content was contentious. But I am not sure how you would even make that determination and have always thought that wording odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. At this point, you're either on board with verifiability and reliable sourcing or you aren't. If you aren't, then get out of the way because you're on your way out. It doesn't matter which way the editing culture shifts (though nearly everyone seems to understand V by now) as Wikipedia could never go back to unverifiable information for legal reasons. Nobody in their right mind is going to sanction Epeefleche for doing what policy allows, encourages, and even requires them to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Schools are covered by BLP now?!? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, schools aren't living people, but ideally the same best editing practices do apply because schools, like living persons, can be harmed by inaccurate public information and, also like living persons, can sue for libel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone calling for his head on a platter. I do see a couple of people saying "You are being sloppy here". And my comment on primary links was a general one, not specific to this case. Primary links are acceptable for non-contentious facts and often the best sources. What would be nice is to see them come here and simply say "I understand your concerns, and will try to be more discriminating in my deletion of material". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That was pretty well said and kinda humbles me back a bit Dennis. Of course it would be nice if he understood the concerns and I do hope he/she will make a quick visit to at least let editors know their intentions were in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But this is ANI so unless some sort of administrative action is being asked for, it isn't really the place for discussion. As I've said above, it may very well be that there are problems with Epeefleche's behaviour but this isn't the place to bring it up. The editor who started this thread has at least brought it up with Epeefleche's behaviour on their talk page first (unlike some ANI discussions). Since that didn't work, but the sort of behaviour here isn't the kind which is going to lead to immediate sanctions, there are other avenues of dispute resolution that should be tried first like a RFC/U. Avenues which are far more likely to lead to something productive then a long ANI discussion which will lead to nothing Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Being that (a) discussions that have been had so far have mainly been of the character Epee: I'm allowed to remove unsourced content; Danjel: But the sources are there, could you spend a couple of seconds looking for them? Epee: But I'm allowed to remove unsourced content (and around and around and around and around); and (b) past attempts at getting Epee to perceive problems in his approaches to editing (i.e., in regards to the mass AfD nominations at the beginning of the year) haven't exactly been successful, an RFC/U would not likely be very effective. This needs to be noted so that, if the behaviour continues, the consideration of the issue can be escalated. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He's right though. He is allowed to remove unsourced content. In fact he's supposed to. If you can source it and re-insert it, go right ahead (no school newsletters though). Taking someone to ANI or RFC/U requires that they actually be breaking the rules in some way. I couldn't get someone arrested for wearing an ugly hat no matter how many cops I talk to. There needs to be a law broken in some way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The policies, both WP:CHALLENGE and WP:PRESERVE, say that you should look for a source. The sentence at CHALLENGE says "if instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." That simply is not happening. Considering in these cases a very cursory google search turned up ideal sources suggests that it probably should have. Therefore the rules aren't being followed. That it's happening in at least 4 cases that I can identify (and, as I said, there are plenty more articles where WP:BIAS is an issue), that suggests disruption. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Should", not "must". The original editor shouldn't have added unsourced material in the first place. If material is unsourced and doesn't seem particularly important (like the color coding of houses in a school), I can't see that anyone should be required (or even expected) to search for a source. That path leads to people having to try to document trivia lists.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is in all 4 cases, it wasn't just the colour coding of houses in a school that was deleted, but whole sections (including in at least one example, a citation!). While you can't see that anyopne should be required to search for a source, it is the letter of policy that says so, and in these cases, where the information could be supposed to be quite freely available, the required level of engagement necessary to find the sources was, in all likelihood, only marginally more than click-ctrl-a-delete-tab-ctrl-a-delete-tab-editsummary-return. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The letter of policy does not require that editors search for a source. It recommends that they do. That's different. It's quite reasonable for an editor to decide that the best thing to do with unsourced material is to remove it. That's been discussed many times, and is the reason that the search for sources has not been mandated.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We're arguing around a point that is irrelevant. Yes, it says "should" rather than "must". But the reason why it says "should" is precisely why this particular issue is a problem. Every single one of the cases that I've referred to above had content that any reasonable editor would consider very easily sourced, and, as it turned out, in every case it was easily sourced. Therefore, deciding to remove it in this case was not the "best thing" to do by any stretch of the imagination, it was the lazy thing to do (even there, only if you can say that opening google is arduous). Now if we were talking about obscure contentious claims that might require visits to local libraries and trawling through microfiche, then, yeah, fine, delete whatever. But in these cases (and as I said, I suspect others), the appropriate source was found immediately with Google and was the #1 result almost every time (#2 once). You're excusing lazy editing that does not contribute to the project but is deletorious and therefore disruptive. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm defending the notion that the removal of material from articles is a necessary and productive step. Taking the house color-coding issue as an example, that's material that has no place here. It's trivia. It's detrimental to building an encyclopedia. That it's easily verifiable is irrelevant. I could probably verify every costume change that Lady GaGa has made in concert without leaving my chair. If I encountered an unsourced list of that material in one of her tour articles, I'd remove it without looking for a source on the simple reasoning that even if sourced, the material didn't belong in the article. That's not being lazy, that's editing. Addition and removal of material need to exist in balance, and neither is inherently good nor bad.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Epeefleche for maintaining the quality of WP. This concept that an uncited tag is some magic talisman against WP:V is simply bogus. The yeoman work taking place at the Sandy Hook article is the way WP is supposed to work, not oh I'm pretty sure this is true but I'm not motivated enough to find a citation but I'll complain if it's removed. The tag is simply a courtesy to provide interested editors time to meet WP:BURDEN -- if no one's bothered in, say, six months or so I think removal is entirely justified. I encourage editors to critically review the articles I started Charley Morgan, Print butter and Carly Foulkes and remove any uncited material. NE Ent 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for their input. Danjel complains that I deleted challenged material ... challenged as far back as 2007 ... for which no citations had been provided. Danjel tells us he has these article on his watchlist. But obviously neither he nor anyone else cared to provide ref support over the past 5 years. Now that the material is deleted, pursuant to wp:v, Danjel seeks to push the burden of finding sources for the material onto the deleter. Precisely the opposite of what wp:v calls for. It's even worse than that. When such uncited material, challenged years ago, is deleted -- Danjel re-enters the uncited material without providing any ref support whatsoever. As admitted by Danjel in his edit summary addressing one of the two above edits, the material that I deleted also contained copyvio. Seasoned editors will recognize this as a not uncommon problem with swaths of uncited material resident in articles. Finally -- the inadvertent deletion of one dead ref and adjacent text is a complete red herring -- Danjel was well aware that it was inadvertent, before he opened this thread. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To address each of your points:

• Would you like to explain how removal of text from an article, without bothering to look for sources, is the "opposite" to "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? That's what WP:V says, after all.

