Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:81.149.185.174, 213.120.148.60 and others

I wish to report issues with an individual who posts from a number of IP addresses, including...

• 81.149.185.174: already warned once about civility on User talk:81.149.185.174 on 4 Mar 13.
• 213.120.148.60: warned about a disruptive edit [1] on User talk:213.120.148.60 on 5 Mar 13.
• 217.41.32.3: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:217.41.32.3 on 22 Jan 13.
• 81.133.12.45: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:81.133.12.45 on 10 and 22 Jan 13.
• 86.181.25.153
• 86.161.219.51
• 130.88.114.111
• 87.112.181.7 (unclear whether this is the same person)

If you look at the revision history for Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, you can see how most of these are clearly the same person. Other revision histories fill in the other addresses.

Said user is focused on UK political articles and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). S/he generally favours more coverage and more positive coverage of UKIP and is often involved in disputed edits and in long discussions over disputed edits. There are possible issues here with respect to WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:OR. (One of the shorter examples would be at Mid Ulster by-election, 2013: take a look at edits from 23-5 February 2013 and Talk:Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013#UKIP_Press_Release. Long, long examples are at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (archive) and Talk:UK Independence Party.) I and other editors have sought to work through these, and some of this individual's edits are constructive and are kept.

Most concerning are the repeated violations of WP:AGF. Some recent examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Again, I and other editors have sought to tackle this through dialogue, but it keeps happening again and again. I have also suggested at Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Semi-protection that semi-protection may be appropriate for that article.

Said user has been active here on this noticeboard twice before: most recently at [14] and there was an earlier case that I can't find right now.

Several weeks back, an editor with a similar modus operandi and topic interest was banned for sockpuppetry: see User:Nick Dancer/User:Sheffno1gunner and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive. I am uncertain whether this anonymous editor is connected or not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also this from some months back: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Possible_legal_threats_on_Talk:_Rotherham_by-election.2C_2012. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou I have engaged in constructive discussions. I have argued my case to those that don't flatly refuse to engage in dialogue, to your credit you are one of those people. However there are editors who simply choose to edit war and say No No No, instead of giving an explanation as to why, they also will not listen to a well reasoned argument!

I have been an IP editor on Wikipedia that has realised that there is a need to try and redress the balance here! I am not the only one Bondegezou has mentioned others. A number of us have been incredibly concerned at how sources have been used selectively to put across a particular narrative (for whatever reason)! This can be seen in earlier versions of articles such as UK Independence Party, many people agreed that this was not a neutrally written article. Subsequently the entire policy section has had to be removed because neutral and reliable 3rd party sources were not available, this lead to editors putting across a certain narrative. All many of us want is Wikipedia to be neutral and to reflect reality. In many cases it hasn't in the past but it has improved thanks to pressure through constructive discussions from myself and others.

It is no secret that a number of regular editors to the politics section are of a Liberal Democrat persuasion (and that's fine but it does sometimes skew the narrative of articles and judgements of editors). Some examples of this are doktorbuk who admits that they are a "card carrying member" of the Liberal Democrats on their user page, he's even used phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" and "But we need to close the UKIP loophole". Bondegezou admits an interest in "politics, particularly in the UK and issues concerning the Liberal Democrats". Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs by the way is one reason why a number of us don't have logons and want a bit more anonymity). Now I have absolutely no problem what so ever with the personal views of these 3 editors, that's non of my business but they do spend a lot of time editing this section and it does seem that they are in charge of the final outcomes of almost all discussions. It also seems that the Wikipedia politics section is at least a good year behind reflecting reality based on evidence.

It is important to note that when I have raised a discussion and the issue has been properly debated, I have accepted the outcome! For this reason I have created no need for protection of any Wikipedia articles! All I (and others) are trying to do is address the balance here! Until that balance is struck, more editors other than myself will come along. I really don't see what is wrong with my argument on United Kingdom local elections, 2013! Perhaps that's why Bondegezou has pointed readers of this discussion in the direction of shorter conversations where there is less detail discussed!

I want to get on with other editors but many of us feel like there is a constant battle on Wikipedia to try and redress the balance. We are categorically not trying to promote UKIP! We just want a greater reflection of reality, not to have the party talked up or down! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (and 1 or 2 other IPs - not all of the above)

I have informed doktorbuk and Emeraude of this discussion at their Talk pages.

213.120.148.60, could you clarify which IPs you are and are not. All those listed above appeared to me to be you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see I am being misrepresented again! At various times I have been accused by these IPs (or this one person - who knows) of a wide range of things - bias, beign a card-carrying Lib Dem, selective citing etc etc. Some of these accusations have gone beyond the bounds of regular protocol well into the area of personal attack. Each time I have asked for an indication of where I have been biased, or selective, or whatever, but never receive an answer, because there isn't one quite frankly. Now, out of the blue, we read that "Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs....." Now, I don't have to explain to anyone why I am interested in things (I also list on my user page Aviation, Education and Law) but seeing as it's been raised it stems from having a degree in political science and having done postgrad work on hwo minor parties, particularly of the right, perform in elections. Nothing sinister at all. And I would like to know how this anon IP is able to state that I "have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative"? What narrative? (And, as it happens, BNP members/supporters did attempt to use UKIP in the past, which is precisely why UKIP now specifically bans them from membership.) (S)he then accuses me of "victimization and slurs", but will not say when I have victimised anyone or made any slurs. But what do you expect from people who vandalise my user page to say that I am "engaging in bigotry"?!

The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Wikipedia with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Wikipedia, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the case of vandalism to which Emeraude is referring is this: [15] by 81.149.185.174, which is exactly the sort of problem that led me to bring this case here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with UK politics articles and the IP editors attracted to them. Inevitably supporters of political parties want to ramp up coverage of their own party, though as a card-carrying member of a party myself I know better than to try! The current spate of UKIP supporters show little or no attempt to disguise their bias, often changing articles without any regard to building consensus (for example, adding Nigel Farage to a page and THEN going to the talk page to retroactively ask for a discussion). The spate of IP editors from UKIP tend to die down after polling day, as it did last November, so I think semi-locks and temp-bans until June should help reduce the spate of problems we have. doktorb _words^deeds 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As it the way, there are several interrelated issues here. Some of them are about content (what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?). Some of them are about election articles that are prone to vandalism/unhelpful editing from multiple sources in the run-up to elections (should United Kingdom local elections, 2013 be semi-protected for a few months?). I'm uncertain where those issues should be discussed (beyond Talk pages), but would dearly welcome some administrator input.

However, my initial reason to bring this to ANI was about conduct. 81.149.185.174/213.120.148.60/217.41.32.3/81.133.12.45 has been warned 6 times about conduct. There are multiple subsequent AGF violations. Several editors have already tried to tackle this with the IP editor. Is some sort of administrator action now appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For quite some time I've encountered various UKIP supporters who have clearly been trying to push an agenda, ever since UKIP's popularity has begun to increase. The most glaring example has been on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou has also expressed concern about the UKIP bias there, and I have agreed with him. Between Sheffno1, 08aviee, and others, it's difficult to tell who is doing what in these articles. Indeed, it seems as if there is a serious lack of WP:AGF going on, as there are many accusations of those who do not agree with them being members of the Lib Dems, while at the same time they attempt to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I've tried to start a few discussions on the UK Politics Wikiproject, but there hasn't been much of a consensus drawn to the above question that Bondegezou presented: what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?. It seems there is now a disagreement between the opinion polling page (which lists UKIP) and the main election page (which doesn't list UKIP). Of course, I realise this isn't the venue to discuss this issue, but I felt that it's apt to bring it up: if there is no consensus about how UKIP should be represented, it is inevitable that different editors with different views will edit war. – Richard BB 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, what I think Richard BB is pointing out is that Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has a set of tables reporting opinion polling that now include columns for the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP. Meanwhile, Next United Kingdom general election and United Kingdom local elections, 2013 have infoboxes that include Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems, but not UKIP. However, I don't actually see that as an inconsistency: what should be in a table reporting opinion polls and what should be in an infobox for a forthcoming election are different questions. You see a mismatch like this for many countries, e.g. what parties are listed in the tables at Opinion polling for the next German federal election and what parties are in the infobox at German federal election, 2013. I actually feel the current balance is right.

That said, I agree with Richard BB's broader point of an unresolved question over how to cover UKIP, and that resolving that question is made more difficult by a history of sockpuppets and lack of WP:AGF. Here is the right venue to discuss the latter issue, of editor conduct. Would it be possible to have some administrator action or advice on how to proceed? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for clarifying — you're right. – Richard BB 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably don't want my input given the past but here is is anyhow: My position is as it was before, in that this election is one of a number of tests in that UKIP have not made that electoral breakthrough at Westminster or council level. I still agree with the decision that was made several months ago in that it is not possible to consider adding UKIP to any non-EU election boxes until after this election! Depending on what the result is, we then consider looking at the 2014 local elections info box. That said, the IPs argument is sound (just not sufficient). In my view we ought to consider mentioning UKIP in the article somehow if they do exceed 2,000 candidates or match/exceed the number of Lib Dem candidates! The problem is how etc, in my view the article is best left as it is until we know the results. If you want to semi-protect the article, I guess I have no objections but the restriction should be lifted on election day at 10:00pm i.e. when voting has ended. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the same person or not, but the problems go on: [16]. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted that as blatant trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind trolling - it is an attack on an editor. I've added the IP to the list at the top of this discussion. Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackmane. While it's useful to revert individual instances, they keep happening with such regularity that some further action (be that blocking certain IP addresses or semi-protection) seems in order to me.

Thanks, Emeraude. I've appended a note given some uncertainty as to whether this is the same individual or not. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While I would definitely support semi-protection of the articles (perhaps not the Opinion polling one, as the troubles there are mostly resolved and we regularly get helpful IPs updating it) I think it's against policy to semi-protect a talk page like this, as good faith IPs who wish to suggest genuine changes to the article wouldn't be able to. – Richard BB 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that admins are very loth to protect or semi protect talk pages, especially if the article page is protected as the talk page will then be the only place that helpful anon editors can contribute. As far as can be done, attacks by the various IPs can only be dealt with a liberal application of WP:RBI reserved for trolls. Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that any Talk pages should be semi-protected, just certain articles (and then just for limited times, say until after the May local elections). Blocking of some IP addresses seems entirely appropriate.

We keep saying we're all in agreement with each other. How do we move from here to administrator action? Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

87.112.181.7 has now reverted Blackmane's reversion. I have removed the material again. 87.112.181.7 is also removing LGBT references from Prahran, Victoria and Talk:Prahran, Victoria, with something of an edit war developing subsequently. I'm not convinced that 87.112.181.7 is the same IP editor as in the initial complaint, but certainly these actions demonstrate the problem with a number of anonymous editors on articles pertaining to UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a number of the IPs above, I can say categorically that I am not 87.112.181.7 and 130.88.114.111! I can also say that I only appear as 2 of the above IPs! I am not going to tell you which because you are threatening to block! I hope your not proposing to block all the IPs above without knowing who they are whilst accusing them of being the same person! I am also not sheffno1 for the record! Although I have spoken with this editor on another site before, he uses the same logon on other popular site that has a private messaging service.

I notice that Emeraude and the usual suspects have launched a counter attack by sabotaging UKIP's page by adding the following to UKIPs policy section:

In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain.

