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:Sopher99

This user has repeatedly [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] added towns to the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map without giving a single source, as it is required (and he knows it, as he had been editing that map for months). When he has been asked to either remove them or give sources to back its inclusion on the map, he refused, reverting the removal of that towns [7], with the excuse that another user (User:Barcaxx1980, who is a newcomer to WP) has also added towns without sources, as if someone doing something wrong gives green light to the rest of users to follow that path. For that reason, and due to the long history of breaking the WP edit policy and disruptive conduct by this user, I request a new block on him. I think its one of the first times I fill one of these reports, so sorry if I make any error. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your signature is REQUIRED to point to either your talkpage or userpage, which it currently does not. Could you please fix that before making any further edits on the project DP 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I have done in that regard is in good faith. No one complained about Barcaxx's edit style which I took up, not on the article's talkpage or on his or my talkpage. If HPUNX has an issue he can just as easily take it up on the article's talkpage, as all users (including myself) have been doing for months on end now.

It should be further known that if there is a general agreement for a fix among users (almost always settled on a talkpage) no particular source for such edits are required. In my case I did in fact use a source, the wikimapia, to give an approximate location of the villages I added. For whatever reason HPUNX has decided to omit that fact in his complaints. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All comprobable false allegations, one by one. First, as it can be seen on User:Barcaxx1980 talk page, both User:Hanibal911 and me warned him that he couldnt add towns to the map without giving sources, so there were people who complained about it. Second, in the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map talk page can be seen that I twice pointed that towns were added without any source, so suggesting that I have resorted to the administrators board without raising the issue in the talk page is simply a lie. Finally, another comprobable invention, there's no such general agreement among users for adding towns to the map without a source, proof of that is other users reverting other adds for not being sourced [8] (and the reverted user didnt behave like Sopher99, but tried to find sources to back his claim). Also, claiming that alleged agreement has the same logic as saying that an agreement has been reached among the editors of an article to add content without source. Clearly, a severe breach of WP edit policy. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx's talkpage has Hanibal instructing him not to use the al-mayadeen as a source. He doesnt mention his other edits.

Regarding your usage of the talkpage, as seen here, its just you cursing out Al-Hanuty for suggesting the use of scholars on twitter and a quick denouncement of me as a user... all two or three hours ago. Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that apart from the lies exposed above, this user have a blindness problem:

• Proof of both User:Hanibal911 and me warning User:Barcaxx1980 about his wrong edits (According to Sopher99, quote "He doesnt mention his other edits"):[9]
• Proof of me raising the issue of adding of towns to the map without sources (and receiving no answer): [10]

Again, you have been exposed.--HCPUNXKID 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you made one warning on the 7th and never got back to it. For your information Barcaxx continued through the 12th with those edits, almost entirely uninterrupted. Like-wise after seeing everyone was fine with it - ie the other 9 users that edit the page - I took up to add more villages. And guess what? Everyone was fine with it - save for you.

So it looks like did consult the talkpage, which I clearly missed. But my point resurfaces even with that - no one responded to your concerns, solidifying the fact your the only one complaining. Sopher99 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Admin,I would like to inform you that editor hannibal911 has added cities without a source.Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of us have - and that's my point. HPUNX is calling me out on edits everyone but him is fine with and which he made no real effort to consult other users about this. Sopher99 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, unless your definition of "many" is two persons (Barcaxx1980 & you).--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admins the editor Alahanuty should be punished for the defamation in my address since if you look my history of editings you can see that I am never edit without specifying the source. Although the user Alahanuty made edits using data from blogs and messages in Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A source does not need to be available online, or in English. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A block or ban is not punishment, it is prevention, I hope you will understand that. Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban. Sopher has had the chance to refute but he hasn't. I have come accross such misrepresentations by this editor before and I think a block or topic ban would be in line with our policies on encyclopedic and verifiability principles. Pass a Method talk 03:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I have been active on Syrian pages. I have replaced dead links, filled references. Got those pages on my watchlist. It's usual that Sopher99 can be seen as a lone editor opposing numerous other editors and everytime I would find it. OccultZone (Talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been editing the pages for around 3 years, and if you check the edit count per person for the Syrian Civil War, I have the top count, more than dozens, perhaps numbers exceeding 100 other users. It is only natural that in such a polemical issue like the Syrian civil war, that other users will find some sort of gripe with me over time and group to complain. Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. I agree to other editors. The rules should be the same for all. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support block. I agree to other editors. This man is destroying the map in purpose. --Barcaxx1980 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support topic-ban, obviously we cannot permit adding information without sources. Once is careless, but this user has gone way beyond "once". That said, I wonder if a topic ban from the "Syria" topic might not be a better way to proceed, at least until the user can demonstrate they are compliant and comfortable with our requirements on verifiability? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Comment both sides did the same thing,so if sopher99 is to be blocked then hannibal911,should be blocked also for doing the same thing.Alhanuty (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty you misrepresent facts as I did not added cities or villages using only the map Wikimapia I substantiated all my changes using data from Wikipedia. But you probably forgot as you edited on the basis of messages in Twitter and blogs. So you are disingenuous accusing me of being that i broken rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the specific article we are talking about is actually a template map for towns of Syria. I have in fact used a source to add those, the wikimapia, which gives the approximate locations of real-life villages in Syria.