• Yep, those articles are on my watchlist. But I have a life, and I work on wikipedia in the spare time that my life allows. When I feel like it, I edit and improve articles.

• Mea culpa, I did restore the edit while I was fiddling around with getting the source right. You got me. Well done.

• Yes, the Churchie article contained copyvio. But you didn't even know that because you didn't look for, nor find the material that was copied! If you had found it, then maybe you could have had an argument for removing the whole section, but as it stood, you were too lazy to actually look.

And that's the problem. Googling takes seconds. If you highlight the text, and then right click and hit google it can almost be done as quick as it takes to delete the content. Particularly for content where you've read it and come to the conclusion that a source is likely to exist, you should do it per WP:V and WP:PRESERVE (you can't cherry pick which parts of those policies you like and which parts you don't). But are you even reading it?

So, the main question is, are you ever going to make use of google (I seem to remember this point coming up in your AfD campaign also), or do we have to assign an editor who go through your work and do it for you? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing this line of argument is unlikely to be helpful. But if you insist: If any editors here need adult supervision assigned to them, it's the ones who add - or reintroduce - content which is not supported by sources. Blaming other people for removing unsourced content is missing the point.bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Already responded to above. Thanks for reading. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If Googling refs only takes "a few seconds" then why is the burden on others, and not yourself? Saying "I have a life" is not an excuse for you if it's not an excuse for others. Second, WP has always been a bit fast and loose with the rules. Hence why WP:IAR exists (though I prefer to only resort to that sparingly).

Honestly, this debate just isn't worth it. A statement which is unsourced & removed shouldn't be replaced with "find the source yourself." The burden is on those adding/retaining the information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Notes

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

User:Hot Stop

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

---

Hot Stop (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with using incivil language, particularly in edit summaries. The editor was blocked back in October 2011 for using "fuck off" in an edit summary by Ironholds stating "learn to behave civilly, or the next one will be a lot longer". Almost a year later, in August 2012 I put an edit warring notice on their talk page and the behavior continued, with Hot Stop telling me to "go fuck off" (in hindsight the edit warring notice probably wasn't the best thing for me to do, but I didn't realize I had interacted with this editor before, and only realized it after the "fuck off" statement). I asked them to stop, but it didn't help, and I figured the issue was just the editor having a problem with me specifically, so I just decided to back off and hoped that would solve the issue. Apparently that's not the case, however, since the editor has continued the behavior with others. When an editor asked them not to remove project tags, HotStop responded by telling the editor to "fuck off dick face", and to "take a fucking hint". The editor was told to stop this behavior, and has not done so, and this pattern of behavior apparently is not a short-term thing, and isn't going to just go away on its own. - SudoGhost 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not condoning the edit summaries. Nor am I looking at Hot Stop's history. That said, in this particular instance, Hot Stop was provoked. User:Buck Winston posted several inflammatory messages to Hot Stop's talk page (repeatedly reverted by Hot Stop), this in the middle of a dispute where Buck has been edit-warring about the addition of a cat to an article. I have been handling the edit-warring report at WP:ANEW. There are other issues here that concern me with Buck, although they don't directly relate to the reason SudoGhost brought this here. I will notify Buck of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

HotStop blocked 24h. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to notify Buck Winston, and to be fair I didn't notice that Hot Stop had already removed two less-than-civil comments by Buck Winston[37][38], but I don't think "fuck off dick face" is the best way to handle that. - SudoGhost 23:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No reason to be sorry. I'm not sure I would have notified Buck had I been you. I notified him because I mentioned him by name. And you're right, Hot Stop's comments were not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when someone will not stop posting to your talk page I believe it is your right to tell them to fuck off. I think either Buck should get a 24 hour break as well for edit warring or HotStop should be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that's just an essay, as I couldn't disagree more with it. That's neither here nor there, though, unless your point was that it's okay to call another editor "dick face" in certain situations, too. --Conti|✉--00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree there. Not only is a statement like "fuck off dick face" inarguably a WP:CIVIL violation, I've found that a general rule, the person asking the other to stop posting is generally as much or more to blame as the person being asked to stop. When it gets to the point of "so-and-so is no longer welcome on my talk page", I find that the bulk, if not all, of the problem generally lies with the person making such demands.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right as a general rule, but not in this case. Buck was out of line.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but "I was provoked" isn't an excuse for attacking someone in my eyes. Looks like Buck was trying to carry on a content-related conversation Hot Stop didn't want to have, so yeah, bad style on Buck's part, but there's nothing anywhere in what Buck said or did that justified Hot Stop's flying off the handle the way he did. In no universe will "fuck off dick face" resolve any content or editorial dispute; the only thing that behavior does is poison the atmosphere and make the dispute so personal that it obscures the original locus of the dispute. I'd also note that Hot Stop shows no apparent evidence in his unblock request or post-request interactions that he understands that his behavior was unacceptable ("I understand what I was blocked for" and "...but I was provoked by his behavior" do not equal "I understand that I cannot speak to my fellow editors that way, even if they've annoyed me") or that he intends to avoid it in the future.