It is blindingly clear that this paragraph has nothing to do with UKIP policy! May I suggest that this kind of behavior is taken into account! As I have already highlighted, Emeraude has a thing for anti-facism and this is an example of Emeraude trying to make UKIP appear as fascist by branding them racist and xenophobic and making inferences about their supporters. In this case he has used a "study". This type of behavior is even more deplorable than anything I or any of these other editors have done. I and others have merely tried to seek increased inclusion and coverage of UKIP to catch up with reality (I now accept that certain tests need to be passed before that can happen - we've had that debate, outcome accepted). Whereas Emeraude and others have actively politicized the narrative of articles by picking and choosing their sources! Above is just one of a number of examples! I and others have not changed any narrative or tried to paint UKIP or any other party as something it's not. But It seems some other people are trying to have things both ways! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• It may have been misplaced. However, your allegations of Emeraude's actions are inappropriate and also incorrect - there's no mention of fascism in there at all. The study seems perfectly valid to me, I can't tell whether it's reliable or not as it's not my area of expertise, but it seems fairly OK. Picking and choosing sources? Probably to only use those that satisfy WP:RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Lukeno94 but the above text is not appropriate for a POLICY section since it neither lists or elaborates upon any of the party's policies. You clearly have not been to Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Policies and are not aware of Emeraude's edit history. You also seem to be unaware that Xenophobia and Islamophobia are topics that would be of particular interest to someone who states "anti-fascism" as an area of interest. In the UK at least they are often mentioned in the same breath, so this point can not be dismissed in this way. There are 2sides to this issue: This is not merely a case of IP editors wanting to (rightly or wrongly) increase UKIP's coverage but there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the party and compromise Wikipedia's neutrality! There is a big difference between changing the amount of coverage a party gets on Wikipedia and politicising the narrative of Wikipedia's articles. To my mind it is clear which is the more serious of the 2! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um... I thought I agreed that it was in the wrong place? Also, aren't you doing the latter of those two "sins" you list? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for missing that your acknowledgment of the info being in the wrong place. Non the less it is not relevant, we do not seek to site studies about voters from other parties do we? I don't see any other articles with studies as to how many Labour voters live in council houses for example, or how many green party voters are vegetarian, how many Lib Dems supported CND, I could go on. The point is that is not the normal sort of thing to put on a political parties page, especially one that is now widely considered a mainstream party! This is just one example of the unbalanced/non-neutral things that have been written on the page. I have not done anything to sway the narrative to a pro-UKIP stance, so no I haven't committed that said "sin"! All I've sought is to examine the way the party is covered and to argue the case of inclusion to the info box. We have since had a debate and I've accepted the outcome. Non the less despite me having accepted that UKIP will not be added to any info boxes until (at the earliest) we know the results of the May elections! That is a fair and reasonable position to take as 2nd May will be UKIPs 1st national test. Non the less Bondegezou will repeatedly talk down the party on the talk page, hence I (and others) will naturally seek to address that balance by pointing out other facts. Bondegezou seems to take this as if I am not accepting the decision which has already been made! I am accepting and not disputing the decision! So lets just be clear about what I am and what I am not saying and doing! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a perfectly appropriate place for a peer-reviewed article. It concerns how UKIP policy is seen by supporters. What these IPs want to dois to completely remove something they see as critical of UKIP, their raison d'être throughout.

However, this is all too sily. This discussion was set up (not by me) to look at the appalling behaviour of these anonymous IPs, though it could all be one person. For some reson that I cannot understand (because they refuse to give reason) they have decided to attack me with innuendo, misinformation and lies. All of their efforts amount to personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. We see more examples in the previous comments. They have even sugested - a blatant misrepresentation - that this discussion was set up to examine my actions (Talk:UK Independence Party#Policies on the UKIP talk page: "This issue has now been added to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents .... as it helps to give a sense a sense of balance to that discussion. It serves as an example of how editors such as Emeraude have deliberately politicised the narrative of articles...") I have asked perhaps a dozen times for examples of where I have been less than correct as a Wikipedia editor - answer comes there none. I no longer expect such (and, indeed, it would be impossible for them to provide one). Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I could just wade in on this, it does seem to me to be completely the wrong section for something like this (whether its relevant or not). It does not explain or elaborate on party policy, it merely gives insights into who might be voting for the party or who is "likely" or "more likely" to vote for the party! That's not policy, its even a big stretch to call it perception of policy! other editors such as Blue Square Thing have previously proposed a section on "perceptions of the party" or something along those lines. That is the only place that something like this could be appropriately included! I'm not wholeheartedly against it's inclusion but as things stand there is not an appropriate section for this to go in. If Emeraude wants to create one, we can't stop him as it is a peer based review (a somewhat questionable one but wiki policy says its not our place to make those judgements). What we can and must do is prevent the narrative being distorted by having something like this in a policy section, when it has absolutely no place in this section! As for further criticisms about this section, e.g. tax it only seems to state the least attractive elements to someone of a left-wing orientation. It ignores the parts of policy that would appeal to someone who might describe themselves as "left-wing", such as a high tax threshold of £13,000, zero tax(inc NI) on those earning the minimum wage. This is another example of how the narrative has been effected, picking and choosing, being selective about what gets included and what doesn't affects the narrative! That you can not deny! In light of this it seems that the IPs criticisms are justified to at least some degree! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to resolve this additional content dispute. I opened this discussion because of repeated failures of good faith by at least one IP editor. More and more examples have followed. Sheffno, you have only recently returned from a ban because of your own edits. We can better resolve content disputes if we're all following basic Wikipedia policies in the first place, like assume good faith, use reliable sources, do not use original research, avoid bias. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss this outright it does have relevance to the discussion, as it has been said above there are 2 sides to this story. That said, while it should be considered, it should be discussed and resolved on the appropriate talk page, this is what I have sought to do. I believe that the creation of a new section is a sensible compromise considering that it was wholly inappropriately placed as even Lukeno94 agreed along with the other IPs and sheffno1. As for sheffno1's conduct, he has served his ban and should be treated as any other editor! Besides the fact that is not the matter up for discussion here! 130.88.115.61 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Sheffno1gunner for two months for sockpuppetry. The IPs have each been given shorter blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For clarification, the sockpuppetry investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive#06_March_2013 has concluded that Sheffno1gunner is 213.120.148.60, 81.149.185.174 and others. I opened this discussion suggesting a ban on the grounds of incivility and disruptive editing should be considered. However, a ban on the basis of sockpuppetry has much the same effect. I don't personally see the need for any further action now; we'll see if there is any need to re-visit this issue in the future. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Headstrong4ever

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

---

• Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows:[17] I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) [18][19][20][21] just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie [22]. If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is in reference to [23], undone [24].

Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.

Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.

BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.

As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.

I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.

The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

The user has made edits like [25] and [26] [27] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, administrators aren't given any more leeway in such matters than any other user. We have to abide by the same policies as everyone else. WP:NOBAN suggests you don't edit other users' talk pages "other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". I'd suggest that removing notices from another editor's talk page is very unhelpful unless they've asked you to do it. And again, this applies to administrators too, I refrain from removing info (especially notifications) at another editor's talk page unless there's something there that's objectionable (per policy) or if they've asked me to do it. -- Atama頭 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As previously noted, I didn't remove anything; just collapsed old notices. I also said, which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? I think consensus would be (A), so it was a 'good edit' and shouldn't have been reverted. I don't think it breached NOBAN, which is vague - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing..." - lots of scope for interpretation. I claim that the core policy applies - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that {B} is more helpful. If those notices weren't helpful they wouldn't have been issued in the first place, and we wouldn't use them routinely. I'd suggest that if you want to draw more attention to Luke's notice, put it in its own header separate from the ones before it, or add a more natural, explanatory bit of dialog after his notice explaining what the issue is (I do that now and then for editors who may not understand our templates). But if the editor is ignoring prior notices (whether due to negligence, a lack of English skills, or not knowing where or what their user talk page is) they're not going to respond to Luke's notice no matter how you clean up their user talk page. I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's commendable, but I don't think it's the correct thing to do (either here, or on editors' talk pages in general). -- Atama頭 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that collapsing the block notices was a little overdoing it, but as for the rest, I think it was an improvement. We've had WP:DTTR for a while. I'm more a believer in WP:DTA.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• User has come back, and immediately is warned for making poorly sourced BLP changes: [28]. Not quite the music genre issue, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that someone who is likely not English-first-language might be struggling here to notice the detailed nuance of the 20th template message. It's a pity, and I imagine it'll lead to a block; I wish we could've tried harder to get 'em on track. Sure, 99% of the time it's a waste of effort, but the 1% is gold. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Resumed doing same today, see edit history. I reported to AIV as resumption of actions that led to last block. I assume escalating block durations that will probably eventually lead to an indef appears to be the default method of handling this. As I suggested earlier, an indef now, to get his attention, with a well crafted message explaining why what he is doing is wrong and that the block will be rescinded if he indicated understanding would likely be more productive. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he has discovered his talk page and is open to some coaching. See messages on my page here. He is also asking for help on his page here. Looks like a serious attempt to become a better editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about unref'd edits to BLPs. I appreciate they might be trying, but I don't think they're getting it. If it wasn't BLPs, I wouldn't be so bothered. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right but I personally think it is worth it to try for now and cut him a bit of slack. If it doesn't look like he is serious, further action can be taken then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

01:07, 25 March 2013 Toddst1 blocked Headstrong4ever (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: Continued music genre changing - now under false pretense of references) [29] Good or bad, it's happened. so I think we're done here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassment

In Bodu Bala Sena page I added Fascism tag due to this organization using nationalism and religious fervor in attacking minorities. The user 115.67.197.210 [30] accused me of Hate speech. I wanted the admins to clarify this incident.

• [31]
• [32]

Delljvc (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• You need to first take this to the article talk page. I have to admit, I'm stymied as to how an article on Buddhism meets the criteria to have the Fascism template on it, but I'm not editing there. He reverted it out, now it is upon you to leave it out and build a consensus to include it. Adding it back in will likely be seen as edit warring, and open yourself up for sanctions. If you can't build a consensus that Buddhism is Fascism (??), then you leave it out, or take it to WP:DRN if you have a split consensus. This isn't a matter for ANI at this point. As for "hate speech", the IP gave a reasoned argument on your talk page, he didn't go into some hateful rant, so I don't find anything uncivil about it. There is no admin action warranted right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote my earlier post "In Bodu Bala Sena page I added Fascism tag" and not in the Buddhism template. I don't know how to edit templates and if I did it was a mistake. My edit was for Bodu Bala Sena page only. Delljvc (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I forgot to add, you didn't notify the user that you brought them here. The notice at the top of this page gives you the template and tells us that it is mandatory. I'm assuming it was a simple oversight, and as such, I've notified them myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This week has seen an increase in Buddhist/Muslim tensions. In sections of Myanmar, for example, there have been riots and deaths. Later in the week, Islamic groups plan a rally in Sri Lanka --the home of the organization in this article. This article has seen a huge amount of vandalism this week from IPs in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Qatar, to mention only a few.

The wikipedia needs to be especially careful of what is says is true. Statements need to have reliable sources. The sources should be checked for neutral point of view, and not merely repeat what someone's enemies are saying about them.115.67.39.165 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC) User talk:115.67.197.210

Incivility, personal attacks and edit-warring by User:Cavann

Cavann (talk · contribs) has been pushing a primordialist POV in Turkey and engaging in incivil behavior and edit-warring. He has told me to learn to read, called me an idiot, called me a POV-pusher. After I warned him to stop making personal attacks [33], he told me to learn what Neolithic means. He is also edit-warring [34] [35]. Can an admin please warn this individual to to knock it off with the personal attacks and start behaving politely? Any help would be greatly appreciated. It is very difficult to continue discussing faced with such behavior. Athenean (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I have been discouraged and frustrated after the behaviour of Athenean et al. After easily accepting the consensus of Talk:Turkey#RfC which was about mentioning descent of inhabitants of Turkey in the lead, I made another non-descent related change which was quickly reverted, as explained in the 2nd Talk:Turkey#RfC2.

Also note that the other user who reverted me [36] followed me to another article to revert the entire article to another page [37] (I am not sure if this is Wikihounding yet), and that User:Athenean seems to have a nationalistic (Hellenistic) POV that seems to override WP:NPOV in various Turkey related articles. For example, in this recent edit [38], he lowered the upper boundary to 75% even though the original information was correct, with the 2nd source (p. 264) [39] indicating 90% (and even supplying the page number in ref text!). I know we are supposed to have good faith, but given this minor change was reverted [40], I am struggling with it. Cavann (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean also seems to be projecting his petty nationalistic POV to me [41], whereas I try to be more accurate [42] Cavann (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The only one pushing an agenda here is you, with your primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time".< That and Your continuing incivility are reasons you should be sanctioned. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have answered that here [43] and here [44]. I am aware you are interested in historical tragic issues [45], but keep me out of this nationalistic BS you seem to be pursuing. Cavann (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention please: User:Athenean is now deleting reliable sources [46] Cavann (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Cavann. My revert was in accordance with the consensus of the TP of Turkey where Athenean and I have agreed to support CMD's wording. Above all, please don't accuse me of "Wikihounding" when the Ancient Anatolians link was provided by yourself on the TP of Turkey. I merely just viewed the article and discredited its self-sufficiency due to lack of sources since 2010. If you want to go ahead and add sources that's fine with me. After all, the article looks better now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable. It is a bunch of Turkish nationalists claiming that Kurds only make up 6.76% of Turkey's ppoulation, which is clearly ridiculous and clashes with every other known estimate for this population (15-25%, per the sources given in Kurdish people). Who is pushing a petty nationalistic agenda now? Athenean (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that source. I just follow WP:Reliable sources. Jeez. This is getting ridiculous. Cavann (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block both editors for repeated personal attacks here at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing with the edit-warring [47] [48]. Can someone please block this guy, he clearly shows no sign of stopping. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, here or anywhere, unlike Cavann. I have retracted the one statement of mine that could be construed as such. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your open comment in this section accuses him of "pushing a primordialist POV". That phrasing is a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding User:Will Beback

Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're... holding a "sort of RfC" on the user page of one user, with the intention of overturning an arbcom decision about a different user? Certainly unusual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, an Rfc seems like a waste of time. I'm not sure there's anything the community can do at this point--I really don't think that we can overrule Arbcom by a Rfc vote. I certainly would not want to be the admin to undo the Arbcom block! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good to gauge where the community stands. It is something arbcom can take into account, and perhaps influence the internal discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We can't? What does the WMF say about the scope of Arbcom's authority?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BASC — Ched :  ?  04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the community takes one stance and arbcom takes another yes we will have an interesting situation. Arbcom did overturn User:Jimmy Wales in this case. IMO the community holds the authority. The main thing is that we have a very small group of editors making decisions that affect all of us behind closed doors. For an so called open movement I see this as strange.