I am not too enthusiastic about this support list because 2 of the 4 users are wikihounders who have been quite antagonistic to me in the past. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Very weak & desperate argument, there are dozens of Wikipedians who antagonize you, because of your continued irrational behaviour and POV-pushing, so that's your fault, not theirs...--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally what users here seem to be omitting, or just plain not checking, is that I did in fact use a source, wikimapia, to give the names and locations of the villages. Sopher99 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which as you know is not an acceptable source - esepcially to make claims about specific "villages" being involved in a war ES&L 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check the noticeboard - and no consensus exists for it being unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are really a professional on distorting facts. When we talk about a source needed to add towns to the map, we talk about a source wich states wich side of the Syrian Civil War has control of the town in question. You know that very well, so dont try to act innocently by saying that you use Wikimapia as a source, as that tool cannot be used to verify wich side has control of the towns, only to verify the physical position (lat. & long.) of the towns.--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually on February 9th, when I first started adding the villages, I used this map provided by the BBC to detail which side it belongs to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22798391 . The villages I have added since lines up with the map, and anyone who checked the source I gave could confirm it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding small particular towns basing on a map (wich is not really a BBC map, but from the Syria Needs Analisys Project, it seems you have a problem with sources) wich only includes some provincial capitals and not any town is a non-sense and very, very dubious, for not saying something worse. And also, if we accept the use of general maps to add particular towns, I could perfectly bring newer maps that contradicts several parts of that other map, for example, this (at least this one has towns on it) or even here in WP, this. Also, not to talk when maps contradicts articles wich state that one town is in control of any of the sides of the conflict. So, no, unless we want to mess up the Syrian civil war more than it is yet, we cannot use general country maps with no towns to add particular towns.--HCPUNXKID 20:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, only a few days ago,Sopher99 reverting another user's edit because the lack of source, it seems he had changed his mind very, very quickly...Also, this is the excuse he gave for his unsourced edits. Someone should explain him that two wrongs dont make a right...--HCPUNXKID 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

cpmment this user was previously under sanction and still edit warred (in 2014 itself). It was whitewashed. But he has POV concerns on this topic, repeatedly. Based on this alone as veteran editor should know that tit-for-tat is not alright. An extended 'topic ban is in high order.Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99's editing of other contributors posts on this page

I have just noticed that Sopher99 has made significant changes to multiple posts by other contributors in this edit [11] where words have been replaced with '***' - one such word being 'troll'. Unfortunately I can't seem to revert this gross infringement of talk page guidelines.

It seems to me that regardless of other issues, this act of stupidity alone is quite sufficient grounds for an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, he replaced the words "troll" (and derivatives thereof) with "***", as well as "Devil's" (of which the only use was User:The Devil's Advocate's sig), all in the process of fixing a typo. I'm not sure this is intentional, tbh. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I saw something on VPT awhile back about something similar and it turned out to be some sort of plugin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, this happened to Sopher before due to some plugin, and they were advised to not edit Wikipedia if they could not get it to stop DP 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have three or four different word filters. I forgot they were on. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have an edit filter that replaces the word 'troll' with '***' in the text provided for editing? What is this filter called, and is this a default replacement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few, such as "Web-Filter Pro" and "Simple profanity filter" - their chrome extensions. I forgot they alter wikipedia editing text, but I turned them off now. Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with AndyTheGrump, this user thinks he can do everything he want without consequences, and it seems that previous time-limited blocks hadnt make him change his behaviour.--HCPUNXKID 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. My time limited blocks were for violations of the 1 revert rule. I have since stopped even approaching a situation that would lead to a revert violation. Sopher99 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, what you have done is learn how to evade the 1RR rule without being punished, something very different...--HCPUNXKID 17:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to show me an instance? Sopher99 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher think you should honestly admit that often were wrong. But you persistently trying to prove a point and I think it is not constructive. You find it easier to blame someone than to admit their mistakes. But I think it solve the admins who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did I blame someone else? No really, show me one point on this page where I blamed someone else for wrongdoing against wikipedia editing policy Sopher99 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx? No, I only said that users were fine with the edits he made, despite initial concerns on Feb 7th that were never re-adressed onward

HPUNXKID? No, I only said that he was the only one complaining about the edits I made, and little effort to consult me on his concerns, save for 2 sentences on the talkpage that no-one responded to and he never got back to. Thats not a breach of policy and not the cause of the problem.

So tell me again, who am I blaming for the problem? No-one, because my point is there is no problem, just a lapse in judgement about the construction of a template map. Sopher99 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you just had to to talk with the editor Barcaxx1980 and try to explain to him how need edit. If you look at his talk page then you will see what I tried to explain to him how need to properly edit . But he still newcomer unlike you . But you did not try to talk to him and just started to add the citys and villages without identifying the source. Although unlike you, he in most cases use some sources maybe he not always was right but he is new to this actually unlike you or other experienced editors. But all decide the admins because only they can say who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sopher, so your filters have apparently played Emily Post all over ANI. I'm surprised at your resentful and unapologetic attitude when this was pointed out; rather as if it was somebody else's fault. Why the ©@£$∞§=)(/&% don't you simply go back over the noticeboard and, you know, fix what happened? Especially the unlinking of The Devil's Advocate's sig. For another time, I strongly suggest section editing. It has many advantages at this busy board, and will presumably also prevent bowdlerizing filters from running amok all over it. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

ummm I'm not unapolegetic or resentful. And please tell me, where did I blame someone else for this? I blamed google chrome extensions for this. I don't think those count as people. To be honest I don't know where the changes were made, but now that I turned the filters off things appear to be normal. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should ask Google Chrome to fix it? All the replacements of words with asterisks still remain on the page. AndyTheGrump posted the diff that shows where the replacements are above, but here it is again. Please click on it, scroll down it and see the changes you made, and, I suggest, edit ANI a section at a time to fix them. You should stop dragging your feet. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Her calling Barcaxx1980 the one responsible because he is doing it (Giving unsourced material) is like "The pot calling the kettle black." I think she is just trying to blame someone else, because, "If Barcaxx1980 jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Barcaxx1980 is not to blame. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• What is he doing!!! some body sould stop him. He reverted 5 times with no source. You guys really made him crazy when you refused to give him those villages in Der-Alzor (for FSA against ISIS). Please give him Mars and tell him to leave the page. Opposition has no control in alawite and christian villages in Masyaf and west of Homs and Hama. and no control al all in Tartus. I gave him a map from opposition itself. It is very well known fact and he knows it very well, but as you refused to give him those villages in est of Syria, he will delete Damascus itself !!!

I know I am new, and I was not giving sources to every thing, but Hanibal and another user did tell me that and they guided me and checked my edits, and I am contacting them to understand how to make things in the right ways. But this guy Sopher99 is really amazing !!! He is a country himself and nobody can ever tell him what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcaxx1980 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN Concerns On Rupert Sheldrake Page

The Rupert Sheldrake page has become a particularly hostile place to edit, and not just because its controversial nature includes a high standard of evidence. The problem is that editors like vzaak and Barney the barney barney are treating this page like their own private soapbox to promote their POV, embodying WP:OWN, violating WP:CIVIL by being condescending or outright hostile and utterly rejecting honest attempts to improve a very tricky page. I have posted to Vzaak's and Barney^3's talk pages to try to resolve the issue, but as is mentioned before this has not worked historically.