If people want, I suppose we can discuss Buck's behavior here as well, but personally, I see nothing in his behavior toward Hot Stop that deserves more than a sigh and a recommendation that he try to avoid poking bears in the future. At any rate, it has no bearing on Hot Stop's behavior whether or not the person he was railing against was perfect or totally wrong - in either case, he didn't have the right to resort to name-calling. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know not everyone sees it the same way as I do, but I find "fuck off dick face" and persistently, angrily posting to someone's talk page after they have made it clear they don't want you to to be roughly equivalent in terms of incivility. Neither excuses the other though, and adding "dick face" to the message to fuck off is kind of heaping it on a bit thick. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Buck Winston is almost certainly another sock of Otto4711. I had been waiting for a new one to pop up, it was about time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure the short duration block makes sense here, all of the incivility was in response to posts to his own talk page that were at the very least trollish. If the goal is to stop further disruption, the more rational solution would be to tell Buck Winston to stop commenting there. Instead it seems more like a punishment. Generally, I think when an editor has been goaded into making uncivil comments, particularly on their own talk page, we should look the other way. Monty₈₄₅ 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be wary of sending a message that it's not alright to respond to provocation with incivility (a notion I would generally agree with), but that it's alright to deliberately provoke editors. We'd actually have a problem if Hot Stop was responding to respectful disagreement with this kind of attitude, but this is not an example of respectful disagreement. wctaiwan (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only problem is that this wasn't some one-time thing, it's a pattern of incivility that Hot Stop has been blocked for before. While I'm certainly not suggesting that it's a "Buck did nothing wrong, Hot Stop was completely in the wrong" situation, looking the other way isn't going to prevent disruption if this behavior is just going to continue. - SudoGhost 02:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Buck Winston for edit-warring per the report at WP:ANEW. Upon further reflection and on my investigation into his edit history, I found his claim that he lost track of the number of reverts not to be credible.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok hotstop, i understand that your block will expire soon, so i'm going to offer a little advice: tone down on the swears, mmkay? i sometimes use the word "shit" in posts but i don't go overboard with it, so please sease and desist all "fuck" related dammages. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's some equally unsolicited advice for you: the pronoun 'I' is capitalised; 'cease' begins with a 'c'; and 'damages' has only one 'm', and doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, I (the anti of excelent at grammar, meaning i'm not so good at it) will try this again. I have some advice for you Hotstop: Please cease and desist all "Fuck" related insults and bashing. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban request - User:JASpencer

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

---

JASpencer and I have had a contentious history here at Wikipedia over in the Freemasonry topic area. He makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is biased against the topic, and we've had similar issues on ANI before. However, and not for the first time), JASpencer is stalking my contribs. He has keep voted on several AfDs I started in unrelated areas (WP:Articles for deletion/Awa Santesson-Sey, WP:Articles for deletion/Tahoe-LAFS, WP:Articles for deletion/Aliya (singer), and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Is_there_such_as_a_thing_as_a_.22bad_faith_keep.22.3F, just to name a few from the last few days. In every case, he is voting or commenting to bait me, and additionally to offer some sort of personal criticism, which is generally irrelevant to the topic. I do not need to put up with this behavior, which started this last time after I posted on his talk page to ask him to stop reverting edits against consensus on the Freemasonry article. I was later asked a question by another editor on my talk page, to which JA commented and the other editor [took exception. JA has also started several threads on various noticeboards about the Continental Freemasonry article, because he simply is not satisfied with what anyone is telling him. Prior to that, he hadn't gone near my other contribs or edited the Freemasonry article for months (that I am aware of), and a user compare report should indicate that.

This situation has been going on for years, and I have had enough of it. I'm sure some of my fellow editors at Freemasonry are also tired of this behavior, but it's been targeted at me directly more so than anyone else in that area. I don't care why, but it is a fact. Therefore, I hereby request a community enforced topic ban for him not only on Freemasonry-related topics (broadly construed), but an interaction ban regarding my edits and other contribs. I have no issues staying away from other material he edits (mainly Catholicism-related items, which is why I know there's an issue when he pops up at an AfD on a Russian pop singer or a computer encryption protocol), because it's not in my areas of interest or expertise. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Notification diff: here

• Oppose - (Note: I myself might be seen as having a POV here). MSJapan omits to mention that there can be thought to be a substantial degree of POV pushing from avowed Freemasons, such as himself, who so far as I can see constitute the bulk of the editors who regularly work with the related content, and that it is not unreasonable for one editor to follow the behavior of another if they believe that behavior to be problematic in and of itself. I can and do think that there might be at this point a basis to bring the subject of Freemasonry before the Arbitration Committee, to examine the behavior of all those who are regularly involved with the topic and perhaps impose sanctions as required. I would actually myself strongly support such steps being taken. But I can see no reason to single out only one editor from a topic that has been, basically for years, a POV nightmare. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's because I'm not worried about the POV here; that's a different issue. I'm concerned with an editor tracking me (and no one else) to unrelated pages and being disruptive because of a different topic area. Follow my editing conduct, fine, but when comments made on other pages are about the editor and not the content, that is inappropriate, and that is where it crosses the line from concern to something else. When the "other topic" is furthermore the impetus for the behavior elsewhere, then the editor shows an inability to be collegial, and should be removed from the stressor. Would you rather I retired because I felt harassed by this behavior? MSJapan (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your personal concerns are one thing, the concerns of wikipedia as a whole are another. First, you provide, honestly, rather scant evidence to support such a ban. Second, you seem to be insisting upon a differentiation between Freemasonry material and other material which probably is not necessarily logical. If one sees problematic behavior in one topic, it is certainly reasonable to examine other actions, because it is, sometimes, impossible to tell by the article title if it is related or not. If one sees problematic behavior there as well, even if rather by accident, I certainly cannot see any just cause to not remark upon it. Do you, necessarily, know simply by the article title whether it relates to a given topic? If one does see that the editor himself, possibly independent of the topic, is problematic, and I don't know if that is the case here, then it might not be best practices, but it is certainly not unheard of for it to be mentioned. Regarding your last question, which seems to be almost of a "my way or the high way" type, an editor is by definition free to act in whatever way they see fit, including based on personal opinions, which, as we all know, are sometimes not well founded in logic. Like I already said, I think the matter of the Freemasonry content, and, possibly, related content, probably at this point merits consideration by ArbCom. Pretty much by definition, any other related matters regarding the editors involved, even in apparently unrelated content, can be produced at that time as well. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Scanning the diffs and information MSJapan brought here, I don't see dubstantial evidence to support a topic ban. Update: JASpencer's evidence of past disputes not only reaffirms that a topic ban is not needed, but also showcases how MSJapan has a strong willingness to wipe out every user that edits Freemasonry articles and goes against their editing line, which is worrysome. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "it's been targeted at me directly more so than anyone else in that area. I don't care why, but it is a fact. Therefore....." Then back away and edit another article. If you don't care why, then niether do I.(rough, but you can't blow off your own actions and simply blame the other guy)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I am one of the few editors who is not a Freemason who semi-frequently edits Freemasonry articles, my main interests being the intersection of Freemasonry and Christianity and the tradition of "Liberal" or "Continental" Freemasonry. There is a belief by MSJapan and a few other editors who are Freemasons that Freemasonry articles should only be substantially edited by Freemasons as only they understand the allusions. I don't think that this is entirely conscious, and they would be shocked to see it stated in the terms above, but there is a MO here, for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Masonic_buildings this entry on Masonic buildings, this entry on a Masonic temple and this entry on Masonic oblgations. I've not been spared, MSJapan has had a long term campaign to try to stop me editing these articles, in the AN/I area alone he has had this entry (four years ago and on the topic of Liberal Freemasonry) and this entry. I think as I've stated before that the best way of dealing with this is to go through the content dispute processes (which is what I've been doing) rather than by blocking users. JASpencer (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Can this incident be closed now? There may be a case for taking all Freemasonry related articles to arb com, but that's not best discussed here. JASpencer (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Widespread hoaxing by the 68.183.91.XXX range