The decision they made in this case has had a negative effect on 1) people willingness to be critical of arbcom 2) peoples willingness to speak out about concerns they see regarding COI. It also deals directly with the policy of WP:OUTING. Does sending an email to arbcom and a couple of other admins mentioning concerns of COI count as outing? And who gets to decide if it does or not arbcom or the community? In this case of course that email was counted as outing and an indef ban was handed out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an email to ArbCom can count as outing someone. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, ArbCom rejected the appeal in secret deliberations. We don't know why or what was said, or who thought what. If we find out what the community thinks, maybe ArbCom might just take that on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea of giving the community a way to advise arbcom is a good one, and the RfC format is perfect for that. Having the RfC on some obscure talk page seems like it would result in a biased sample of users, but is some central place better? A practical problem is that those users who get to arbcom tend to be the most tendentious, and I predict that a lot of them would start such RfCs hoping that the community will Rise Up And Smite Those Who Have Been So Very Very Unfair To Them even though they have no case. In the usual case -- a user who is a real problem -- there is a lot to be said for arbcom being the end of the road. On the other hand, in some cases there will be a large number of people who disagree with an arbcom decision, and in those cases there is a lot to be said for arbcom not being the end of the road. It's an interesting and recursive "who watches the watchers" problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should move the page somewhere else? I am happy to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions of this type usually take place at WP:AN. -- Dianna (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stands currently, there is no consensus among the community to overturn ArbCom, so this is kind of a moot discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

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

---

Viriditas made a factually incorrect and uncivil comment about me:

"Memills has been warned about 1) adding reliable sources and 2) attacking other editors literally a hundred times by now. Viriditas" diff

I replied:

"Viriditas, "literally a hundred times" is false. I consider that an uncivil personal attack. Please retract it immediately. Memills" diff

She did not, so I asked her again: " Again, please stop attacking me with falsehoods, and retract your previous statement. If you do not retract it, I will initiate a formal complaint. Memills" diff

Instead of dealing with this issue informally, her response was:

"Please file your formal complaint immediately." diff"

I request that Viriditas be given a warning to engage fellow WP editors to resolve disputes more civilly and to retract patently false statements made about other editors. Memills (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• As much as it might make us cringe at the horrific mangling of the meaning of the word, the use of "literally" when "virtually" (or something similar) is meant isn't a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • OTH, the word "literally" literally means, er... literally. Especially once it is pointed out. It would have been easy for Viriditas to literally back off a bit... even figuratively. The refusal to do so is where the incivility becomes apparent. Memills (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Note: Men's rights movement is on article probation. Memills (talk · contribs) is aware of that, he was warned multiple times and sanctioned twice for violating the terms of the probation, see the log of sanctions. Despite this Memills continues to call other editors "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" and use the article talk page for unhelpful and unspecific commentary, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Ideological meddling as the most recent example. Viriditas may have been wrong to suggest that it has been "literally a hundred times" but it certainly feels like a lot. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" wasn't meant to be taken literally. Nor is the above relevant to the issue here which is about Viriditas' literalness (or lack thereof). Memills (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Griping about the fanciful use of "literally" is silly. Just give him the old adage, "I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • A google search of the word shows this; "2.Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling." I think this is a tad bit of an over reaction and does not appear to be an uncivil action or act. I am curious why the OP would not think that editors would now want to look into why the statement was made to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I 200% support what Baseball Bugs and Amadscientist said. Memills, you are literally clutching at straws. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking the behaviour of any editors involved will be scrutinised when a dispute comes up, particularly the behavior of those bringing the complaint. If you don't like this don't bring complaints or better yet, don't show behaviour which you don't want to be scrutinised. Definitely, just saying your behaviour isn't relevant is rarely effective, as the large number of boomerangs attest. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Viriditas requested a formal complaint be filed, diff.  A reasonable response is for an administrator to issue a warning to Viriditas.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I also requested a personal spaceship from Santa Claus. Is it reasonable to expect a response from the North Pole? Sounds like you took this a bit too literally. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• What we know is that you are not worried about being warned, which is why you baited the OP.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone have a trout? Rich Farmbrough, 04:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

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

More trouble than worth?

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

---

Could anyone please explain to me the edits here? At times they seem just fine, but at other times they contain obvious nonsense ([49]). Is this a case of a shared IP? Toccata quarta (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a shared IP after all. According to this, the IP appears to be from Bratislava, Slovakia. Not to mention he once added this nonsensical edit to the Krzysztof Penderecki article back in February. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this discussion needs to be closed as moot. TBrandley 04:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Zhaoweixiong

I have just blocked this user for 24 hours while we try to clean up after him. He is creating dozens of articles on Chinese topics, some of which are promotional, using what appears to be machine-translated text, and has ignored messages on his talk page asking him to take a break. My suspicion is that he is connected in some way with User:Jaguar. I hope no one thinks I've been too precipitate.Deb (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I went and nuked the rest of his contributions as just generally terrible - probably machine translated, barely comprehensible at best, no sources, etc. He has an account and a block log on the Chinese Wikipedia, but I can't read it. Perhaps that will be enlightening. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And then I went and rescued another that you had saved, Deb - sorry about that. I have asked a Chinese speaker, and apparently Zhao was blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia for uploading copyright violations, which makes his contributions here even more suspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a case for a permanent block, do we think? Deb (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Permanent, no. Indefinite, yes. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks by Colleabois on Talk:Germans

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

The first account is a recently registered account of the IP editor. He has linked the IP's user page and user talk page to the registered account. Since registering the account he has started editing Germans by tag bombing it and thratening to remove content unless it was sourced. In tag bombing he left hidden messages in the text which other editors were expected to be able to decipher. He inserted the tags four times and was reverted by three editors. I then reported him for edit warring at WP:AN3 and he received a warning for disruptive editing from user:ItsZippy. He has threatened to blank content that he does not agree with. That is an unnuanced and unconstructive way of editing. This is an article that I watch but have not edited. After the WP:EW report, I took one fairly neutral phrase summarising the history of Germany as an example and asked him to explain what his objections were. Instead of using a history book ot books he referred to an atlas, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Eventually I located three sources and produced a short two sentence rewrite, which is now in the article.

Originally part of the Holy Roman Empire, around 300 independent German states emerged during its decline after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War. These states would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century.

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ozment, Steven (2005), A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People, Harper Collins, pp. 120–121, 161, 212, ISBN 0060934832 Segarra, Eda (1977), A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914, Taylor & Francis, p. 5, 15, 183, ISBN 0416776205 Whaley, Joachim (2011), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199693072

Colleabois has responded that there is "not a grain of truth" in what I wrote and that he will remove it. He has further suggested that I have not looked at the sources. After his warning about edit warring, he is back disputing content that is already in the article in another place in greater detail; it can also be found in numerous other articles on wikipedia. The content is in the sources on the pages mentioned. Even when subsequently pointed to google books to verify the sources, he has said that he cannot and that I must provide the full passages on wikipedia. But obviously I cannot, because it would be a copyvio; and I will not, because his request is time-wasting, disruptive and essentially trolling.

My question is "Why is an editor disputing well-known content and making such absurd suggestions of bad faith?" I have a long record as a content creator in arious subjects and know exactly how to locate and use sources. Why suggest otherwise when the page numbers are given? That is a misuse of wikipedia and a waste of other people's time. His tagging was bad enough (it earned him a warning), but now his discussion of sneutral and well-known facts is being turned into a kind of playground tantrum. I am used to things like that on Europe from editors with a nationalist point of view. I suspect that this editor, with an IP in Nijmegen, might not be approaching this article with a neutral point of view. It is classic tendentious editing.

Even after being given links to the sources, with the actual pages, Coilleabois refuses to look up the sources and is stamping his little foot refusing to accept these commonplace facts about German history available in multiple sources as well as on wikipedia. These facts are uncontroversial and already in the article later on . His performance on the talk page is therefore just childish trolling.

Similarly elsewhere on wikipedia he has claimed that Moules-frites is a national Dutch dish. Like the statements on German history, it is well known (and easily sourced!) that it is a Belgian national dish, originating in Brussels. He has since claimed to be Belgian on Talk:European cuisine and has supported his insertion of "Dutch" before "Belgian" by referring to the Belgian constitution. But his edits are unsourced and unsourceable. Just mindless trolling. He is misleading the reader.

He has also been involved in disputes with other users on Pennsylvania Dutch and elsewhere.

There seems to be far too much tendentious editing, with no attempt to use sources and general trollishness on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I have never threatened to blank the article. This is the third time that Mathsci claims this in what can be considered as nothing else than an attempt to incite against me. What I've said is the following: "Below are the issues found with the current article. One week is given to provide sources for the claims, if they have not been provided after that time I will remove them from the article to which they should only then be placed back until proper sources and references for them have been provided." The issues consist of 10 single phrases.

2. This user stalks my edits (as can be seen here in a clear example of WP:POINT in which he attempts to harass me and has removed sourced statements.

3. This uses repeatedly makes blatant lies about my edits in order to manipulate opinion. For example: in the article on European cuisine I made this edit, in which I state that Moules Frites is ALSO a Dutch dish. After a WP:POINT revert by Mathsci, he then goes on talk to say what he has since repeated here too: It is not a Dutch dish. Dutch cuisine by comparison is less developed (...) It's pointless attempting to claim this dish as a classic dish originating in the Netherlands. In other words, he makes it seem as if I claimed it originated in the Netherlands while also attempting to insult me (by assuming I'm Dutch, I'm Belgian) by insulting Dutch cuisine. When I proceeded to add sourced material to back my claim up; he simple attempted to remove it.

4. This user, continually acts hostile and attempts to incite others against me (principally administrators like yourselves) by reporting me for his imagined conspiracy. He claimed I broke the 3RR, which I did not and in this particular case he claims I have made personal attacks. Which he fails to produce evidence for. All this noise he produces makes my talk page look like that of a vandal, which I am not. It is an unhealty situation when other wikipedians advise you to re-register to have a different name so that Mathsci will stop his harassment.

5. Everyone can visit the talk page of Germans and see for themselves that I am only interested in sourced content. I have never been insulting to anyone. Quite the opposite of Mathsci as one can see here.

In short, it is Mathsci himself who is being disruptive and could do very well with a warning. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (up until now) observer on the sidelines. This is not a simple content dispute and, in my brief encounter with Colleabois, I am inclined to side with Mathsci, as this user displays very tendentious, pointy editing, marching right up to the 3RR line on both of the articles where the deuh-rama is happening,[50] [51] (yes I know, my last revert at European cuisine puts me at 3 changes to the article for the day, collateral damage).