As I feel there is still plenty to do on the Sheldrake page, I went in to see if I could bring some compromise with balanced, moderate edits backed by solid sourcing/explanations. After getting no feedback from my talk page proposals I went ahead and adjusted them, requested feedback and proposals if anyone had other ideas. The result was a wall of text full of scolding, warnings and declarations about my ignorance in the matter, accompanied by reverts of practically everything I’d changed, even the grammar corrections. The reasons for these reverts were convoluted and my attempts to address those reasons were ignored (ie. a punctuation revert was explained by a post of MOS:LQ despite my pointing out I had actually corrected a violation of it). A recurring theme was an insistence that any edit by me required my addressing all their demands and getting permission, while they consistently ignored my concerns and edited/reverted without any attempt at consensus. I continued to try to work toward some sort of resolution that fit WP:BLP standards and still addressed all the points they brought up, but every compromise has been summarily rejected and any work reverted to preserve Vzaak’s POV. Here are some related diffs:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594423326&oldid=594335472 (Vzaak here insinuates that I am a proxy user due to editing this topic. This is significant given the high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks" or "proxies")
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300294&oldid=595275653 (Here Vzaak warns me against making any changes to the article unless there is no argument on Talk, AFTER Vzaak made repeated changes to the article with no consensus)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594471532&oldid=594468825 (other editors arguing that changes should be made. Vzaak made superficial word changes that did not address the actual repetition of quotes)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vzaak&diff=595482595&oldid=595171376
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300708&oldid=595274343 (Reversed all changes, including grammatical ones that were correct under the very policy Vzaak used to justify the revert)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595430975&oldid=595422218 (revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak, ignored detailed description of reasons on talk page, extended far beyond personal “likes/dislikes”)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594707680&oldid=594469184 (there was no clear resolution on Talk, misrepresents “redundancy” as problem of simple word repetition, instead of repeating the exact same quote twice)

Barney^3 then weighed in, misrepresented my arguments and proceeded to write condescending ad-hominem insults on my Talk Page. For some reason he chastised me at length for fallacies and arguments I'd never advocated, written or supported. Here are some supporting diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The reason I’m bringing up what would otherwise just be a case of dispute resolution is the fact that this behavior is part of a long-term trend of hostility to alternative opinions, even when they are reasonable, neutral and supported by policy/sources. By systematically reverting edits, reprimanding editors and even harassing those who persist, Vzaak, Barney^3 and a few others have created such a toxic environment that no one else is able to make meaningful progress on the page that they’ve staked out. Whether this is intentional or not is a complex question, but what is certain is that this conduct violates the spirit of WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:CON, WP:HARASS, WP:IMPROVE, to name a few. In particular the feeling seems to be that WP:BLP is completely subordinate to WP:FRINGE, even though it is a biography page, not a theory page. The consequences have been serious and real, resulting in the driving off or aggravated blocking of a large number of otherwise qualified and well-intentioned editors (that in particular may be a larger problem than can be resolved on ANI, I fear).

In addition, Vzaak has made it clear that (until a very recent surge in mass-editing) they are a SPA: from Vzaak’s formation until Feb 11, 74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments were about Rupert Sheldrake. An indication of how heavily Vzaak has dominated the page is also referenced in the fact that Vzaak has made more edits to Rupert Sheldrake than the next three top editors combined. When you have such an emboldened Single Page Account, you end up with a Singe Account Page. That’s effectively what’s happened to Rupert Sheldrake.

This is a list of posts by editors who have given up/grown frustrated with this article, many of whom have had issues with Vzaak and Barney in the recent page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

These are posts by a very large number of editors, most of which have given up on the Sheldrage page, complaining of a long-recognized problem with POV and bias. These editors include David in DC, Iantresman, Lou Sander, The Devil's Advocate, and many others. Most of these posts feature Vzaak and Barney^3 prominently, establishing a pattern of conduct: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This behavior is hostile toward collaboration and detrimental to WP. Countless examples of this conduct establish that this is not an isolated occurrence. Over the past few months I've seen many hundreds of efforts at contribution end in frustration and over-zealous reverting, despite dozens of pleas for consensus, reasonability and accessibility (several of them made by myself). The reason the page is relatively static is not because it is particularly well-crafted, but because those who try to edit it are harassed until they leave, or, in many cases, are threatened by Vzaak and/or Barney^3 with sanctions of dubious legitimacy. This problem isn’t going away, but it is driving away people from WP.

I propose a topic ban on fringe articles against Vzaak and Barney^3 in order to remove the hostile and dominating environment that has developed there. Vzaak has proven to be a viable and useful editor in other areas, and I would not want to lose their future contributions to topics they are less opinionated about. Unless Vzaak is a SPA and has no purpose on WP except to advocate personal POV on fringe topics, this should be a relatively painless way to resolve months of conflict. Both Vzaak and Barney^3 have pursued such sanctions (and worse) against many other editors for far less, and the citations above indicate the sheer volume of disruption they are causing. The Cap'n (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by vzaak

I will skip the vague claims and move right to the numbered list of evidence. The "re" links are the original links given by Askahrc.

1. Proxying for Tumbleman, re[12].

Askahrc has been going around promoting Tumbleman's post-block claims.[13][14][15][16] The story is that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence. Callanec, since you handled this SPI would you please confirm that this claim by Tumbleman -- proxied here through Askahrc -- is not credible?

Askahrc is also saying that Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) were topic-banned because they were suspected socks of Tumbleman, a preposterous idea that was not mentioned in the respective AE requests, nor anywhere else that I am aware, except in Askahrc's recent activity.

Askahrc also relays Tumbleman's aspersions directed at me (echoed in Tumbleman's post-block socks) which somehow make it my fault that admins concluded that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE ("a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll")[17]. I don't think aspersions by proxy (of a blocked user, no less) are any more appropriate than direct aspersions.

Now Askahrc is taking up Tumbleman's first attempted change to the article, as described in the first paragraph of my statement in Tumbleman's AE[18].