Need an admin who knows about range blocking to have a look at blocking 68.183.91.xxx range. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#hoax alert for details. User has created around 20 hoax submissions at AFC as well as adding incorrect information to articles and basically vandalizing my talk page and ordering me not to delete the garbage they have been posting, along with some other problematic material which necessitated a revdel. I don't know about the rest of you but I take a very dim view of people deliberately wasting the time of the severely understaffed AFC project. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - So, we have an IP range that is going around creating massive hoaxes, generally revolving around a fake movie studio entitled CEC TV Independent Pictures (a reference to Chuck E. Cheese's in-store programming) and a movie series Mission Catpossible (discovered to actually be a YouTube video series). The hoax began as about half a dozen articles attempted to be passed through AfC and has spread to vandalism on movie related pages. A full list of known affected articles and deleted submissions can be found along with previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, edit conflict. Gone ahead and merged the two sections (I kept my header because I already posted it on the other page). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Having taken a look at these articles, it might be worth setting up an edit filter for this range, similar to the Broadway Hoaxer one. Legoktm (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Range is 68.183.0.0/16 (maybe more, that is just the first ones I found) with a lot of potential collateral damage, so a range block isn't a best option unless it can be narrowed down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: If I understand your post, that's only 16 IPs. What's wrong with that? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's 2^(32–16) addresses according to CIDR notation. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed at The Super Mario Challenge[39]. And IP editor, 208.127.147.187 inserted the material at Dolphin Tale according to Wikiblame and this Diff.[40]. I've removed it accordingly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a rangeblock on 68.183.91.0/24. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Another [41] done by 24.247.204.241. Up the same alley as the others from the AFC page and I felt better axing it as it was dubious. That seems to be everything I can find. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

oh good grief! what is with IP editors these days, trying to ruin it for us noble IP editors? and people wonder why i'm losing faith in this genoration. sigh. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what's up. This vandalism seems scattered over several ranges. I'll start checking WHOIS data and see if I can find a pattern. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

68.183.91.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the one that tried to create the articles, they are registered to DSL Extreme, 24.247.204.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is registered to Charter Communications, and 208.127.147.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also a DSL Extreme IP. This at least shows that it is not limited to one person. If this continues, we may want to send it to WP:LTA. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Email abuse

Although Enemy of the Jihadis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for personal attacks and harassment, I have this morning received a further dozen abusive emails from this account. Please disable email access, and please remember to do so in all future recurrendces of such abusive vandalism! RolandR (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it has been blocked. I just wanted folk to know that it used its email account to target random users (me, I'm pretty random) with a grossly offensive message. The message was just below a credible threat of (personal) harm, and expressed a desire for genocide towards a large ethnic group (of which I am not a member). If I should forward the email message to anyone, please will someone message me on my talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Received the same email and forwarded it to AGK (talk · contribs), just in case. Not sure what the proper procedure is myself. He's back (and blocked again) under a different username. Yazan (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Research for email abuse/harassment showed me that the general arbcom list should have sight of (certainly one) of the emails. I doubt they will appreciate a deluge, though. So I have sent mine to that list. What I suggest is that the new username is (blocked or not) reported as a sock and subsequent versions are treated as such. There is the possibility, of course, that this is a bunch of meatpuppets, and that the campaign os not the juvenile thing it appears to be, but a symptom of a more serious underlying incitement to commit racially aggravated crimes. The arbcom guys can decide about that one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Me to, but the message that starts "Dear Amazon Customer...As you've previously purchased books, we thought you might like to know about" and then has the audacity to try to sell me "How to bake" by Paul Hollywood was worse. It would be very handy if Wikipedia's top boffins could somehow get this prolific sockpuppeteer/email abuser autoforwarded to the answer phone message that plays "Believe it or not, George isn't at home, please leave a message at the beep. I must be out or I'd pick up the phone. Where could I be? Believe it or not, I'm not home" to the music from the TV series "The Greatest American Hero". Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a long term abuser, whose identity is well known to admins. There are several threads in the archives relating to this. In this case, the abuse is being sent from hmamail; the address for complaints is info@hidemyass.com. I have already written to them a couple of times about this; I recommend that others do so too, to spur them into taking this seriously. RolandR (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have done that with no expectation of any result. I understand when you say this abuser is well known to admins. I feel the abuse has, in the iteration I was sent, reached the point where it is unlawful, and that law officers should receive information about its activities. I have no expectation of any outcome there either. Unfortunately there starts to become a time when one must take this type of abuse as a genuine threat. The abuser may find this thread amusing, of course they may, but they can also be aware that the net is closing in and true online anonymity is an illusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This may need to be considered, by several editors. And it is my understanding that some admins are aware of this person's real-life identity, so this should be possible. Over the past 18 months, I have received more than 1000 such racist, abusive and personally threatening emails, and I know of many other editors who have also been similarly harassed. Wikipedia really needs to establish a procedure or filter to prevent such abuse of the email facility. RolandR (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we all know who this is, and many administrators know his real name and where he lives. Email me if you'd like the name of a law enforcement contact who has dealt with him before. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance that they would treat this seriously? The continuing barrage of racist abuse and obscene threats of personal violence is distressing, and needs to stop. What have law enforcement officials done in the past? RolandR (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Milesgive3030- is at it now. Blocked, but still allowed to email. I now have a large number of grossly offensive emails. I don;t particularly care, but this needs to stop. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look through Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis and the key problem is Verizon (his hosting provider) refusing to cut him off, presumably claiming he's not actually breaking any laws, just wasting lots of time. Short of increased publicity (if all the above was reliably sourced, which it isn't, you could add it to Verizon#Controversies), I'm not sure what we can do except silently block and ignore. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Law enforcement is the only way with this type of person. I am getting loads of hate mail at present and expect a couple of thousand more. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis (aka Grawp) is a very experienced sockmaster who has been around, on and off, since the beginning of 2005. We've attempted to erradicate him multiple times, to no avail. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Ritchie on this one. Just Revert, Block, Ignore. By all means, Tim, attempt to prosecute him through law enforcement. I'm just afraid you'll be disappointed by the response you get. As long as the mail doesn't descend into threats of violence, I doubt they'll want to spend an extremely large amount of time (which would be required) to prosecute JarleaxleArtemis. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I simply have no idea with which agency to lodge the complaint. Perhaps one who knows would drop me an email? I an umder no illusions about the reaction I will get, but enough mud sticks, eventually. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