At Germans, three editors had to undo the massive pointy tagging of, apparently, well-established, referenced, stable information. Maybe the editor is well-intentioned but has a very brash, "I'm right so listen to me", martial attitude to their editing and also flings accusations around (per point 4 above), when, in fact, they leave tp messages that say "Do not remove sources from the article, that is vandalism", which, as I point out further down on the page, is a) incorrect, b) the sources are incorrectly presented, formatted, the author's name is wrong, there is no page number for the first ref etc. and c) wrongly accusing others of vandalism to back up one's own interpretation of correct editing can be considered a personal attack. That's all from me. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you bother to look on the talk page of Germans, you'll find that two editors fully agreed with my content concerns. That the information questioned was not at all referenced (and much of it still isn't - having no references at all) and that only now (and certainly not thanks to Mathsci) progress is being made with the adding of sourced material. Colleabois (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois is now arguing on Talk:European cuisine that Wiener Schnitzel is not a national dish of Austria.Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Question to administrators: What are generally the consequences if a user repeatedly and willfully misquotes or misstates another users position? My exact words: The problem is, that iconic dishes associated with a certain nation might not be restricted to the nation with which they are most closely associated. Even something like a Wiener Schnitzel, which even has the nations capital in its name (!) will still be identical to a Cotoletta alla milanese and therefore also common throughout northern Italy. I actually stress the fact that it is an iconic Austrian dish. This is not the first time that Mathsci has done this and I suspect it will not be the last time unless something is or can be done. Colleabois (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All this about a picture caption for Wiener Schnitzel, having nothing to do with me? I'm sure dozens of administrators are waiting with baited breath for your informed commentaries on the captions for Kaiserschmarren, Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte, Quetschentaart and Rösti. Why not post them on a blog? Somebody out there might be interested. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A general warning explaining concerning the galleries that though popularly associated with a particular country, some foods are also a tradition of other countries/regions or within the country itself might be considered regional cuisine. You again attempt to distort statements made. Colleabois (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop shouting on this noticeboard. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The day you stop misquoting me is the day I stop bolding my defence of it. Thanks in advance, Colleabois (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Captain Screebo'sresponse below. Yatter, yatter, yatter ......... Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't get so worked up Mathsci, you might give yourself an heart attack. Colleabois (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord! How about horsemeatballs all round? Surely this is undeniably pan-European cuisine! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your above statement stands proof of your level of commitment to discussion, polite discourse, "un-involvement" and producing sentences like Great, so now you're taking the line of someone you were reverting on the Germans article? only add to the image of a person who's prejudiced at best. Colleabois (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yatter, yatter, yatter, you are becoming un pot de colle, go pick a fight elsewhere, I am not interested, neither by your pretentious rhetoric nor your singular obsessional nitpicking, it was an attempt at humour, to lighten the mood concerning a subject that has gotten way out of hand due to your insistence that all typical national European dishes should be labelled "WARNING! You may also be served this food in Austria/Germany/Spain/Hungary" etc. You might notice that the admins are just letting this rather belligerent content dispute play out, which I am minded to do also. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I suggest you try and make yourself the butt of the joke instead of others. Especially if they're here for serious matters such as accusations of personal attacks. If you want to be a comedian go to open mic night at your local comedy club.Colleabois (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What! Are you telling me that I am a butt, excuse me but this charming expression also means arsehole where I come from, now it is you, dear sir, that are engaging in personal attacks and (sorry just trying out material for the open-mic night at the ANI comedy club, oh it's that-a-way, on my way). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps new additions to your life; such as an interesting hobby, project or friends will help you in spending your free time in France. This clearly isn't working out for you. Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh how thoughtful! May I suggest, reciprocally, that a sense of humour, some Preparation H and a Pet Rock might assuage your pained existence. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator weigh in on this or close this. This discussion has turned into a good example of WP:SARC --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No thank you. You have made very few edits and they are almost exclusively to Men's rights movement, a problematic article under probation (it has been on my watchlist for a while). You have intervened to encourage Colleabois.[52] Captain Screebo, Illraute, Dusty relic, myself and others have some experience editing, so please let this play out. Colleabois has not proposed any relevant content yet, but has wasted large amounts of other editors' time with frivolous and constantly shifting complaints. Your analysis does not seem accurate. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent contributions; you should not accuse others of WP:SPA as the past few days you've done nothing but to try and insult or harass me; fixating yourself on two articles and this page. Talking about this page, when will you be providing diffs of those personal attacks I've made? Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci please comment on my statements not on who I am. Just because I haven't a large number of edits doesn't mean I can't spot bad behavior. My comment on Colleabois talk page said that he should bring any changes he wants in the article to the talk page first so that he doesn't get accused of being Pointy. And to be honest you could have at least did a diff to Colleabois talk page, and not a mathematical theorem. All in all I would still appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would weigh in on this dispute. The Sarcasm and Snark being displayed is unbecoming of a project that is supposed to be a collaboration. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• My recent content edits are here.[53] I've also recently participated at WP:AE in a complex request. As an aside, I've edited Men's rights movement 8 times and its talk page 31 times. I have also reverted edits from The Bulldog of multiple socks of Echigo mole. All somewhat unrelated to the problems of Colleabois's tendentious editing on Talk:Germans or his insistence on European cuisine that it might be misleading to describe Wiener Schnitzel as an Austrian dish. Nothing constructive or collegial there, just as Captain Screebo has said. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been mentioned by name I will weigh in now. I have been watching this play out across our encyclopedia and have this to offer:

• 1. Colleabois did engage in disruptive editing on the Pennsylvania Dutch page. The behavior went on for several days during which he made repeated reversions that never exceeded the three revert rule but often skimmed it. (This in itself is a violation of WP:3RR in my opinion.) His edits were clumsy, incorrectly cited, and demonstrated a definite although fuzzy point of view. He ignored some valid criticisms while making superficial attempts to address other criticisms and the comments that accompanied his edits were often inflammatory.

Replying here so it makes sense, Dusty if you check WP:EW it does state The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. and in my limited experience with this editor, they robustly revert 3 times within the 24 hour limit, bluster in ES and do not engage on TPs, so I concur with your opinion that this is a breach of 3RR/EW. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

2. That behavior has since stopped. Although Colleabois still shows a certain amount of obstinacy he seems to have confined that behavior to talk pages and forums such as this which I consider to be a vast improvement over his earlier behaviors (which have included among other things peppering an article's source with contentious HTML tags).

3. Colleabois has been difficult to deal with but is has also shown that he is not incapable of making positive contributions to our encyclopedia. In formulating our response to his negative behaviors we should take care not to chase him away.

Thank you for listening, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:POINTY doesn't says what you think it says. Are you sure you meant to link that, rather than WP:NPOV? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martijn. I've updated my comments to correct the error. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

31.87.25.120

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

---

The IP in the heading has been repeatedly following User:Dougweller around and reverting him with insulting edit summaries. See the contributions (linked in the heading for what I mean). ^King Jakob _C2 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've temporarily blocked the IP as a sock. If reports need to be logged for archival reasons or the block needs to be altered, let me know. Tiderolls 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

This was a Paul Bedson sock - not the only one

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive and [54]. Also 213.205.233.213 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 72h, same as the above (note, not indef unlike the closing statement, as these appear to be dynamic IPs) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have revert 2 many times

Feeding time is over Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
oops, i reverted too many times on WP:rd/m but i can't be bothered to make a report because i don't want to be blocked but i admit i did it. sorry.--There goes the internet (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC) awesome. I was just about to go here and bring up this guy's edits... but now the trolls are reporting themselves... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC) rude.--There goes the internet (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Just truthful. I suggest you stop with that bullshit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Your suggestions are deeply valued.--There goes the internet (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Now — what's the purpose of this report? Are you asking for a block for yourself? Or would you rather start a discussion on your permanent site ban? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) {{trout}} to all involved. User whose name I can't ever pronounce or spell (no offense), WP:AGF. This person came here saying they passed 3RR, they're sorry, they won't continue, and they understand they were wrong. The other user (TGTI), just watch your reverts a little more closely next time. No reason to yell at each other. gwickwiretalkediting 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Do your research before you speak. This guy is WP:NOTHERE. (And who is yelling?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Then say that, and provide diffs. Don't just say "trolls" and other things without proof. That's really mean of you, in all honesty. If you have a problem with his revert war, say so. If you have a problem with his overall behavior, provide diffs and explain it. Don't tell us to "do [our] research", the page specifically says you must provide the research. gwickwiretalkediting 04:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) The person was obviously trolling here and in their questions at the reference desks. Your intervention here was clueless. You didn't recognize a regular. Mathsci (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I wasnt trolling, i Just didnt wanted to be block, so i reported myself so admins coudl see i was sorry.--There goes the internet (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC) What he was really trying to say was that he was a block-evading sock that no one had caught onto yet. That problem is now fixed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

Please see a long, long list of complaints spanning years at WT:MIL#Guidance question from Admin or Sysop, please, including article talk page vandalism from today. The reasons the other editors were hesitant to report this at ANI might also be of interest. This came up recently three months ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Recently? That link is from 3 months ago.

What is the current problem which requires admins? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, didn't you used to be the banned user "Light current"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how did you know who I was talking about? And you ARE close geographically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's still not signing.[55] Supposedly, refusal to sign is a blockable offense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Was already blocked 24hrs before regarding this issue. Another follow up seems appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, disruptive editing at the Audie Murphy page. Talk:Audie Murphy#Closely checking for copyvio and sourcing details what we are trying to correct just from the most recent spate of his edits. There's more, but not everything has been checked from his March edits. Copyvio, no sourcing, and (in an earlier thread on that page), "don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know" in response to editors asking him to properly source his edits. Audie Murphy is a GA, that we are trying to bring up to FA. Now we spend all our time checking and correcting the edits of YahwehSaves who lifts entire phrases from other sites and/or doesn't bother to source, refuses to learn the basics of editing in WP Manual of Style. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Baseball, your diff above actually shows YS attempting to sign, they just got the format wrong. Four tildes present, so that is promising. I also cannot see any recent attempt to discuss the matter with YS before bringing to ANI. No admin action required at this point, I would say. GiantSnowman 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. So why didn't the signature show up?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the disruptive editing? — Maile (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint - now found to be premature - was about YS not signing posts. if YS is engaged in disruptive behaviour then please provide some diffs to evidence that. GiantSnowman 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several MILHIST editors that have been monitoring this article and the complete debacle it has become due directly to the involvement of YS. He refuses to follow the MOS, has committed numerous copyvios and when reverted he just reverts and carries on as normal. The level of disruption is significant and sustained. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves was invited to join the discussion at MILHIST, and has ignored the invitation. There have been around 50 disruptive edits in March, plus long non-productive ramblings from YahwehSaves on the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a few recent diffs I will be happy to take a further look. GiantSnowman 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't dug out all the diffs, so take this with whatever grain of salt you choose, but I agree that YS has become an unnecessarily time-consuming, disruptive presence there. Attempts to discuss sourcing and copyright violation on that talk page don't seem to have made progress, as YS has stated that he/she doesn't have time to learn Wikipedia "technicalities". Maile posted a quick summary of what's happening to the Audie Murphy talk page at Talk:Audie Murphy#Dates below reflect YahwehSaves edits, my signature date is when I made changes that may give a start to whoever wants to catalogue this properly.

And, FWIW, a glance at the talk page does show various unsigned comments besides the one cited above: [56], [57], [58]. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Give me some time. I'll give you the initial copyvio rv that happened and their reversal back and forth. Hope I'm doing this correctly: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] These all concern one copyvio that YahwehSaves kept reverting. There's so much more disruptive editing that just this. That whole article is now embedded with recent bad edits by YahwehSaves that we are having to go through. But you also need to look at the talk pages on Audie Murphy and Military History to get the full picture of what has been going on. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another copyvio revert by me (different than the one above), of a YahwehSaves March 9 edit, [64], YahwehSaves has not been editing the article over the weekend, so we don't know if he'll revert this or not. A lot of the YahwehSaves edits being reverted are for no sourcing. In some cases, YahwehSaves edits contradicts known sources, but he won't cite his own source. In one case, he insisted the existing source was invalid and that his source was valid, but he refused to give his source. And in a great deal of what YahwehSaves has done to the article in March, we simply do not know where he got the information. Given his history of copyvio, we can't risk unsourced prose from him on an article that is aiming for FA WP Main Page attention.— Maile (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This [65] March 19 diff is where YahwehSaves has replied to a source challenge with, " I'm not a professional editor and don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know." — Maile (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 17 and 18 diff [66], in which YahwehSaves removed text and existing sourcing from both an online site named GlobalSecurity (which he claims is not good) and also sourcing from the United States Army War Department official records. He replaced the removed sourcing with unsourced scans. In spite of his being told on the talk page that scans are not sources and that the article text required sourcing, YahwehSaves did not remove the scans and source his editing. I reverted these unsourced edits of YahwehSaves [67] on March 22. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This same editor showed similar tendencies with the Medal of Honor article around the same time as the first complaint linked by Dank above. A quick glance at his/her talk page seems to show a history of issues with this kind of behavior. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding GlobalSecurity, he's right. As for the rest of his issues, though, I agree that this editor is not a benefit to the project, and may indeed be a net drain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose a couple of topic ban-mentoring options. My goal is to get the Audie Murphy article up to A-class at the Military History project, and eventual FA nomination. Related articles of Filmography and the Honors and Awards pages need to be in sync on content. Most of my post-March 7 edits on the Audie Murphy page were clean up from YahwehSaves. The main article is treading water on its GA status, and I would like to deter YahwehSaves from branching out to the other two articles. (The filmography does not carry the Military History banner as the other two do) . I also note YahwehSaves's history at Medal of Honor. This editor also has 195 edits on Matt Urban under his own name, and 27 IP edits under the "suspected sock" that got him a temporary block. The posts on the Military History talk page indicate that other editors have tried to engage YahwehSaves on other like articles. Therefore, I would like to offer:

• Proposal #1 - Topic ban on all Audie Murphy articles (Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards and Audie Murphy filmography), contingent upon YahwehSaves agreeing to mentoring. The ban would only be lifted if the mentor feels YahwehSaves has made enough progress to freely edit on Wikipedia.

• Proposal #2 -Topic ban on all Audie Murphy articles (Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards and Audie Murphy filmography), AND all articles that carry the WikiProject Military History banner. This would be contingent upon YahwehSaves agreeing to mentoring. The ban would only be lifted if the mentor feels YahwehSaves has made enough progress to freely edit on Wikipedia.