2. Ignoring WP:BRD, re[19]

After Askahrc's bold deletion of a Sheldrake quote[20] (the same deletion Tumbleman made), the quote was eventually restored two days later by me. After failing to persuade others that the quote should be removed, he went ahead and replaced the quote with something else.[21] This was not a competent edit, as explained on the talk page -- the source does not connect morphic resonance to telepathy, nor does it even mention morphic resonance!

3. Askahrc's suggestion creates a positive change to the article, re[22]

Askahrc suggested the word "telepathy" was redundant in the lead. I incorporate this suggestion into the article.[23]

4. Askahrc posts a puzzling message to my talk page, re[24]

I don't know why this is mentioned. Maybe he thought I should have responded on Valentine's day?

5. Sources added to the article, re[25]

Askahrc said that remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect were "fringe science" and changed the article accordingly. I found that an extremely weird assertion, and added sources to back up the original wording.

I politely gave Askahrc a pointer to WP:LQ[26], because his edit[27], with comment "Grammar. Periods go within quotations." is against the MOS. The sources do not contain the periods that Askahrc inserted into the quotes.

6. Revert by IRWolfie-, re[28]

Whatever -- paranormal, parapsychological, don't care. In the talk page I said "parapsychological", but I was referring to the original wording "paranormal". This is not the kind of diff that warrants mention in an ANI.

7. Same as #3

Askahrc is strangely claiming that I misrepresented the redundancy problem as simple word repetition. Askahrc gave two sentences from the lead,[29]

• Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
• His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as telepathy and "the sense of being stared at"[7][8]

and said of these two sentences, "They seem completely redundant to me". I removed the redundancy, per Askahrc's suggestion.

IP troll

Askahrc says that someone -- who? -- is "reprimanding editors", with a link given to here. The person doing the "reprimanding" is this IP: 134.139.22.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP, which is in the same geolocation as Tumbleman, began a flurry of trolling activity four hours after Tumbleman's confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow was blocked.[30] Is this IP Tumbleman? It doesn't matter, it's just a troll. For all I know it could be Askahrc -- the IP is at California State University, Long Beach, Askahrc's own school, as stated in his user page.[31] I'm not claiming it is, I'm just saying that the troll could be anyone, and the matter has no relevance here.

Conclusion

Totally strange, to me. Askahrc makes claims like "74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments" are by me, but just links to my contributions. Moreover, the claim is objectively false because I am the #3 contributor of talk page comments.[32] Obviously, the #3 contributor cannot contribute 81% of comments!

I believe I have been extremely patient with Askahrc, offering extensive explanation and detail on the issue.[33]

Perhaps a community ban of Tumbleman would help avoid this kind of disruptive proxying. vzaak 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Askahrc is a single purpose account which edits from a Pro-Fringe angle on Rupert Sheldrake. He appears to ignore his own SPA status while commenting on others being single purpose. From what I have seen Askahrc/The Cap'n continued from where Tumbleman left off (including posting big messages of support on tumbleman's page: [34]) and has done more to stir up controversy where there is none than any current editor. Strangely enough I have been characterised by Cap'n as an "affiliate" of Vzaak despite minimal interactions. It is also unseemly that Cap'n appears to have mentioned sympathetic editors with the express purpose of notifying them of this conversation, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Typical Wall O Text allegation as frequently made on the Talk:Rupert Sheldrake page by those who ignore or cannot comprehend that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP not only allow but call for the well sourced content by appropriately accredited experts representing the mainstream academic view to be the appropriate measures for content in the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't checked whether Askahrc (talk · contribs) is a pro-Sheldrake SPA, but I have been working on the basis that he is a self-appointed "BLP warrior" with apparently honest intentions of trying to ensure that WP:BLP is applied to the letter of the law. However, he simply is an extremely clueless and massively WP:INCOMPETENT BLP warrior. The effect of his efforts seem to be to remove well cited statements of Sheldrake's views, in order to make him appear "more mainstream" - i.e less wacky. However the article doesn't take a position on Sheldrake's views - it merely states what they are and what the mainstream scientific reception to his views have been per WP:FRINGE (you can see from the article that the reception hasn't been pretty). "The Captain" is reading between the lines and concluding that there are BLP issues that simply aren't there. WP:ARB/PS sanctions should be considered. I and vzaak have done a lot of research into this topic, and it isn't helpful when someone arrives who is clearly deficient in knowledge and understanding both of the subject and Wikipedia policies, and starts threatening people with WP:AN/I when he doesn't get his way. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• @Cap'n: Posting at such length as in your OP is counterproductive as regards getting uninvolved input, as it's likely to drive uninvolved admins, or anybody with any time constraints, away from the thread. I suggest you post an executive summary another time. This time it doesn't make much difference, as you're in any case extravagantly unlikely to get what you ask for, a topic ban against vzaak and Barney. Their work defending Rupert Sheldrake against fringe POV-pushers may not get much thanks from day to day, but I for one am grateful for it. Thank you, guys. Following mainstream science and reliable sources actually isn't a POV, Cap'n, it's the essence of WP:NPOV as detailed in WP:UNDUE. P.S., I'm intrigued by your phrase "revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak". If you're insinuating some impropriety — tag teaming? meat puppetry? — please say so outright. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
• This is going to seem a little scattered, as I'm responding to a number of different posts here. First off, a quick summary (you're right, Bishonen, that's my bad):

vzaakand Barney the barney barney have a long history of dominating the Rupert Sheldrake page and resisting cooperation. WP:OWN, WP:FAITH

I tried to make moderate, neutral edits (please see diffs above to confirm) but every edit was arbitrarily reverted with specious explanations. WP:CONS

In keeping with a long established habit(see complaints by other editors above), Barney^3 has begun launching ad-hominem attacks while Vzaak begins to argue that if I continue to edit the Sheldrake page I must be a sockpuppet/proxy. WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS

First of all, the editors who have criticized this post happen to be a who's who of those who are still able to edit the Sheldrake page freely (Bishonen excepted). I regret this post was over-long, I tried to trim it down, but I'll put together a summary to post below. Regarding the comment IRWolfie is a "longtime affiliate", it appears to my examination of edit histories that the two tended to curtail the same sort of edits at about the same time, and that IRWolfie rarely got involved without Vzaak also being active there. I can't prove tagteaming, however, so that's why I didn't include that editor in the incident. As far as my being more of a SPA than Vzaak; the very first edit Vzaak made was to Rupert Sheldrake, as was the greater part of the next 2000, whereas I've been around for over 5 years and only recently began giving a damn about this page. As to that interest, I've made 21 edits to the page and only 50 talk comments, compared to Vzaak's 645 and 393, respectively. Vzaak tried to claim my data is false because they're the 3rd contributor on the Talk Page, but I explicitly stated I was listed the Article's statistics and that data is accurate. I don't have an issue with Vzaak talking the most, I have an issue when Vzaak edits more than most people combined and then prevents others from doing so. As for the contributions page, I linked there because that is where I compiled that data. I didn't think an excel sheet of my own findings would be well received here, so I directed editors to the source I got the data from. How's this for a deal from an "SPA": If Vzaak agrees to a Fringe topic ban, I'll agree to one as well. I don't have a ax to grind with Fringe either way, and if it removes a major disruption from the topic I can edit all the rest of WP in peace.

Vzaak spends almost as much time talking about Tumbleman (which has nothing to do with these issues) as about this specific problem. I'm also beginning to be called a Tumbleman proxy (you know, it is possible for editors other than Tumbleman to care about this issue), or that I am in fact several of the hostile editors myself because one of the skeptical posts came from Cal State Long Beach, my old school (BTW, I graduated some time ago and I'm not prone to posting diatribes from my alma mater). As far proxying, I've been transparent that I disagreed with the gist of the Tumbleman block, and that I spoke to this editor later. This is not being a proxy, it's having an interest, and all of the positions I have put forth have been mine. If they're covering the same areas that Tumbleman and countless others have, its because these issues are apparent to a lot of people and yet don't get fixed. Finally and most importantly, the argument that I am trying to present a pro-Fringe perspective is easily disproven. For instance, if I were trying to get rid of a quote in order to make Sheldrake look better, I probably wouldn't keep insisting that we defer to using the longer block of the exact same text! Nor would I try to find other quotes that say almost the same thing about Telepathy. I've been trying to reach some sort of consensus, but it's not even a matter of not compromising at this point, it's a matter of not allowing anyone to make any changes, even if they're still 95% your POV. I'm not trying to make Sheldrake's page seem more mainstream and have never tried to say his views are (show me an example where I defend MR as accepted by science or appearing feasible!). Note that neither Vzaak nor Barney^3 offered to attempt more consensus-building or to try and be more hospitable to other editors, instead slinging accusations of proxying (Vzaak) or simply acknowledging that anyone who disagrees with them is too ignorant to be allowed to edit their page (Barney^3). None of them have shown any evidence that they have not been abusive. The Cap'n (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Askahrc, adding more vague claims isn't helping your case. For instance if you accuse someone of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:HARASS, you have to provide evidence of such. When have I been uncivil toward you? When have I harassed you?

The discussion on the talk page seems fine to me, apart from your not being very informed about the subject matter and not really understanding the responses you received. You didn't even understand when I reverted your quoting mistakes and referred you to WP:LQ.

My first reaction to your choosing to make the same edits as a blocked user was: "While this feels like proxying for a blocked user, I shall assume this is not the case, but there should be a compelling reason to rehash the issue."[35] We discussed issue with the proxying concern aside.

I never accused you of being a sockpuppet. I would never accuse anyone of that outside of filing an SPI.

You are the one who brought up proxying here, so I had to respond to that, with evidence. And the evidence shows that you came into the Sheldrake page with a host of misconceptions which have undoubtedly contributed to your difficulty. Perhaps the first step you could take is to carefully study, without prejudice, this evidence. I'm sorry, but you've been conned.

Barney has contributed the majority of the pro-Sheldrake material in the article. For instance he dug up the "astonishingly visionary" quote. We're not bad people. vzaak 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake makes his fifth or sixth appearance on AN/I and I can't see any improvement since the fall. I'm one of the editors who left discussing this article because the discussion became so polarized. I don't understand at all why a handful of editors are so invested in controlling the content of this one particular article, it is surely not worth the animosity that has resulted from trying to improve it.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on Sheldrake's work, pro or con. But I think it becomes toxic if every time a new editor shows up who is marked as having a specific point of view (and everyone has a point of view), they get labeled as being a sock, a proxy or representing a fringe POV. If enough editors on the talk page concur and the label sticks, that new editor is hassled and all of their edits will be reverted. It's not just a problem on the Sheldrake article, I've seen it happen elsewhere but it's been a perennial problem with Sheldrake. Once someone is labeled as "fringe", other editors just tune them out and start seeing them as a vandal. It's really destructive for Wikipedia (especially because those doing the labeling view their zealousness as protecting WP) to have articles that just a few editors with a particular point of view own.

Now, I haven't provided a long list of diffs or named any names. I think if you visit the Talk Page discussions, you can get a sense of the dynamics. Personally, I don't want to spend my Saturday reading divisive, archived TP conversations, I just wanted to support The Cap'n's opinion that this is a situation that needs to be addressed. I wish it could be done without topic bans and blocks but this article has been a mess since (at least) August 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I support The Cap'n's comments about the situation, and I believe that his proposed solution would be helpful. I endorse the comments of Liz. The article is owned, which no article should be, and the owner and its cohorts are not good stewards; (note their typical accusatory comments above, not to mention their claims of special expertise and good intentions). One of the problem editors of the Sheldrake article voluntarily withdrew from it. That might be a good solution for some of the others. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lou Sander, the irony is that if this was one of the earlier times this article came to AN/I, there would be over a dozen editors commenting. But most of those who were active or made a stab at it, have thrown in the towel. So, there might be less fighting there now but only because there is an invisible "Do Not Trespass" sign that becomes apparent once you actually try to edit the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, you helped extend the problems with the article as much as you could when you continually supported the troll and sockpuppeteer Tumbleman at the article. You also avoided reading the evidence of disruption and sockpuppetry as much as you could, and further went on to accuse other random editors of sockpuppetry without evidence. Is it really surprising that this article has issues when there are people prolonging the drama? (And I know you haven't read a thing to date, especially when you wade in saying Personally, I don't want to spend my Saturday reading divisive, archived TP conversations,, you've decided your angle, and you'll jump to support those editors who agree with it). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What IRWolfie (talk · contribs) says about Liz (talk · contribs) is extremely insightful. Having at least 1% of a clue is usually desirable before commenting. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz has made serious allegations without providing any evidence to back them up. That is unhelpful. Cardamon (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Liz: Your comments are not helpful as they do not acknowledge reality: single-purpose accounts do focus on Rupert Sheldrake (who argues that morphic resonance is responsible for interspecies telepathy), and the attempts to polish that article violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The complaints in the OP are far too long and vague. If no one is suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG, this should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@vzaak, I never said and don't think you're bad people. For the majority of my edits dealing with you and tRPoD I've been very respectful of your efforts and appreciative of your POV (which I tend to share). My issue comes with the behavior that has backed up that POV, and the degree to which that POV appears to motivate the editing on Sheldrake's page. I agree with the statement that the Sheldrake page is dominated by SPA editing, though I politely disagree with the conclusion of which side that SPA is on. I think it's disingenuous to say that you've never presented a pattern of hostility when you consider the fact that the majority of editors with whom you've used the terms you've used against me (proxy, SPA, etc) have ended up with sanctions against them that you feature prominently in. As far as presenting Barney the barney barney as a helpful moderate, I find that shockingly misleading. I have rarely encountered someone who is less civil than Barney^3, whose first recourse is to repeatedly call disagreeing editors stupid and ignorant (as seen above and in the diffs I provided).