E-mail the 'emergency' e-mail address, they'll be able to direct you as appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I de-enabled my email last year because of him[42], then quietly enabled it again a couple of months ago. Last week it startet again, from "123456789is my password" and "Caade79" (His messages normally include: Fithy/fucking/nazi/Arab/whore ...in any order). I de-enabled my email again, but I see he has been all over my talk-page instead. Thanks to all of you who are reverting/"cleaning up" my talk-page! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, guys. The emergency system is for use when immediate response is required for an active threat of imminent violence. There are pretty strict protocols around what we can do with it. :) We can't process this kind of thing through that address. If you need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation and aren't sure where to get it, please send me an email at liaisonwikimedia.org. I will do my absolute best to put you in touch with the person you need or to get you the assistance you require. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"As long as the mail doesn't descend into threats of violence, I doubt they'll want to spend an extremely large amount of time". But that's the point; the emails I have received (more than 1000 so far) include graphic descriptions of specific threats of violence against me, alongside references to images of me appearing elsewhere on the internet. I have little doubt that this behaviour is illegal; one reason I hesitate to gtake any action is concern that Wikipedia itself could be implicated or held responsible, by virtue of enabling the use of its email facility. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a couple of run-ins with him in the past as well, though your issues with him appear to make mine fade into insignificance. I for one hope that something positive comes from TimTrent's complaint to law enforcement. I've left a suggestion on Tim's talk page as to where he can find contact details for police aid. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Roland - I don't think there's much chance of that. When people send email through wikipedia, it basically just acts like any other email client you can name (gmail, outlook, etc.) If Wikipedia were to be prosecuted for emails sent using its software, then those other clients should be prosecuted as well for all the illegal emails sent through them. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I used the emergency email address after this advice and acknowledge that I was incorrect in doing so. As soon as someone tells me the correct law enforcement contacts to use I will be lodging a complaint. I suggest everyone affected does the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies from me for suggesting it, thought it was the best place. GiantSnowman 12:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No trouting intended! :) I just wanted to clarify the best avenue to use. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasty page moves and edits by User:Sawol

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

---

• User:Sawol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sawol has been performing bulk page moves [43] and chainging naming convention guidelines [44] without waiting for discussions to close and consensus to emerge. He has been asked to slow down by several editors [45], [46], [47] including most recently myself, but he does not seem to get it. The good-faith but hasty edits are confusing the issue and unintentionally interfering with development of articles with consistent names. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I stop some edit about your concern. But see Talk:Sinyang County. All user agree on the title name "~ County". Sawol (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That discussion is still open, there is no emerging consensus to apply that requested move to other articles than those two, and your assessment that all users agree on a name is inaccurate. This is why we wait for discussions to be closed and someone uninvolved to determine the consensus - if we are involved in the discussion, it is difficult to be neutral in our assessment of the outcome. VQuakr (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not fully understand about the policy. If one user propose a proposal, someone uninvolved can close the discussion. I have learned a lot. Sawol (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Abusive IP editor

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

---

While trying to ensure an IP only used reliable sources when adding a fact to an article, they have objected to my involvement and resorted to dubious editing practices (adding 15 citations to support a piece of trivia). When I tried to explain the circumstances, particularly what a reliable source is, on their talk page, I have been told that "Your behavior on this site is offensive and demonstrates a distinct mental instability".

I have attempted to use the Template:RPA to remove this section, but my efforts have been reverted by the editor. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• 67.112.123.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP has made no response except to remove notices of this ANI. The best current statement of his attitude is User talk:67.112.123.191, where he suggests that SchroCat has a distinct mental instability. Who knew that WP talk pages were such a good source of information on individual people's mental health? EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor is also engagin in a edit war on the article page, reverting the edits of four editors, despite being warned of the dangers of WP:3RR. (No 3RR case filed because this is in progress, unless you advise otherwise). - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody please block this disruptive editor adding pointless content, he's already violated 3RR and is now using a different computer.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Finlay McWalter. I've temporarily semi-protected the page given block evasion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This one looks like another IP sock account. He must have several computers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And yet, when a recently published book was provided as a reference - a completely legitimate source according to wiki rules - plus an actual screen grab from the movie titles itself, these were also removed and disqualified. Alas, since these sources (both legitimate under wiki rules) and the 16 other sources already provided (from a google search result of 6000+ entries supporting the same edit), all prove that both Schroderscat and Dr.Blofeld aren't the Bond experts they claim to be and that the ownership of the Bond movie pages they exert ruthlessly is dubious in the extreme, they are determined at all costs to remove any attempt to prove their editing incorrect. I hope they will both seek medical attention for their psychiatric disorders. SchrodersCat in particular has problems with reading as even though they are warned that if they continue to edit a TALK page, their comments will be removed without further discussion, they continue to post and then complain here that the warning was carried out. They also post that self edited sites are not reliable sources. Which of course makes a mockery of wikipedia in it's entirety. Well done. Doubtless, this post will be removed and a block instigated immediately. They will win at all costs. Bullies always do. It's clear to me they are sock puppets of the same editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.140.38 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I and a couple other admins have recently blocked a fair number of the IPs and recently-created harassment accounts (e.g. MrsBlofeld (talk · contribs)) that this editor has resorted to using. I've also protected the article talk page due to all the block evasion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But you won't address the issue of the legitimate sources being removed. Just boast about your blocking success. Not really working, is it? Why not try and answer the fundamental issue of the removed - correct & legitimate - sources? There's an idea! Plus, if you continue to remove all my attempts to escalate your behavior with complaints in the correct area, I'll keep coming back and posting again. So why not drop it and answer the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.141.27 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've now semiprotected this page, and Acroterion has blocked the above IP sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Inflammatory accusations at move request