If YahwehSaves will not agree to undergo mentoring, then there should be a block for disruptive editing. Vote or comment. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• It might make things less complicated if we ask YahwehSaves if they're interested in mentoring; it doesn't seem likely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be how either of the proposals would work? I've not dealt with ANI before. But it seems if one of those proposals is decided on, then YahwehSaves is notified that this is the deal. If YahwehSaves fails to respond, or refuses the mentoring, then the block goes into effect. You put a notice on his talk page when you opened this ANI, and engaging in the dialogue here has always been his option. I might add that on March 20 a notice was put on his talk page regarding the dialogue happening on the talk page at WikiProject Military History. He didn't respond to that, either, but continues to edit at Audie Murphy and at the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Caste sanctions enforcement request

Pnranjith (talk · contribs) has been arguing rather strongly and without a lot of regard for Wikipedia policies on Talk:Ezhava, an article which falls under the general sanctions placed by the community on all caste-related articles. That's irritating, but since s/he's not edit warring on the article, can be managed to some degree. However, the editor has also repeatedly been aggressive and abusive. Previous attacks for which the editor has been warned (see the user's talk page) include [68] and [69]. The user was also warned of the caste-article sanctions in User Talk:Pnranjith#Sanctions.

Today, Pnranjith made, among others, this edit, directly insulting Sitush. It's time for this to stop. I think that the user's personal involvement in the underlying dispute (having to do with whether or not two groups of people are actually two different groups or one group with two different names) is making it impossible for the editor to follow Wikipedia policies, since his/her need to get the Truth into Wikipedia is making her/him unable to follow rules like WP:RS and WP:V. As such, I think it's likely that the encyclopedia would benefit from the user being topic banned. But I understand that such a move requires quite a bit more analysis on the part of the ANI community, and so I would be satisfied that the user is at least blocked for ongoing personal attacks, and made to understand that any more poor behavior will result in further/longer sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the acronym soup but it is the WP:TE and WP:IDHT of this returning WP:SPA that concerns me more than calling me an idiot - plenty of people do that and sometimes they are right. In this case, I think it is caused by frustration: they think that I (and others) are using our policies as a means intentionally to deny what they consider to be true. Around April 2012, they got involved in an earlier version of this dispute when they hung on the coat-tails of Thiyyan (talk · contribs), now they're hanging on to Irajeevwiki (talk · contribs).

NB: there are admins all over Talk:Ezhava but they can do nothing (assuming they want to) because of WP:INVOLVED (Qwryxian, Martijn Hoekstra, RegentsPark, Drmies and also the ex-admin Boing! said Zebedee). - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ANI, my favourite noticeboard. There is indeed a mess over at that page, focussing around the mess SPA's, if not tigers are causing there. There is a constant influx of IP editors and new SPA's who consistently hold the same viewpoint, which suggest meatpuppeting. The personal attacks made by these SPA's should stop, because firstly, it can be immensely draining to deal with it for those facing it, and secondly, because it impedes reasonable discussion. (I'd like to quickly compliment Sitush on the patience he is showing, and the way he lets these things slide off him). The thing that is probably even more draining is the unwillingness to get the point. The personal attacks are fairly easily actionable: a clear warning that any future personal attacks may result in a block, followed by a possible escalating series of blocks is certainly possible. The question is what that would achieve. Blocks for these kinds of things may help the NPA thing (which is in itself a pretty big win), but will not fix the underlying issues, and will likely further entrench the unwillingness to get the point, which is in my opinion a far greater problem. ANI has already authorised discretionary sanctions. I would support that any editor or IP starting to make the same point that has already been made over and over be advised to edit further on wikipedia on different issues, warned that perceived problematic behaviour may be met with a topic ban, topic-banned for a month (but not immediately blocked! turning an SPA POV pusher with a dissenting voice into a Wikipedian who has a better grasp of how we deal with reliable sources, and how that relates to OR would be a huge win) if there is a clear indication of refusal to get the point, even if there no evidence, and that that topic ban should be enforceable by block. As I am somewhat involved, I would currently (just) like to advice both Irajeevwiki and Pnranjith to expand their editing scope, and spend at least as much time on non-caste related subjects broadly construed as on this issue. If others agree with my suggestion, and believe anyone should be warned I would strongly agree with some warnings here and there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Pnranjith for 2 weeks for personal attacks. Decisions on what further actions to take (if any) can be made in the meantime - I would suggest a topic ban outright. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, but wikipedia rules and regulations are very easy to understand and i whatever i have done so far in wiki is by abiding wiki rules. Only started responding to Ezhava articles talkpage when i recognized a lot of mistakes in the Ezhava page a few weeks ago, I believe Sitush (talk · contribs) wont object if i say that since we started this communication in Ezhava talk page, he had made so many amendments to the article. He took off sub caste section completely, because i pointed out that there was no valid reference for that claim. He has tweaked many times the article and it is getting better. But with only one thing still cant agree with Sitush (talk · contribs), that is "Thiyyar". I will say again that Thiyyar is completely distinct from other castes and should not be merged with Ezhava.

Sitush is confused with Nossitor books, just like Sitush many other writers got confused and followed what Nosittor has written about thiyyar. I repeat that again, Nossitor was a political writer he was helping Kerala Communist Party by writing a book which portrays Ezhava and Thiyya same caste for political gain. Please have a look the valid and genuine book written by Ritty A lukose, Edgar Thurston, T Damu, Dr. CJ Roy, Dr. Muhamadali and so on. I can supply more book references but no point of giving valid and genuine book references, Sitush (talk · contribs) just ignore it by saying **NOT RELIABLE** I feel sometime like Sitush (talk · contribs) is legislating own rules here and only ready to accept those book references which come inlines with his views which is completely wrong.

Ritty A Lukose http://books.google.com.au/books?id=R5gNOdw9E_0C&pg=PT269&lpg=PT269&dq=The+blindness+of+insight:+Essays+on+caste+in+modern+India+(Chennai:+Navayana,+2006)&source=bl&ots=B2pj6tuyzg&sig=8Nk9Rgn0gzUktwXJb8_ci4qyF50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lf9DUc3CMeuaiQe87ICAAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiyya&f=false

Dr CJ Roy

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Pd8aAAAAMAAJ&q=tiyya++and+ezhava&dq=tiyya++and+ezhava&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T4pOUbSlLsTRkwXskIFI&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg

Dr Muhammadali http://www.scribd.com/doc/54685053/Colonial-Knowledge-Nationalism-and-Representations-Readings-from-Malabar

There is a big controversy going on about Thiyya / Ezhava castes at the moment, http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/03/stories/2004090310670500.htm . I request wikipedia admins to either stop Ezhava article until this issue gets resolved or publish Two different articles for both Ezhava and Thiyya. An article is still waiting for approval in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar which has been written in a neutral point of view and it just explains only the Thiyyar caste, culture and history. Because of POV fork issue this article cant get published.

I have placed a POV check tag in Ezhava page and we are discussing in ezhava talk page as per wiki rules and I dont know why Sitush (talk · contribs) tries to impose sanction on me, I am here trying for a consensus by discussing. If you stop someone by imposing ban or sanction then it would be unfair to that person. Irajeevwiki (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What you are doing right now is demonstrating your issues with WP:IDHT. Ritty A. Lukose has been discussed on the articles talkpage. Edgar Thurston has been discussed on the articles talkpage. The paper from Muhammadali has been discussed on the articles talkpage. Damu has been discussed on the articles talkpage. You were part of most off those discussions - actually you started most off them. Time and time again we come to the conclusion that there are issues with the sources - either because they are flat out unreliable on the subject (Thurston), because what they write about the reliation between Thiyya and Ezhava is ambiguous or trivial (both off these in the case off Lukose). But here you are again, bringing up the same subject. Over and over. Were you not part off the original discussion? How many times will you still bring this up again? Until people start agreeing with you? You've had several uninvolved admins come in, and come to the same conclusions. But you keep on insisting that everyone is wrong but you, and the slew off SPA's that at best seem to have serious difficulties in reading the article, and at worst seem to be recruited as meatpuppets to echo a repeated sentiment, without bringing anything new to the table. Bringing up new sources is fine, even if together we come to the conclusion that we can't use it. But for the love off god, everyone is getting tired about hearing you bringing up Thurston yet again. You were part of the discussion. You know how it ended. Abide by it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've been following the Ezhava/Thiyya thing (though I have not had the time to get too involved in it), and I agree with Qwyrxian, Sitush and Martijn Hoekstra. It looks like we have a concerted effort, both on-wiki and off-wiki, to raise the status of Thiyya - but nobody has offered any reliable sources to support their claims. Should the status change, it needs to be recognised by reliable sources *first* and then Wikipedia can echo those - the change cannot start on Wikipedia. This has been explained to the same protagonists over and over again, in repeated discussions covering the same ground - but they refuse to listen. This kind of caste-advocacy disruption is exactly what the caste sanctions were designed to stop, and I think we need to start enforcing them firmly on this topic. I suggest blocks and/or topic bans for editors who continue with these "wall of sound" attempts to overwhelm consensus and make changes in defiance of sourcing policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I can understand the new editor's frustration, because there do, in fact, seem to be some primary sources that may support their version, and I even believe them when they say that their personal experience supports their preferred version. But, as Boing! says, we must follow our own rules on sourcing. If the Truth is so obvious, then, really, someone should have written about it somewhere...or, if they haven't (for some sort of political reason), then these new editors ought to try to find somewhere to write about it. Until that happens, however, we need to be able to reach a point where we don't have to keep having this conversation every 2 hours with the next new account. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of User:Pnranjith as documented here seems to be the exact type of thing that the caste sanctions were intended to address. I propose a topic ban of Pnranjith from all caste articles, per the usual phrase from the sanctions log: "All edits relating to any caste across all namespaces". At some point the editor could appeal to have the sanctions lifted if it turns out they can create a record of neutral editing in other areas. You can check the editors' comments at Talk:Ezhava if you want to study his work more carefully, being aware that he sometimes signs as 'Ranjith'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting block of User talk:82.227.98.3

I am requesting a block of User talk:82.227.98.3. They have repeated the exact same disproven, unreferenced edits time and again for the Sonny Bill Williams article as shown in their contributions. I have repeatedly warned them and provided evidence against their edits, in a calm manner, yet they seem intent on not discussing and continuing upon their path.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you didn't notify the user of this discussion, I'll do so for you.

Also, the user does reply here; granted, that was a week ago. I'll issue a final warning. m.o.p 05:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello m.o.p. Actually i did notify the user with the relevant ANI-notice. So i am not sure why you say i didn't. Also, the user gave only 1 reply in the numerous times i contacted them. Even then their reply made no use of references and was full of opinionated ramblings.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

hoax, slander or what?

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

---

The current content of userpage User:VictoriaSecretJ of this 1-edit-user seems to be inappropriate and surely out of scope. Over at Commons the (likely) same user uploaded image File:Victorian Model Michelle"Carrolline" Hernandez.jpg, which also contains in its description a lot of questionable legal information about an real (or fictious) identified person. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Someguy1221 deleted the userpage and the file. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Need help dealing with User:Masterzora

After repeatedly imploring that a user please stop accusing me of having an "agenda" and instead help to contribute to the article, I'm still met with accusations of bad faith.

Please see Talk:Legendary creature where I have told User:Masterzora that I'm only interested in discussing the article, multiple times, yet this user refuses to "drop it" so to speak and continues to accuse me of acting in bad faith, of trying to "game" Wikipedia, and so on. I've said numerous times that Talk:Legendary Creature is not the appropriate place to discuss my perceived misconduct, but it keeps being brought up over and over again. In fact, if you look at User:Masterzora's contributions you'll see that the ONLY contributions to that article and its talk page are personal attacks on me, rather than aiming to help improve the article. After about two years of being inactive, suddenly this user pops up out of nowhere and begins nothing but personally attacking me and accusing me of having an "agenda".

I would like some help with how to move forward on this issue, because I'm not interested in discussing these bizarre accusations of me pushing an agenda, along with insinuating that because I am "an active user of multiple atheist subreddits" (in reference to reddit's subforums which are called subreddits) that this somehow makes me it okay to assume that I'm here to push some sort of "agenda".

If I have done anything wrong thus far I would like help from more experienced editors and admins in letting me know what I've done wrong and how I can fix it. Thanks. --JasonMacker (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Masterzora is a pretty old account that suddenly reawakened specifically to make these accusations. I'm not sure whether it's compromised or what. That said, once again this comes across as not entirely innocent. JasonMacker's participation in the Reddit thread evinces a certain position/bias which is reflected in the direction he is trying to take the article, and which has been manifested most recently in an attempt to move the article to a different title where he thinks his position may be more readily defended. This also is meeting with a great deal of resistance. Masterzora needs to be reined in if he continues, as his battle with JasonMacker is proving to be nuisance and distraction; but the latter needs to consider how consensus is running pretty strongly against him in the article and perhaps back off from what is coming across as something of a POV crusade. Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is a bit inaccurate to say I reawakened specifically to make these accusations. My first two comments (and the only two before the move proposal) were both directed at content, with only a sentence each directed at the Reddit invasion itself. It was only when the tactic was changed to the move that the content of my comments became one of accusations. And this does pertain to the fact that I am an old account being reawakened: despite once being a fairly frequent contributor I let the account wither because I was becoming increasingly frustrated with editors who seemed more concerned with maintaining a position than with increasing the quality of the wiki. I revived the account because I was specifically seeking to stop an external invasion of people who fit that very description from succeeding at making their vandalism stick. And once I'm sure they won't succeed, this account will wither away once again, probably until I am linked to another invasion.