Liz has not been disruptive and has barely interfaced with the Sheldrake argument except to remark on the problems I listed above. If either myself or Liz have been abusive or violated any type of policy or NPOV, please list the diffs. Otherwise, please consider the fact that this very ANI has been a showcase of the mentioned editors declaring that anyone they disagree with does not possess the right or capability to edit on the Sheldrake page. My notice may have been overlong, but I included dozens of diffs showcasing problematic behavior, and can include dozens more showing WP:OWN, while they have not provided any diffs or evidence demonstrating the unsuitability of the edits they have reverted time and again (exactly what problems are they resolving at this point?), nor addressed the abusive behavior of Barney^3 at all. With all due respect to the admins, I feel you are being mislead in this case. Vzaak and Barney^3 may be valuable editors in general, but on the Sheldrake page at this time they are dominating all discussion and mandating a POV. I don't wish to ramble on too much longer (a fault of mine), but if it would be helpful to list out more diffs demonstrating WP:OWN I can readily do so; I can get as specific as anyone would like. Please do not dismiss this case as a result of my regrettable verbosity. The Cap'n (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary to your assertion Askahrc (talk · contribs) - I am not exhibiting disruptive behaviours typical of WP:OWN. I am willing to discuss content with other editors, to the point of bending over backwards to be reasonable with editors who clearly think that WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE should not apply to this article (although there is a limit that has been crossed several times). I am willing to let others edit the article. I am willing to allow content that is the "consensus version" even when I have somewhat subtle disagreements over wording. What I will work against is attempts to have this article excepted from expected standards of WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE. There is a difference here that you are wilfully ignoring: You are conflating competence, knowledge, interest and understanding of a topic with WP:OWN because you haven't go consensus for your changes. Get that consensus, and even if I disagree, I won't press the issue. That is fair, and it is how Wikipedia should work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this as concise as possible (though it goes against my nature...). I agree with you that WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE should apply to this article, but those are not the only or the ultimate concerns on this page. WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV (on the flip side) are equally important but not acknowledged by your conduct.

Here are a list of diff examples of you disdaining consensus when you disagree with the outcome: 1, 2, 3, 4

Here is a list of diff examples of hostile or strongly POV statements (there are many more but unfortunately I do not have the time to dig for more): 1, 2, 3, 4

I am not making absolutist statements that you've never allowed anyone to edit the article, but I am saying that you, Vzaak and a few of the other qualified anti-Fringe "consensus-builders" you reference in your diff wield a disproportionate amount of authority on the page, which has only grown more definitive and WP:OWN since the majority of those who disagreed with you were conveniently either scared off or sanctioned. The Cap'n (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any action will be taken right now, The Cap'n. But I can guarantee you that this article will be back again on AN/I in due time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

(I have changed the title to clarify that this is yet another Ryulong thread. --Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC))

Don't change the thread title. That's completely out of line.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Last year, I raised my issues with Nanshu (talk · contribs) and his extreme rudeness in regards to editing the same articles. No action was taken because for whatever reason, he stopped editing after the report. He has recently decided to disrupt WP:MOS-JA and in this lengthy diatribe he takes multiple pot shots at me, calling the proposal that has had a consensus formed as "utter nonsense", saying I'm WP:OWNing the section on the MOS (based on two discussions from 3 to 4 years ago), and calling into question my opinion because I'm in the top 100 editors by number of edits. There is no reason that Nanshu should be allowed to make these attacks in his attempts to form a new consensus (not to mention he acted without one) now or last year or ever. As was suggested in August 2013, I'm bringing this up, again, because he has done the exact same thing he did at Talk:Hokkaido and Talk:Ryukyu Islands and he's going to disappear for several more months when nothing can be done to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