Over time, several move requests have been made at Communist Romania; the latest has just begun. Every time, to my recollection, User:DIREKTOR has charged that I and others opposing such a move are doing so not from policy-based motivations, but because we are "Romanian nationalists" bent on keeping the title for our own POV-pushing purposes. I have warned him repeatedly to stop, e.g. here. The new move request is barely a few hours old, yet Director has started again. He avers that: "I shall be blunt: the only problem here is the fact that the current name is more acceptable to Romanian nationalist sensibilities, who close ranks and WP:VOTE-down every attempt". Setting aside the fact that he has no evidence of vote tampering in the last move request, I simply find it intolerable to go through yet another move request where whatever I say is perceived as masking sinister, unstated, hidden, deeper motivations. Plus, this probably contravenes WP:ARBEE. Will someone please intervene so we can have a sane, rational, policy-based discussion this time around, free of ethnic-based mudslinging? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see how it's annoying, but I hardly see how it's actionable. 90% of his argument contains no mention of nationalist editors and of the part that does, it singles no one out. He shouldn't make broad generalizations, but that's a reason to ignore him. There is noting admins can do. If it's such an issue, WP:RFC/U would be the next step after trying to talk to him and get him to tone down the nationalist accusations.--v/r - TP 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this is about The Move, methinks. Nevertheless, I really meant no offence, and if offence was taken - I do apologize. I was not referring to anyone specifically, and I feel your characterization of the comment as an "ethnic-based attack" is highly inappropriate and offensive in itself: I do not do that sort of thing. I did candidly outline what I feel is a real problem for the article, but I certainly do not think its a unique issue. In fact, I've often commented on the deep-rooted bias and POV-pushing that plagues ex-Yugoslav articles (my home country), likely far more than any other European history subject. -- Director (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DOB at Tammy Duckworth article

Since 2007, a banned editor named Joehazelton has repeatedly returned to the Tammy Duckworth article to insert Duckworth's date of birth into the article. The most recent sock puppet he used to do this that I know of was Themightywind, who can be seen discussing the issue here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy Duckworth. Since then, he has returned a couple times as an IP (all of his IPs and sock puppets originate in the greater Chicago area), the most recent of which was today with edits here: 1, 2, and 3. You can see his sockpuppet investigations case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Joehazelton/Archive. Since he'll probably just keep inserting it, I'm referring the matter to ANI. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've applied pending changes to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

stagnogleys

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

---

Accidently created above. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated blank-insertion of unsourced statements to album articles

Since September 2012 this user, as well as their sockpuppet has made a whole bunch of blanket edits stating record sales figures to many album articles, without any sources whatsoever. Granted, inserting a few figures here and there in the hope that other editors would pitch in with some help might not be a huge problem, but when it involves entire discographies and many albums from different bands, with no edit summaries or even so much as a single attempt at providing sources, as well as simply adding back the unsourced stuff that I remove, surely it becomes a more tricky issue—especially since it should not be the job of other editors to go around searching for so many of them. The user has also made several obvious vandalistic edits since joining (perhaps, at a guess, indicating their [im]maturity level), which I think further indicates their lack of desire to "get with the program" on WP: 1, 2, 3, 4 At this stage, having made four unsuccessful attempts at contacting them on their talk page, I'm unsure of what to do other than keep reverting their edits (I seem to remember they removed a few cite tags as well). Even so, it's clear that he/she/they will keep coming back with the same old routine, for the exact same articles.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, forgot to provide an example of the unsourced additions in question: one of the album articles edited most by the user, and what keeps getting added. Same line repeatedly, but no attempt at providing a source in the past four months. I realise now that I may be violating 3RR, but they ain't getting the point otherwise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove information with reliable sources

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

---

TheMistAnchorite1

• [48]
• [49] - "This wiki page is about Georgia, and not about Armenian propaganda" (Shnirelman, Donald Rayfield, Stephen H. Rapp, etc. - Armenian propaganda ???)
• [50] - original research
• [51] - "the georgian alphabet was not invented by Mesrop Mashotots, this is a latter insertion made in Koryuns work. In Koryuns original work we don't find this, and our proof is armenian historian Ghazar Parpets" (original research)
• [52] - "this wiki article is according to georgian point of view wich interests us more" (????)