And so this brings us to the proposal to move. I, and other editors, have pointed out content-based reasons to oppose the move. In a perfect world, that should be it. However, I also believe it foolish to believe that the move is strictly about improving content and future commentors and any potential closing admin need to be aware of the other factors involved before weighing in or moving the article. Perhaps I am unsupported by policy, but I firmly believe that any change put forth by a POV invasion that helps further the cause of said invasion requires greater scrutiny and a higher standard to actually put in effect. In order to actually make people aware, the comments have to be somewhere they'll see them, hence putting them in the proposal to move. Further, poking through his history, JasonMacker seems to have been a useful contributor before this incident so I did not want to seek any action against him and hence me not opening an ANI as he has done.

I will admit that, especially with Wikipedia's rudimentary "threading", my comments seem to be rather distracting in their current location. As such, while I will firmly stand by their content and current inclusion, I will refrain from adding onto them. However, if he continues the crusade of his invasion, and especially if he continues trying to hide behind policies that don't even support him, I will look to reverse my current position and actually take action against him. -- Masterzora (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

There is currently a two day backlog, any administrators willing to help would be appreciated. Crazynas ^t 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bedson again - this time randomly reverting me

213.205.235.142 (talk · contribs) - blocked IP for 24 hours and reverted. This time he's just reverting me at various articles he's never edited. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a banned user - simply revert, block & tag. Then wait for the next sock... GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2's removal of photograph at Albert II, Prince of Monaco

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

---

This editor keeps removing a photograph of the Prince with President Obama. Here[70], here[71], here[72], here[73], here[74], and here[75]. Three editors have disagreed with these removals and reverted. It was talked about here[76] on Prince Albert talk page, nobody supports his removal of the photographs.

Bamler2 also made this deliberately wrong edit to the article here[77]. Note he puts a CN tag on an edit he created.

He's accused one of the reverting editors(me) of stalking him in this Prince Albert edit summary[78]. Bamler2 also made the same accusation[79] at my talk page.

As for the rest of his behavior, he's accused[80] another editor of sockpuppetry without proof. Sorry but that ANI thread wasn't archived. li Note- The ANI thread hasn't been properly archived, so I linked to its last version on the home page. All but one of the Prince Albert edits took place before the ANI thread started.

He's accused an editor of racism[81]. There are these posts, here[82] and here[83]. In the latter he wrote in the summary- 'removing comments..you are all powerful, can make life hell, even drive one to suicide. I support anything the AC wants. AC is perfect.Sorry.Sorry'

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, refuses to abide with consensus, and makes untrue accusations. Some type of block is needed, if not a total site ban....William 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

the complainer, William, just vandalized WP. See this http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/news/2009/january/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-reached-the.1385.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sour grapes, lies, and personal attacks. I improve wikipedia. Prince Albert's article has been improved by me adding a more relevant photo of his reign,not an undue weight of Mr. Obama, where the pic is merely a museum reception, nothing major about his reign or Obama's policies. I correctly add that Albert has walked to the south pole...look it up. William should be blocked for falsely claiming this is wrong info that I put in.....as far as accusing editor William of stalking, look he stalks me again..

WP:BURDEN clearly states 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material'. Which you didn't do till now. Where was the source when you made the edit?

Furthering my case for some sort of action against this editor is his 1- Repeated failure to sign his posts. 2- His c unwarranted accusation of me being a stalker and 3- His attempts to disrupt this thread by improperly place his responses.(I've taken the liberty of moving them to beneath my complaint since they are a response to it. Bamler2 knows how to respond on a talk page or ANI thread. He just constantly refuses to do so....William 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

using William's logic, if you edit and do not put a citation, you should be blocked. I knew for a fact that Prince Albert went tI the south pole. However, I later thought that great editors put a citation to all work so I put a citation needed tag so I or someone else could fix it tomorrow. William, the complainer, rejects AGF, thinks the worse, removed the fact, and falsely accused me.

as for his complaint about signing, he advocates you break the law. The ADA law is for handicapped people, such as me. wikipedia is great in that it Autosigns. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

as far as stalking, the complainer, William, never edited the Albert article until he started.to hate me then followed me there. Stalking is a blockage offence. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and continue putting great facts into WP if we drop this matter and block william — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Subthread since this has become such a mess to follow

First, the edit warring by Bamler2 has to stop. S/he has now been warned about that. Continued efforts in that direction will result in Bamler2 being blocked. Second, talk page discussion formatting is here for a reason. Continued unconventional threading discussions like this is evidence of tendentious editing. The editor needs to follow the convention set forth by consensus. Information to that effect has been left on that user's talk page. Third, yes, the user needs to sign their posts. Fourth, I see no evidence that WilliamJE has vandalized. I suspect Balmer2 has good intent but has a lot of learning to do about how to communicate and edit effectively here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. He removed a good fact and falsely accused me of vandalism. Of the billions of people in the world, I am the only to add that Albert went to the south pole to someone doesn't edit that he went to the north. William then falsely accused me of vandalism even though my edit is true, unless you call the Monaco government press office a liar Bamler2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

123.224.94.138

123.224.94.138 (talk · contribs)

Well, I was fine when an IP editor started an edit war in the article, and I tried to mediate something. They even complained at my talk page that I warned them for edit warring. They still disagreed with everybody, reverting the edits on Joseph van Wissem every time they showed up in Wikipedia. That was still fine with me, and I filed a DRN request which is still pending. But today they reverted my edits calling it vandalism, which I am afraid goes over the top. Could somebody please have a look (the page history and tha talk page should be sufficient) and see whether a block would be in order here, or may be I misunderstand something.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it is a WP:COI issue concerning 24.42.67.83 (talk · contribs) aka Jozefboys (talk · contribs) aka Jozefvanwissem (talk · contribs) who edits the Jozef van Wissem page claiming to be the subject of the article. See also WP:COIN#Jozef van Wissem. I think the editor's narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing clearly indicates that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Ymblanter has repeatedly reverted only my edits without explaining why at the talk page. I just called his revert "vandalism" because I feel like being hounded by him/her. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consensus was reached at the talk page concerning one of the versions. You were repeatedly told by at least three users to stop reverting but you did not.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consesnsus was not reached yet. Additionally, the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some help here. The unregistered editor from Tokyo changes IPs frequently, so we probably need WP:SEMI on the BLP to stop his edit warring rather than blocks.

This trumped-up "COI" was the subject trying to get errors out of his article. The IP spent the first half this dispute insisting that the article say that the subject is still collaborating with people he hasn't worked with for several years (including, by the way, two musicians from Tokyo ...just sayin').

Now he's insisting that since the subject made slightly more non-solo albums than solo albums means that the exact name of one of the defunct collaborations must be mentioned in the lead, plus that his most widespread work (the musical score for a popular video game) much be removed, and again that all of his (many) past collaborators should be mentioned in the same list as his (two) current ones. Furthermore, he expects detailed refutations to an endless series of similarly trivial "reasons" why he's right and all six of the registered editors on that talk page are wrong.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the IP. We've either got someone trying to boost his own career in this article, or we've got someone who is obsessed with one of those past collaborators. We need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One or more users in this case have fit behavioral patterns in a potential SPI case - I would recommend opening an SPI of the individuals identified in this Editor Interaction Analyzer to clear things up :EIC SPI Candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that would interest SPI. It's hardly surprising that three editors, each of whom have tens of thousands of edits, and who were brought into this dispute on the basis of noticeboard requests for help, have previously interacted with each other on various pages. The other items amount to saying the current disputants are in a dispute that has spread across multiple pages in an effort to attract help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism of my talk page by Deven94 whilst logged out

Hi,

Further to my recent report, User:Deven94 has attacked my talk page directly by page blanking it using User talk:149.254.182.207.

It's a bit difficult for me to link each instance individually, but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Usual_people_in_life&action=history

Provides a summary of the edits (which I have now reverted).

Please could someone now consider a block on his account and access because this in my opinion is a direct attack against me, and I am tired of having to revert his edits.

He has also blanked his own talk page on his account, possibly to cover his tracks.

Dev has also been given a personalised warning by WP admin.

Is it time for a block on his access?

If you do block him, could you IPBE (IP Block Exempt) me please, so that I don't get affected.

Thanks, Usual people in life (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• You likely need to talk to a Checkuser. Look at the bottom of the page WP:SPI or find one active on the WP:Functionaries page. This is the kind of IPBE that admin aren't going to even consider without a CU being involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you and Deven94 are on the same IP network ? —Soap— 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response.

Soap: The answer to your question is yes and no (it depends on where I am). As can be seen from my account data, I created my account around 2 or 3 years ago at home to edit more effectively. Deven94 only created his at his home around January this year (to my knowledge) simply to vandalize the site as account creation is blocked at college. Most of my edits at college are attempts to revert his vandalism whilst trying to avoid 3RR, (I reverted a batch of them against my user page around 2PM GMT). Unfortunately, me reverting his damage appears to have led to him starting to vandalize my user space and seeming to try to attack my on-line accounts. I don't think college is prepared to contribute to the WP X-Forwarded For (XFF) project that is hosted to identify who is doing what. I can assure you though that the activity that deven94 is generating IS being logged by college servers against his college account - I've reported directly to IT support that he is abusing his WP access.

It appears the same, which may be because I often use a college VPN to access my college files, the result of which is that as a side effect I 'appear' to be on the same network as Deven94 but I'm actually elsewhere (see the logs for this edit to determine my true IP location as I'm currently disconnected from the VPN and I don't use proxies - I suspect Deven94 does use them) I logged in at college a few times to feedback to WP admins that I had notified college admin of the IP edit abuse occurring at college and also to (try to) revert his vandalism.

It's an unfortunate side effect of having such a large college network - everything appears to be from one person when it is actually from over 1000 people at the college.

Is there anything that can be done to prevent deven from blanking my talk page again? I say this because he also blanked his talk page which wiped out the warning Dennis Brown left there. (I feel that if I revert the blanking I will be subjected to more vandalism from him so I'm not prepared to even attempt it, I'd rather leave that to WP admin)

Feel free to contact me at my e-mail address if you need to - I have a feeling that deven will be watching this page waiting to blank it.

In the meantime, would it be best for me to avoid logging in at college or when using the college VPN?

Thanks Usual people in life (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89

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

---

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Purplebackpack89 is checking my contributions and following me to places he wouldn't find otherwise, just to delete anything I try to save it seems.

I previously complained about his actions, explaining WP:HOUNDING to him, he just erasing my message without responding there. [84]

He then later makes a comment about it on talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDreamship where he says "Let that be a lesson to you: if you weren't so busy trying to start shit with me, that article might still be around". He has previously complained about me and the Wikipedia I'm an active part of, the Article Rescue Squadron, dragging those debates all over the place.