His latest edits to WT:MOS-JA are more of the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Reading the links I get the impression that Ryulong (talk · contribs) is attempting to abuse this board to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Nanshu's reasonable comments about Ryulong's behaviour isn't a personal attack if it is true. Who knows why Nanshu may have "disappeared" in the past, people do have real life commitments, but certainly Ryulong's evident intimidatory behaviour could be a factor. Posting this[36] to an admin's talk page ten minutes after posting to this board appears odd given that this board is patrolled by admins anyway, so it he seems to be WP:ADMINSHOPing to boot. And Ryulong's claim of being "in the top 100 editors by number of edits" as justification of his behaviour indicates an issue of WP:OWN does exist and appears to be impacting his ability to work with other editors in a collegiate and constructive manner. --Nug (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  Nug, you are misconstruing everything I have said and done to your goals, as you have done in the disputes on Talk:Soviet Union. I contacted Nihonjoe several hours after the initial posting here because he is also a major editor of Japanese articles, not because he is an administrator. And I was pointing out that Nanshu in his edit here said that because I have such a high number of edits that my opinion on the matters on that page should not be acknowledged for some strange reason. I am not coming here to gain the upper hand. Nanshu's behavior has been problematic for several years and he acts this way to more than just myself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  One only has to compare your block log with Nanshu's block log to see whose behaviour has been more problematic over the years. --Nug (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  And now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  You claimed Nanshu's behavior has been problematic for several years, yet the evidence of his block log does not support your accusation, therefore you just violated WP:NPA. --Nug (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I have not violated NPA. I have provided diffs to show that he's combative and rude yestrday and last year in August. The fact he has not been blocked for this and I have been blocked for unrelated issues does not prove anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I've reviewed the diffs and I don't think Nanshu was being any more rude in calling your argument "utter nonsense" than you were in calling his argument a "lengthy diatribe". The fact that you brought this content dispute here while Nanshu initiated a Request for a third opinion, demonstrates that you are the one with the combative attitude, not Nanshu. --Nug (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  This is not about his request. It is about his chronic rudeness towards me. And 12k of text essentially saying how "Ryulong is wrong and here's why" is a lengthy diatribe if I ever saw one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu's latest comments at WT:MOS-JA continue to include personal attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To address one point brought up by Nug, we don't compare the block logs of two editors and reward the shorter one in a dispute. A block log can assist an admin in determining an appropriate escalation if an editor's misbehavior continues, and in a general sense it can give an idea of what kind of disruption or other trouble a person may be prone to. But that's it. It's not really worth bringing up a block log comparison in this situation.

As to Ryulong's initial request... I was going to state that this doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks, but Nanshu is clearly taking a stance of superiority against you while claiming you were "the guy who was incapable of understanding what transliteration was even though he was given a short lecture about it". In light of this edit which earned Nanshu a warning back in August, it's clear what they're trying to say. They're being more circumspect about it this time but it's still an ad hominem and so I'll leave a stronger warning. The fact that Nanshu has at least tempered the language suggests that maybe there's an attempt to be more civil (though it could just be wikilawyering to dance around a violation of WP:NPA) but I think that this warrants a warning. And for what it's worth, I have a basic understanding of Japanese so I can understand what the dispute is here (Romanization standards for languages related to but not exactly Japanese) though I have no intention of getting directly involved there. -- Atama頭 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between Nanshu telling Ryulong is "wrong and here's why", and Ryulong calling Nanshu "a kind of asshole". --Nug (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also a difference between acknowledging that what I said is wrong and spending 50 sentences attacking another editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that Nanshu didn't spend "50 sentences attacking another editor", that is just an egregious exaggeration. Nanshu mentioned you exactly twice and devoted the remaining 99% discussing content. Only the Pope can plead infallibility, being told you are wrong with respect to content isn't an ad hominem attack by any stretch of the imagination. Your complaint against Nanshu is a total beat-up. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought so at first (I even wrote two paragraphs essentially saying what you just said) until I paid closer attention. There is no excuse for Nanshu stating that someone (anyone) is "incapable of understanding" and taking the position of being the teacher who is dealing with a hopeless student. And I noticed that it was almost identical to the speech that Nanshu used back in August against Ryulong, except that he was careful to not call him "stupid" directly but to use other terminology. You're correct that 99% of that long diatribe was on content (well, maybe more like 95%) but it's the part that wasn't on content that is the concern. Even if Nanshu is correct (and I don't have personal knowledge about katakana usage for Ainu and Ryukyu language terms, nor am I inserting myself into a content dispute) that doesn't excuse the position he is taking. Nanshu can make his argument successfully without denigrating other editors in the process. There's a big difference between saying "you're wrong" and saying "you're an idiot". Keep in mind, I have no objection to Nanshu stating that Ryulong's statement is nonsense, that is attacking an editor's argument and is definitely not a personal attack. I'll concede that Ryulong's comment calling Nanshu an "asshole" on the WikiProject Japan talk page was also an attack and Nanshu did not rise to the bait in that discussion which shows restraint to me. -- Atama頭 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like everyone agrees that Ryulong is a disruptive editor. He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. That's what I keep in mind when dealing with this editor. But you would admit it is not a easy job.

I usually think pointing out that someone is stupid is meaningless because it does not make him/her less stupid. Frankly speaking, I do not know if Ryulong is really stupid or just pretends to be. That's not the point. The real problem is that he tactically uses stupidity to disrupt discussions. When Ryulong is involved, discussions become overly long. If they purely focused on content disputes, they might have been necessary costs. However, he refuses to understand what others say, repeats the same thing again and again, and makes things personal disputes. Life is short and we like to spend our time achieving productive outcomes. We are editting an encyclopedia. --Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ANd this is just more of the same. He changed the thread title to turn this on me when it is completely unnecessary and his comment here is just more talking down to me, as he does here, which includes an accusation of WP:Advocacy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that changing the thread title is completely out of line. I recall multiple situations on ANI where an accusatory thread title was altered to make it clear that it was an accusation and not a declaration of fact. I'm going to remove the user name from the thread title, how about that? Since there are multiple accusations of ad hominem attacks here, I think that it's more accurate anyway.

For Nanshu... My warning to you still stands. I'm quite aware of WP:COMPETENCY, it has its place in discussions, and I've used it myself. It's relevant when an editor lacks the ability to participate at Wikipedia, either due to being unable to communicate in English, or having a fundamental inability to understand others' points of view to the extent that they are just unable to collaborate. It's sometimes important to call a spade a spade and not overlook a person's inability to participate constructively out of a fear of appearing rude. But that's not what's happening here. Both Ryulong and yourself are more than competent enough to be here. So don't try to shut Ryulong out of discussions because you don't want Ryulong to participate. If you're correct, show that you're correct without attacking him. I read what Ryulong called a "diatribe" and what you wrote was well-written, thoughtful, and compelling, and if you hadn't taken potshots at your opponent then there would be no controversy. Do you feel the need to belittle him to win your point, or should you have more confidence in yourself than that? My last point to you is this... Whatever your qualifications and knowledge, this is not a classroom where you are the professor, and Ryulong is not your student. Please don't take that position, no matter how superior you think your argument and knowledge is. Sway consensus to your side with your argument alone. A truly intelligent person doesn't have call someone stupid to show that he's intelligent, he merely has to demonstrate what his intelligence is capable of.