Please stop national activist. Divot (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

More email abuse

Another JarlaxleArtemis sock, Milesgive3030- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is continuing to abuse Wikipedia email to send obscene and racist threats, even after the account has been blocked. Please disable this account's email access, and please remember to disable email access for all such socks. RolandR (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Email access locked down for this one. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This account, like the several others which have spammed over recent weeks, had an extremely offensive, racist email address. Is there no way to prevent mail from such addresses being allowed via Wikipedia email? RolandR (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

?Racist? Are we talking about hmamail or some other? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The username on the email addresses were racist. Legoktm (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It has to be stopped at source by using law enforcement. The email content is unlawful. We cannot expect WP to filter this out since the individual words used are not, of themselves, unlawful, it is the word order that makes them unlawful and offensive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

hmamail.com is on my blocked senders list so it just goes into the pile of junk. I guess you can do the same. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is easy to do, but does not protect the less robust people who will be receiving the unpleasant emailings. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Roland poses an interesting idea. Would it be possible to manipulate the edit filter to extend, in some cases, to the email function? — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I'll file a bug in bugzilla and start working on a patch. Legoktm (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be saying it's possible, though the bug's been inactive for more than a year. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a different bug I linked and then removed. That involved having the filter being able to email an address in case a filter was tripped. I filed Template:Bug which is about the filter preventing emails from being sent. Legoktm (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for doing all the hard work :). If you need any help, just ask. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What? You are proposing to run the content of emails sent from Wikipedia through the edit filter and reject them if they contain certain words? You can't be serious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's to filter out the email addresses not the email content. Blackmane (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well actually I was proposing both. It's important to remember that just because a feature was written software wise, doesn't mean it will be enabled. And even if such a feature were enabled (which I hope it will eventually be), the filters would be written in such a way that the chance of false positive would be extremely low, like they currently are. Is there something especially wrong with filtering abusive emails? Legoktm (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm a fan of running emails through the edit filter. Emails are supposed to be private, and the edit filter logs for emails would reveal when people are emailing each other. Plus, there would be no way to report false positives (which would always occur, no matter how cautious we are) without revealing the potentially sensitive contents of the email. Also, the edit filter is probably too naive to effectively patrol emails; if people email each other about some random LTA's patterns (perhaps for beany reasons), the email might trigger the pattern for LTA, since it can't tell the difference. So false positives might be more common than we'd expect. Of course there's the whole Orwellian angle as well; that's kinda subjective, but still. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just don´t understand why nothing can be done about this. Firstly, why does Wikipedia enable editors, who has not made a single edit, to email others? Make a small number of edits compulsory first. Secondly; no-one has any legitimate reason to send 50-60 emails to the same person within a few minutes. Some flood-control, please! This bugzilla report seems to claim it has been fixed, but that is simply not correct. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Huldra, can you not add hmamail.com to your blocked senders list in whatever email app you use so that they are put in the junk folder ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can, but that is not the point. Being a responsible social media site is the point. We have vulnerable people editing here, too, not just the strong minded folk. You are not vulnerable, obviously. I am not either. I received circa 200 pieces of crap today, but I don't much care about that. I expect more crap over the next few days, so what? But I wish to see those who care about it and are affected by it protected from it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood but this is a charity. A lot of resources are already wasted here dealing with the ethically challenged. Microsoft/Google/Yahoo etc have money to burn and they've already solved the problem. I would rather the resources were used on finding a technical solution to astonishingly high level of dishonesty in the form of sockpuppetry because that kills two birds with one stone. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WK: True, which is what I mentioned in my bug report (link above). Currently only CheckUsers (as I understand it) have access to limited email logs so the privacy aspect is definitely something that needs to be considered. How is the edit filter too naive? The current filters are specifically designed to stop LTAs and not users. Without getting too beansy here, I am confident that if you tried discussing an LTA pattern with another user through Wikipedia email, you wouldn't be stopped. Feel free to email me for details on how that would work. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're asking about filters: you seem to be saying that we don't get false positives because we're not supposed to get false positives? That's not how it works. My point about email is that, since sensitive subjects like LTAs might be discussed more frequently through email than onwiki (that's purely anecdotal, so that might not be true), these kinds of filters will get higher rates of false positives, and false positives for email are much worse than false positives for on-wiki actions, because of the privacy issue.

As for the current email log, if I understand it right, checkusers only have access to see that an email is sent; they aren't able to see the contents of an email. My really primary point is that I don't see a way that an edit-filter type-solution would be workable without a way of handling false positives, and I don't see how handling false positives could be done without access to the contents of the email, and I don't see a way that releasing the contents of the email would be acceptable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I normally do not get much junk-mail on this account, and usually read my "junk" as it is usually from a forum I am member off. Besides the above suggestions, may I suggest that you have a trigger for certain words in the heading of the emails? Eg: "whore/nazi/death/gas/kill" Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

174.118.142.187 and 86.145.244.183

Repeated alteration and deletion of talk page comments by User:174.118.142.187

User:174.118.142.187 has taken to repeatedly reformatting, reattributing and deleting comments made by myself at Three-phase electric power.

First reformat of my comment (emphasising a point I did not want emphasised and wrongly crediting me with imposing a deadline for discussion) [53]

My reversion to what I wanted said with warning in edit summary. ([54])

Once again 174.118.142.187 reverts, once again making it appear that I have imposed a deadline that I have no right to do. ([55]).

For the second time, I revert to what I wanted it to say. ([56])

A warning is placed on the user talk page. ([57])

But it didn't stop.

174.118.142.187 moved my comment from the section it was in to a new section and credited it as having been written by an administrator (which I am not). ([58])

174.118.142.187 has deleted my opposition comment to his desire to change the english variant in the article WP:ENGVAR. ([59])

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Inserting a section header (first diff) is not reformatting a comment, it's inserting a section header. Edit warring over the header is counterproductive. Discussion should continue on Talk:Three-phase electric power and this thread closed. NE Ent 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Last time I did something not disimilar, I got a slapped wrist from an admin. Regardless: deleting an editor's comment because he opposes you (after a warning) surely is still deleting an editor's comment. As this seeks to rig a concensus, does that not merit some action? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You should've posted this diff. Your diffs aren't really actionable, there's nothing wrong with adding a section header. In fact, that is helpful. The part about the end date however, seems to be pointless. Discussions on talk pages have no arbitrary end date as suggested by the IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Before closing this incident I want to add that I am requesting an apology on the article talk page and my user talk page from this user for posting personal attacks with this [60] for lying[61] about the number of offensive occurences, reversions to the article I did not make, and labelling me as a vandal in the edit history and my talk page history. We would appreciate collaboration and less ad hominem[62] commenting from this editor in the future. Thank you 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been going over the edit history of Three-phase_electric_power and its associated talk page to unravel what has been going on there and happened across this. I felt, I could not go without commenting given the editor's attempts to try and remove the opposition to his unexplained desire to change the spelling of color to colour throughout an article. In the case of the first diff quoted, 174.118.142.187 deleted a comment that opposed his view point (which is vandalism so I do not see what he is complaining about - the edit summary AFAICT is accurate in every particular). I thought, at first, that it may have been an error, but subsequent events have removed that possibility. He then accuses him of lying (maybe? or did he just miscount?). There were two instances (one repeat despite a warning) so what real difference does the lack of a third make?