After commenting in an AFD I was in, he then goes to deletion review I started where he says nothing other than say "endorse", to endorse the deletion. I ask him about that on his talk page, he claiming he has the right to follow my contributions. [85] He then deletes that discussion instead of responding again. Can someone explain to him that he is not allowed to follow someone's contributions around just to argue with them like he keeps doing? Dream Focus 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close with a TROUT-slap and a boomerang: First off, DreamFocus has yet to produce diffs that show me directly responding to something he said on Dreamship or any other page. So we both commented on the same page? Not seeing the problem; DreamFocus and I are both active participants in AfDs and DRVs. If you looked at the last 100 pages DreamFocus has edited; you'd see that I haven't edited 80-90 of them, so I think the HOUNDing accusation is totally baseless. And, yes, DreamFocus should be admonished for his actions regarding Dreamship; when I tagged it, the first thing he did was accuse me of HOUNDing. Meanwhile, he didn't even bother to improve the article or even participate in the AfD discussion. You're darn right that I have deleted messages DreamFocus has posted on my talk page in the past. I consider them to be disruptive; after all, this is an editor who's been in and out of ANI dozens of times and been blocked thrice. Not sure what DreamFocus' comment about the ARS has to do with Wikihounding, either. Also, DreamFocus is being horrendously hypocritical; just the other day, he followed me to a discussion I was having with User:Colonel Warden here pbp 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have Warden's talk page on my watchlist. I have posted there before, and we are both active members of the same Wikiproject. I did not follow you. Dream Focus 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, so lemme get this straight...it's OK for you to follow Warden (and me when I post to his talkpage)? Why isn't that HOUNDing? pbp 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  Noticing a talk page on your watchlist and responding is fine. Going to someone's contributions just to follow them around however is not. I did NOT follow you at anytime. Dream Focus 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone please read the links I provided. Don't let him distort things. Don't his comments look like he was mad at me and that's why he went to someplace I had worked on something? No other way he could've found that. Dream Focus 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression it took a lot more instances of interaction before its really considered hounding. It's hard to see much of a trend with so few difs. Certainly doesn't seem like anything actionable beyond a "Hey guys, calm down before this escalates into something more-actionable" type advice. Just my two cents. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • He's done it more, just now and again. Here is one [86]. I thought those two recent ones though proved it was happening. Can someone just confirm he is not allowed to follow my contributions like he has clearly done? Dream Focus 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not clear that I do that from the information given. Also, looking at another editor's contributions from time to time is perfectly acceptable, so nobody is going to tell me not to do it. Finally, "now and again" doesn't make it HOUNDing; for it to be HOUNDing, it'd have to happen way more often than it does. As I said above, I have never edited most of the last 100 pages you've edited. Also, what I'm seeing from your last diff is more a disruptive editor making an unfounded accusation of HOUDing, not actual HOUNDing pbp 20:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of the pages both of you have edited. Clicking on the "timeline" link gives you details about the interactions on each page. It would be interesting if one of you did a count of how many times something from Dream Focus was followed by a reply by Purplebackpack89 vs. how many times something from Purplebackpack89 was followed by a reply by Dream Focus. If the posing is random, the two numbers should be somewhat close. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not Purblebackpack is following Dream Focus' edits is irrelevant. If an editor is worried about the quality of another editor's article work or arguments, following their edits is a good way to correct errors. Wikihounding only occurs if the purpose of following the editor is to harass them. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of that. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Having an argument with someone, then checking their edits to find something you can go to which they are trying to safe and state you believe it should be deleted, is hounding. Dream Focus 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Guy Macon, That list is mostly just AFDs which were tagged on the Rescue Wikiproject, so it doesn't really tell anything. Dream Focus 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Dream Focus, and I highly doubt that pbp's intentions for edit stalking them are valid. Pbp has a history of first declaring someone disruptive, then using that defamation as an excuse to hound them. I've asked him 9 times to stay off my talk, and still he refuses to respect that request. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• For a brief history of pbp's propensity for hounding, look here, here, and here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To Dream Focus; You can tell the tool to only look at articles, only look at article talk pages, only look at user talk pages, etc. As for the claim "it doesn't really tell anything" I contend that it is two or three cherry-picked examples that do not really tell us anything. You need to establish that it is not just random chance that two editors with lots of edits and similar interest keep hitting the same pages. I have not done a count myself, so I have no idea whether your claim is accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• He did admit it already didn't he? He is following my contributions in violation in the hounding rule. Every time someone gets mad at you for daring to disagree with them on something, they shouldn't be able to check your contributions, and follow you somewhere they wouldn't have ever found otherwise, just to irritate you. Dream Focus 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:HOUND: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." That last part sure sounds like pbp to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Seems pretty clear to me, from looking at the editor interaction analyzer results noted above, that no actual hounding has occurred. Most of the instances seemed to show Dream popping up after pbp, but since Dream frequents AfD and a large amount of those discussions noted were listed at the ARS, it seems highly unlikely that this is anything more than both of them getting to the same place on their own.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc: personal attacks, deadhorse

GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GabeMc seems to have found this discussion, most likely via the same edit-searching method DreamFocus is critical of above. He brings up Danjel drama that is old news and ended with Danjel retiring in disgrace, in part for (surprise, surprise!) HOUNDing Epeefleche and me. But, in response to why did I post to GabeMc's talkpage? Personal attacks GabeMc levied against me like this might have something to do with it. Bringing up Harry Potter over and over again in WP:VA/E-relating discussion after three different threads resulted in keeping him on the list might have something to do with it. Could I get a "stop the personal attacks, and stop bringing up Harry Potter over and over again", please? pbp 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have ANI watchlisted, so no, I didn't find this thread via searching your contribs pbp, always remember to assume good-faith. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kinda hard to AGF to somebody who called me a "Type-A control freak" pbp 23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, yes, I regrettably made that snarky comment once, but I struck-out the comment within minutes of making it. You on the other hand, have repeated the phrase at least 10–15 times since. So, if you need an apology to drop this, then fine, I'm really sorry. I should not have made that comment nor will I again. Can we please move on now? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Shameless VA/E plug

While we're here, everybody should participate in the numerous discussions going on at WP:VA/E and WP:VA pbp 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Calm down

At least it's all in one place, but you guys seem to have all just moved your individual feuds to ANI. I don't really think there's any admin action needed, but rather you all should try to just relax. Maybe stay away from confronting each other for a little (that goes for everyone accusing and being accused in this discussion). You don't have to go out of your way to avoid eachother, but maybe just trying not to antagonize for a little couldn't hurt. I'd close this discussion, but I'm not an administrator and perhaps someone else will see a solution to this problem. But a highly doubt one will form that will require administrative action and have a consensus. So just take it easy. Make your arguments, hold your discussions, but keep it to the content, not to the editors.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yaksar, do you deny following my edits for a year?  Do you deny following RANs edits?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A review of PBP's talk page seems to show a long history of complaints and possible abuse of the rules here. I suggest we block him.Bipalabras (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Sock created with my name

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Please delete account admonish user. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 is a wp:doppelganger, not a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is not a registered account. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And why are you my doppelganger? Did I ask you to do that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked with extreme prejudice. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I reduced the prejudice. But yes, Emmette, that's pretty inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh really, so now someone else has a password to an account that could be me who is blocked? I want that password. The only reason I even found out was that I happened to see Emmette's contribs; didn't even bother to tell me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a tiny difference in the apostrophes, it seems; Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) was the "real" impostor, and Im not sure how Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) figures into it but it is not an actual user, impostor or otherwise. It seems that Emmette Hernandez Coleman created the account, thinking he was doing you a favor, and there was a misunderstanding because he didn't tell you. So I hope we can all understand and forgive and forget now. —Soap— 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I want the password. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you and Emmette to discuss, but I warn you both now that posting passwords on-wiki is grounds for immediate account blocking as a security risk (and to answer a variation, it's not possible for anyone *else* to look up that password if Emmette declines to give it to you him/herself). The account is indef'ed with talkpage access disabled, so there's no use for it. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What kinda bullshit is that? Someone holds the password to my name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this: anyone who tries that not-actually-your-account right now is not actually you, so the person doing them is liable to be blocked. And whoever has that password is powerless to use it anyway (even if you had it yourself). Your best bet is to leave it alone, and avoid taking on the risk of using a tainted account. Alternately, you can discuss off wiki whatever you two want regarding trying to use a blocked account. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The account's blocked, and nobody's going to unblock it; Emmette couldn't do anything with the account even if he wanted to. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename resquested. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I created the account to keep Seb from being impersonated, that's why I used the {{doppelganger-other}} tag. I don't see how that is inappropriate, if it is why do we have the {{doppelganger-other}} tag? Seb, I don't hold password to your name, I used a radioum password that I never bothered to record. Even if I did it would be a major improvement over the previous sutetion where everyone with an Internet connection held your name, no password necessary. had I routinely create these doppelganger accounts, and nothing ever came of it before. I used to inform people when I cerated a doppelganger for them, but then I realized that someone might see one of those messages and get the idea to create an imposer account, which is exactly what I'm trying to prevent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate; you might come from a culture where names do not matter; handling someone else's name or names without their permission is the highest possible offense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of us come from such a culture, and many or most people reading this thread (me, for example) had no clue that Navajo culture was different; it would be unreasonable to expect EHC to act differently in your case from other people's cases. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to create doppelganger accounts for other users. I've nominated that template for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be reasonable to expect that no-one does this kinda shit for whatever reason. Who the fuck is this user to usurp some sorta managing position like that??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some reason for the foul language? We get it that you are pissed off. Swearing doesn't help your cause it seems.--Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If there was ever a good reason for using the word fuck...this would be it. This is an odd sort of thread. What is going on exactly that a user's name is being used in this manner. I think Seb should be allowed to usurp that name in some manner so that it may never be used again.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, there is NO good reason for foul language here. All it shows is ignorance and immaturity. --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't censor editors and when there appears to be a reaction that anyone could understand, why would you care that the word was used? Incivility isn't a matter of the use of a single word...its how it is used.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, He can swear all he wants to, and it's up to him to decide whether or not he cares about what others may think. Chamal ^T•C 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a serious lack of WP:AGF here. Emmette clearly didn't mean to cause any damage by doing this: he thought he was doing something good in order to protect other users, he broke no rule (and even used a template created explicitly for this purpose), and he intended to help the project, not damage it. Yes, perhaps it was a bit too presumptuous of him to do this, perhaps it was a tad inappropriate, and perhaps he should have notified Seb that he'd done this (in fact, he definitely should have), but ultimately he was acting in good faith, and there has been no damage caused. Perhaps a trout is in order for Emmette, but that's about it. – Richard BB 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other account creations

Emmette Hernandez Coleman has apparently created a number of alternate accounts for other users. The account above was clearly not created at the user's request, so I question whether any of the others were requested. At least a few of these are rather inappropriate, and while probably well-intentioned, these account creations should stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They weren't requested. I understand Seb, as that seems to be a cross-cultural issue, but otherwise I don't see how it's inappropriate. Before I registered then any potential impostor could have registered and used them. Now that I have, no one, not even I, can use them (they all have scrambled passwords). If this is inappropriate, why do we even have the {{Doppelganger-other}} tag? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated that for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't make me exotic or whatever. There are numerous people who wouldn't want you or anyone else to do this, just like they wouldn't want you to cover their house with mirror-sheets so it saves energy and lowers their electricity bill. You just don't do that kinda stuff. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Best place to add comment, I guess. Totally agree that I would go completely ballistic if someone set up a "friendly" doppleganger account for me, no I'm not Navajo (peace to the nation in passing), live in Europe but take any kind of ID usurpation very badly, well-intended or not. Also, WTF, the user is entitled to let off steam and, for fuck's sake say fuck, if they are really pissed about a really serious issue, such as having one's identity ripped-off. To quote God knows who, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense. Don't we have the account creator right for users who are trusted to do this? If Coleman isn't an account creator, he needs to agree to stop immediately. Since he doesn't understand why people have a problem with this, he should be given a restriction. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no point continuing this argument here at ANI. Wikipedia policy doesn't say that a doppelganger account cannot be created by one user on behalf of another. Therefore Emmette's actions (which were clearly done in good faith) are technically not wrong. Personally I feel this is inappropriate, but my personal opinion doesn't really matter for this discussion. The issue on the template is being handled separately at TFD already, and if anybody thinks a change in policy is required you can propose it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or any other appropriate location, but ANI is not the place. Chamal ^T•C 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also mention that account creators do create doppelgangers for other users if and when requested. IIRC I have created a couple myself when I was an account creator before I got the admin tools, although it doesn't happen often as far as I know (although I don't really know anything about the present situation). Chamal ^T•C 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Emmette, if you are going to create dopplegangers on behalf of other users (though I very strongly suggest you don't, as there is zero reason to), at least have the manners to notify them in future. GiantSnowman 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by MathSci

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

---

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

---

Can someone please instruct MathSci to refrain from personal attacks at User:Jmh649/Will Beback?[87] I don't know what MathSci's beef is, but they should address the comments, not the contributor. I attempted in good faith to work this out with MathSci on their talkpage[88] but MathSci apparently refused to respond in good faith.[89] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Mathsci (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP should be warned or blocked for removing other people's comments. I will not revert again, but the OP keeps calling this a personal attack which is in its self a personal attack. --Malerooster (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MathSci: This has already been explained to you.[90] Please, address the contribution, not the contributor. I hoped to avoid ANI, but when I tried talking to you on your talkpage, you responded by deleting my kind request.[91] Please, if you want to disagree with what I said, go ahead and do so. But there's no need to make personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So what was the personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear AQFK, saying that you are "adding to the drama" is a personal attack? --Malerooster (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, saying that, "I was not surprised to see that you added to the drama by creating your very own section." is clearly a personal attack. It says nothing about the substance of what I said, but only addresses me as a contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, I would let somebody else remove or RPA or whathaveyou to that comment, if they agree, thats all. --Malerooster (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's your idea of a personal attack, you have led a very sheltered WP life, A Quest For Knowledge. Bielle (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it AQFK. By accusing Mathsci of making personal attacks you are making one yourself. It's really not hard once you realise that Wikipedia's "personal attack" policy is a complete load of codswallop mainly employed by the feckless and disingenuous. Malleus Fatuorum