As for the last, I cannot comment other than to observe that it is presumably yet another attempt to try and swing the pendulum his way by including something not remotely related to the matter in hand. A look at the editing history suggests that the talk page comment is unwarranted. The only (possibly) contentious comments are allegations of edit warring against a tendentious editor, but that is the subject of a work in progress RfC to which I myself have contributed evidence (of deliberate edit warring without discussion) so the alegation is probably justified (and to be fair, I and several others have also made the same allegation).

174.118.142.187 is correct on one very important point: collaboration would indeed be desireable, but from where I am standing, it certainly seems that 174.118.142.187 does not want any one else collaborating when they oppose his viewpoint. I B Wright (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the response I replied to you on my talk page, previously. The reasons haven't changed. I understand your account has been around for a few years. Have you forgotten some basic WP:Policies. You appear to be gaming WP somewhat with your WP:Battleground and nonWP:COLLAB behaviour. I surely would find it hard to believe a polished editor would not have WP at his best interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalising by IP 86.145.244.183

Please see this vandalisation of my talk page [63]. This IP user has only made one edit and the account was obviously created for disruption only and a sock for a previously aggressive editor acting in a disuptive manner to a consensus process. He has recently launched a vandal report on this editor appearing as an article dispute resolution distraction. The IP needs a long block. Perhaps a CU could be done to verify. Details can be supplied if further info is wanted. I will not be notifying the offending IP. It would fall on deaf ears and is obviously understood by the IP. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also request that an admin remove the offending line from my edit history. Editors tend to use histories as bias to dish out future punishments and treat editor's edits with less merit. This would not be fair to this IP when no offence has actually ocurred. Thank you 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You have to notify any user you mention on this board. It's not just polite, it's required. One bit of vandalism is not block-worthy, but that it was definitely DieSwartzPunkt indicates that both of you need to back off.

A message on your talk page (which I removed) does not add to your block log

I've notified the users you were supposed to notify. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The vanadalism was not real. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

182.18.209.15

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

---

• 182.18.209.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Blocked user abusing own talk page. – Wdchk (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Schweikart ostracized

Larry Schweikart a history professor with a non-controversial record as a business historian in recent years has written interpretive histories of the US with an explicitly conservative viewpoint. Today editor User:Binksternet has been systematically tracking and erasing citations to Schweikart's political books and to his nonpolitical books as well. He stated his motivation on my talkpage as "Certainly Schweikart has his fans, but I think we need to minimize his impact on Wikipedia, at least on topics where his opinion goes against the tide." Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen). For example he deleted a passage on guitar music Rock and roll and the fall of communism that cited Schweikart. He deleted material from Conservation in the United States explaining "Delete overreliance on poorly received work" with zero evidence anywhere that the particular Schweikart works involved were "poorly received" by any RS. Perhaps "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov. Ostracizing an established historian because of his political views is pure POV, in my opinions. The NPOV rules require the inclusion of all major viewpoints. "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a fairly straightforward content dispute. I suggest discussing the matter on the articles' talk pages or at WP:RSN. I certainly don't see any need for admin intervention here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

systematic ostracism of a scholar across numerous articles on entirely different topics --all done in a matter of minutes--is not a simple content dispute. Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI is never going to rule on whether a certain source should be used or not. That's something that has to be resolved via discussion on talk pages, WP:RSN, or an Rfc--not by administrative intervention. It appears that Bink is willing to talk this over, so reporting him here was unnecessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the proper place for this discussion is WP:RSN. The book A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen has been deeply criticized for its slanted counterfactuality. Historian David Hoogland Noon wrote that the book's authors "make claims that are not even remotely endorsed by the footnoted sources."[64] Law Professor Jared A. Goldstein criticizes the bias of the book, presented as counter-bias by its authors: "...those writing history have allowed their biases to distort the way American history is taught... utterly downplaying the greatness of America's patriots..." ("Tea Party Movement and the Perils of Popular Originalism", Arizona Law Review.) Law Professor Alfred Brophy uses the books A Patriot's History of the United States and A People's History of the United States as examples of the biased result of culture wars. ("Reparations Talk in College", Michigan Journal of Race & Law) Taylor & Francis editor-in-chief Roberto A. Valdeón of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, uses the two books A Patriot's History of the United States and A People's History of the United States as examples of the manipulation of history. ("Communicating the past via translation: the manipulation of history", Language and Intercultural Communication.) The books I removed from the History of the United States article are these exact two books. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet has also removed an essay on rockand roll music from 7 Events that Made America America chapter on A Steel Guitar Rocks the Iron Curtain, published by Penguin in 2010. He attacked Schweikart's article on the panic of 1857 (a widely cited scholarly article). And he announced his plan to eliminate Schweikart's role here. He deleted a passage on Robert Peary' s diary -- entirely nonpolitical and uncontroversial based on a scholarly article by Schweikart in a major journal with no evidence of any problem, except Schwikart wrote it. That is pure POV deleting. Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum making personal attacks

I'm not posting this here because I'm a gullible fool who thinks it will actually accomplish anything, but instead because Beeblebrox said that I know how to find the drama boards. Sure, he knows just as well as I do that it wouldn't do any good to bring this here, but Malleus has made several personal attacks at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012, saying that Hersfold is a horrible person and unfit to be in charge of a push bike. He's also called me a gullible fool (see above) and a misinformed one to boot. (That last attack came after Beeblebrox had bluntly told us both to shut up). Also, this whole thing had started with Malleus's seeming insinuation that the election officials are dishonest. Now, I imagine that someone will simply respond to this by rudely telling me off and saying that Malleus knows the rules and sanctioning him won't do any good, but I still want to know why he is allowed to get away with repeated attacks on editors who are simply acting in good faith. Given that this is a volunteer site and editors have no moral obligation to help out here, why should they stay to be treated like dirt by one editor who disregards the rules? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)