I have it on reliable authority that Wikepedia's personal attack policy is in tears at being called "a load of codswallop" and has posted a "Retired" template on its page and flounced off. Yet again Malleus Fatuorum's namecalling has driven a hardworking and respected policy off the project! Oh where will it end! Bishonen | talk 00:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict)@Malerooster: Will you please remove the offending part for me? I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. It's not the first time and it's not the last. But they need to address are argument, not the contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Your still not getting it, but here's a clue for you. Mathsci was commenting on what you'd done, not on you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@MF: Pray tell, what have I done? I've been extremely consistent that all editors - no matter who they are - should address one another with respect and adherence to WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. If you can find a genuine instance of me failing to abide by these principles, I'll donate a $100 in cancer research (or whichever charity you want). Does that sound fair? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this propensity to prematurely close down discussions before reaching consensus is a major problem with AN/I. I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again. FWIW, I was not asking for a site-ban or even a topic-ban to the offending editor. I just want them to not make personal attacks. Is that really so much to ask? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this discussion was closed down by the personal attacker themselves.[92] Does anyone actually disagree with all the diffs I've provided? Can we have an independent admin examine the diffs and proceed accordingly? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

No, I would like someone to answer why it's OK to make personal attacks against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong and nor has there been a single diff presented against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"not surprised to see that you added to the drama" is a comment about the person. "Your comment added to the drama" would have been a comment about what the person had done. It's often better to let these discussions run their course than to try closing them quickly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, "you are a drama-monger" would be a comment about a person. A comment about an action in the active voice rather than the passive voice is still a comment about an action. I closed this discussion in an attempt to avoid another pointless, drawn-out thread that achieves nothing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Questionable edits and legal threats at Illegal immigration to the United States

{{archive top|Unquestionably good block. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)}}

I have indefinitely blocked User:Nanoatzin for making legal threats in connection with the article on Illegal immigration to the United States. This editor claimed the article was grossly biased in ways that violated the WMF's status as a tax-exempt charitable organization; he made a huge set of questionable changes to the article; and he stated that he would notify the IRS and US government officials if his changes were reverted.

I notified Nanoatzin that his comments were in violation of WP:NLT and told him he must agree to withdraw his threatening remarks before he can be unblocked. I also reverted the article to the condition it was in prior to Nanoatzin's lengthy round of changes. I am reporting my actions here at WP:ANI so that other admins can keep an eye on this situation, and also to give others a chance to reverse what I did in the (hopefully unlikely) event that they believe I overreacted. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Good block. A totally in-your-face legal threat. The guy's been here a couple of years, and should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, good block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• The diff for Nanoatzin's inform government officials statement (beginning with "I WILL inform ...") is diff. Meets WP:NLT. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block. How is "I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic" a legal threat? User was being a dick, but then block for that. User did not threaten litigation. There was no legal threat here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to intimidate editors by employing threats of action by agents of the government. Good block. Tiderolls 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone please note that I have sent a "heads-up" e-mail to legal (at) wikimedia.org about this issue. And while I'm not that terribly concerned about someone threatening to write their Senators and Congressperson about allegedly biased writing on Wikipedia, a threat to challenge the WMF's tax-exempt status by "notifying" the IRS of actions supposedly in violation of the rules for charitable organizations is most definitely a "legal" threat IMO. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RolandR SPI closed and archived without critical private (off wiki) information and evidence considered, and never sent to the Functionaries mailing list.

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

---

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Patriot1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello,

The evidence that was critical to this SPI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RolandR/Archive

Was denied by two members of the functionary team without seeing this information. Clerk: (Someguy1221) The information was sent to the functionaries-en-bounces AT lists.wikimedia.org email, and my last notice was that it was waiting for "Moderator approval"

However the case has already been archived by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoRD who admitted there was no email sent to the functionaries either, but decided to not even look at it and archive the case.

This is highly unusual, considering this is a very complex case. To simply archive it without looking at the information and NOT notifying the entire functionaries team is a violation of the SPI process, as this information could be considered private: "If your evidence includes emails or any other information not on Wikipedia's public pages, or is 'sensitive', if privacy is needed, or if you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, you must e-mail the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee, and ask what to do. Private information, emails, logs, etc. must not be posted on Wikipedia."

I have been informed by another member of the functionary team and that user confirmed this information was not sent to the functionary email list, and that the information is still being held awaiting moderation.

Since the evidence has not been considered, I request that the case be held open, until the SPI is considered from ALL the information. Obviously, there is only a limited part of the entire SPI located publically. I also request locking of this ANI until this issue is resolved. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd wager that RolandR is probably one the most harassed and hounded non-admins in the project. This simply appears to be yet another in a long line of spurious attacks tossed his way over the years; whatever "evidence" you think you have compiled about illegitimate socking is likely bullshit. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a fairly straighforward investigation with hard data. If the IPs and ISPs don't match up, including my special intructions, then I will be the first to apologize. Let's not bring in anything but facts here.Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Second the bs claim. Patriot you have this misinformation that stats on pageviews can determine sockpuppetry. Under this, Tarc is my sockpuppet because we're both viewing this page. You also have a horrid understanding of the Checkuser tool, and when you were explained these two things, you didn't listen. Either start listening, or expect a boomerang for your failure to see when it's time to drop the stick and back away from the carcass (I think that's the saying). gwickwire^talk_editing 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the pageview claim is merely an indicator - however I have used this indicator to confirm the ISP IP in several cases. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Granted, I have not seen your email, but given the flaws with the existing case, I don't think that it will help much. However, if the information in the email does add something useful to the case, I will restore it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not been notified of this discussion? It is a requirement: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion".

This sockpuppet case was dismissed by oversighter Someguy1221 as " a load of horseshit".[93] But this editor is continuing to pursue it, and appears to have written privately to several admins with spurious "evidence".[94] I regard this as harassment (though, as Tarc notes above, not as egregious as much I have faced), and I request that he is advised to drop this and stop digging him/herself into a hole. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You aren't the subject of this ANI, The clerk and administrator who closed MY SPI CASE prematurely without the off-wiki data related to the case to the functionary group are the subjects. Notification is not required of the SPI case.Patriot1010 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to make some sense of this post. It seems to boil down to "Keep my SPI case open". In short, no. Someguy1221 was rather harsh, but what he has said is correct. When we receive this other evidence, we can always reopen the case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No not at all, all this is, is to follow SPI procedure, specifically when it involves off-wiki data as provided by WP:SPI protocols. Is that too much to ask for? Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPI "procedure" is to decline baseless reports; as best I can tell, that procedure was followed here. At the top of the WP:SPI page says: "An investigation can only be opened if your evidence clearly shows, from suspicious Wikipedia edits, that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy." (emphasis in the original). Note the "from suspicious Wikipedia edits" part; not only is there no provision for special handling of private evidence, there is an explicit requirement for public evidence to provide sufficient cause for a checkuser request. I'd recommend someone close this section; nothing good will come of it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for supporting my case, since the evidence of "that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy." is contained in the private, off wiki information - thus closing this would violate what you just said, and then we would have a prematurely closed SPI case, and a prematurely closed ANI case. Patriot1010 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you've totally ignored what I said. In order to open an SPI, there must be public evidence pointing to the likelihood that sockpuppetry is happening. The page says that, if you have private evidence, you need to email it to the Checkusers and wait for further instructions, not open a lengthy SPI replete with vague references to private information and then complain that it was closed for lack of actual evidence. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Procedure says that we don't reopen investigations that have been denied because of impossibility. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, one cannot check impossibility until the IPs and ISP IPs are checked, as well as the other information. Patriot1010 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Friendly advice from a fellow editor. I'm not an admin, but I try to behave as one. Patrior1010, I'd like to suggest that you immediately drop the WP:STICK and back away. Looking at your contributions (starting around March 14th) I see a pattern of behavior where you lash out at anybody who is offering you advice. This pattern has been played out many times as Suicide by Admin and is a poor way to end your wiki-editing career. You've had multiple highly trusted and vetted editors look at your complaints, look at your edits, and look at your evidence and only a "No, that's not puppetry". What you appear to be doing is conducting a campaign of harassment against RolandR. So before you respond further please read the pages regarding sock pupptetry, signs of sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia:CheckUser before you make any further accusations as I see a very short wiki-future for you if you do not immediately desist from these accusations and make a very significant and comprehensive apology to RolandR, the Checkuser team, and this board for wasting our time. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Patriot1010's stated reason for editing Wikipedia is to pursue "disputes against those of liberal bias, as well as pursuing liberal sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and countering liberal 'senior editor' vandalism, harrassment, and NPOV via WP:GAME." If that's not an explicit declaration of intent to use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, I'm not sure what is. His decision to treat a garden-variety content dispute as a massive sockpuppet conspiracy perhaps makes more sense in this context. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This comment may be of interest. Patriot1010 is picking up some bad habits. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A comment here; as Hasteur points out Patriot1010's behaviour seems to have changed recently. This wild connecting of dots and conspiracy theories is, as far as I can see, out of keeping with past contributions and approaches. I've seen this sort of thing before in the real world, and so wonder if we might actually need to show some compassion for somebody who may not currently be quite himself. Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I simply picked a date in their recent history when they became active again. Wikipedia is not therapy. I'm only showing a trend in the recent time frame that is significantly below the standards expected. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remind some of WP:SPI: "All users are expected to focus only on evidence of sock policy breach and its analysis. Disruptive conduct may lead to removal from the case pages." Patriot1010 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't SPI, this is ANI, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything at all. Seriously, can someone close this? Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's play a little game. Take a look at MastCell's link above. Substitute every "conservative" in Patriot's comment for "Christian" and every "liberal" for atheist. Then ask yourself how many minutes it would take such an editor to get blocked for soapboxing. Editor is clearly here to pursue his own political agenda and not to build an encyclopaedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Romantic Realist

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

---

Romantic Realist (talk · contribs) is one of the many SPAs that the Ping Fu/Bend, Not Break articles has attracted, and is one of the most persistent. They are very clearly violating critical principles, such as WP:NPOV, and have been reverted and told this so many times it's untrue. Some of their edit summaries show how clearly that they're WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than disparage Ping Fu.

• [95] - edit summary that is clearly a personal attack on Fu, as is the edit. Was a reinstatement of [96].
• [97][98] - inappropriately placed links that have nothing to do with the article (I haven't evaluated any of the links, but that's because they're irrelevant to the article at present)
• [99] - using article space as a talk page, with a personal attack against Fu again
• [100][101] - adding hate site link in (plus inappropriate comment for an article in the latter)
• [102] - the original "expansion" of the Bend, Not Break article - one big attack page.

One look at this user's contributions shows one sole edit outside the talk or article space of these two: and that edit was solely about Bend, Not Break on a user's talk page. This user needs indeffing under WP:NOTHERE, and the nature of the anti-Fu brigade means it may be worth running a CheckUser as well (although a lot of accounts may be stale by now). I'm sick to death of having to police this article against the constant weasel words and WP:NPOV-violating edits by the anti-Fu brigade. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, they've yet again tried to push that comment [103] - this time accusing me of a COI! The sooner we're rid of this user the better, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I just sent a request for suppression to Oversight. I also included a link to this ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• They've also used their IP at times to circumvent suspicion: [104] is IDENTICAL to the COI accusation/personal attack I just removed from the talk of Bend, Don't Break: [105]. So they're clearly socking as well (that IP has been used previously by them). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reversion of my removal of their attack: [106]. Can someone block them soon? This is getting very frustrating! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Malleus_Fatuorum has a vendetta against editors who use tags

Can someone please reaffirm that tagging is a legitimate way of bringing attention to a problem that you are unable or uncomfortable fixing yourself? A thread at the village pump has devolved (on his side) to a series of personal attacks, that really crosses the line IMO. After a certain point, nearly every message from Malleus includes a personal attack or some form of hostility. Here they are in order:

• [107]: Editors who use tags are lazy and incompetent
• [108]: Edit summary calls tags "defacement", and taggers are lazy
• [109]: Calling me incompetent some inspired condescension: "Your suggested approach is rather like scribbling on the pages of a textbook you can't understand, rather asking the author (or your teacher) to explain."
• [110]: Using tags is "spray tagging grafifit"
• [111]: Calling me "inexperienced" (My first edit was 5 years ago)
• [112]: Tagging is "complaining" and I haven't learned anything in 3 years.
• [113]: Accusing me of sock puppetry
• [114]: Dismissing contributions by "taggers"

I feel like I'm being flamed in a halo forum or something. I think he needs to understand that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User notified here. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Not seeing much of what I'd consider personal attacks there. I do see some other interesting behavior there, but nothing that I'd consider an actual personal attack. More like two people with strong points of view. Intothatdarkness 17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A Village Pump thread that was more heat than light begets an ANI thread that will be more heat than light. And so the cycle continues. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I request that I be blocked.

I refuse to be treated like crap. Can someone please block me? I do not wish to participate in this project any more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)