For Ryulong... Although I warned Nanshu, don't think that I've ignored your remark from the first of this month. That's a clear personal attack, even though you tried to mitigate it by saying he was "kind of an asshole", and even though you were reluctantly agreeing with him. If you want to strengthen the magnitude of your agreement with someone by pointing out that the two of you typically have a conflict, there are much better ways to do that without resorting to insults (especially vulgar ones). You see how that comment comes back to bite you. Please take more care in the future. You tend to get yourself embroiled in situations that spill onto noticeboards like this one, and the last thing you need is for people to be able to bring that out against you. So for your own sake, try to keep it more civil. -- Atama頭 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Violation of editing restriction by CensoredScribe

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

---

CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) from 18:02 to 19:09 CS added the categories Category:Films featuring puppetry or Category:Television programs featuring puppetry to more than 15 articles. Earlier today CS also added the cat Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction to several articles. This would seem to be a violation of the restrictions that were agreed to in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#CensoredScribe above. As usual most of these additions ignore the guidelines WP:DEFINING as well the fact that sourced info needs to be in the article before the cat can be added. More than one editor has mentioned the fact that CS should read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yet the edits performed ignore both of these. We have had more than one thread regarding these edits in the last week or so and at the end of them CS seems to accept the restrictions agreed upon. Within a day or two CS returns to the old editing patterns. This shows WP:COMPETENCE problems. (Redacted) MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe back at violating editing restrictions after previous block

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

---

And as soon as the previous block expires, CensoredScribe is back at making mass changes to categories again.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This comes after several different editors expressly explained his situation to him on his talk page. At this point I'm not convinced in the slightest that things are going to change. GRAPPLE X 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Again? Already? Having read through the long thread at User talk:CensoredScribe where CS entirely fails to understand why the last block was imposed [44], I would like to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be indefinitely blocked from editing, as clearly lacking the necessary competence to contribute to wikipedia in any useful capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Floquenbeam already blocked CensoredScribe for a month, with the warning that next block will be indefinite. I think that's enough for now. But I think I share Andy's skepticism that any of this is sinking in. CensoredScribe seems to not take any of this seriously, given their apology to dragons and quoting Darth Vader in the recent request to clarify the topic ban. -- Atama頭 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, set his restriction to "CensoredScribe may not add or remove categories from articles under any circumstances. They may only suggest adding or removing categories on the article talk page but must include specific references in support of adding any categories, but may suggest category changes to no more than one article per day." Don't even let him play around with categories. The talk page thing is a bone to see if they can improve. If they can't, that can be removed as well. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't even want to allow that much (the talk page stuff); there is no value whatsoever to this person's input into categorization. Categorizing JRR Tolkien's One Ring as a "Fictional WMD" makes my brain go all wibbly-wobbly. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had to re-block without talk page access, their recent contributions really aren't much more than trolling. If a month off doesn't help, I definitely think an indef block is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In the mean time, should the topic ban be expanded to include all changes, additions, deletions, and any other changes to categories? Essentially dropping the "mass" wording from the topic ban's language as well as the exception for any one article that he is focused on editing specifically. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• That would make sense, but for all practical purposes the exact scope and wording of the topic ban no longer really matter. As it stands CensoredScribe has exhausted the community's patience and goodwill to the point that ANY disruptive editing, including but not limited to messing with categories, trolling, or even just wasting the community's time will be dealt with by a swift indef block that no admin in their right mind would undo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would be very surprised if anyone objected to an indefinite block - it probably would've gotten widespread support if it had been enacted this time around! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say after a month off the next move is just skip the whole indef discussion and just put up a CBAN review. It's pretty obvious that CS just doesn't it despite the repeated clubbings with the cluebat.Blackmane (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since the user is blocked without even talk page access, it's yet to be seen whether this block has been instructive at curbing CS's reckless behavior. Let him/her be judged on their edits after the block is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Carlossuarez46 mass-creating articles

There is no consensus for administrative action resulting from this discussion. It has however been become obvious that the massive article creations by Carlossuarez46 are thought to be problematic by more than one editor and they are part of a larger problem concerning the thresholds of notability and automated edits. This is, however, not the right venue to discuss issues like notability of populated places and bot-like editing, and one recommended place to continue the discussion about such problems is WP:BRFA. While I'm closing this thread I'm also urging Carlossuarez46 to voluntarily cease his article creations until such time he has gained approval by consensus. Any continuation by Carlossuarez46 would appear like making a point and would further discredit his actions. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) is creating thousands of articles - between 2 and 10 per minute.

I've asked them to stop to discuss it, per WP:MASSCREATION.

The user has responded, but has not stopped since being asked. [45]

Ongoing creations

22:57, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bajar ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,835)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,781)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,799)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,827)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Yar Mohammad ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,820)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,812)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Anur ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,813)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,781)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gargij ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,767)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,806)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,882)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Qir Mohammad Mir Kazehi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,813)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,821)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bi Barg Rigi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,824)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Esmailabad ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,780)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Amirabad ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,755)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Saraj ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,840)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Yusef Hasan Zehi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,772)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khodadad, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,827)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Qader Bakhsh ‎ (create) (current) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,755)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bajar, Khash ‎ (create) (current)

88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:88.104.19.233 is an admitted sock puppet (see its talk page where he/she admits using multiple accounts, but nowhere does he link them as required by WP:SOCK). Each of the articles is notable and in the creation of the stub categories (see stub categories for creation), all this was discussed long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not admit that. I admit I have edited Wikipedia in the past. I have followed all due policies and guidelines in respect of that.

Plus, that is a utterly separate issue; feel free to start SPI or whatever you wish.

WP:MASSCREATION says, clearly, "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." - and "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed."

Carlossuarez46 is creating thousands of articles, at a speed that must be considered 'bot-like'. There are concerns with at least some of the articles being made - but it is unrealistic to address the concerns whilst they make 50 more articles in the time I've spent replying here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• • The IP does not appear to be doing anything wrong, as there is no rule against editing while logged out or any requirement to disclose the name of your account if you do edit while logged out. Reyk _YO! 23:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it. If they will not, I ask admins to stop them. I'll be happy to discuss the articles, but this is an ongoing disruption - which is the only reason I am posting on ANI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• We're now discussing; the difficulty with the anon is that we have no idea whether he/she is participating in more than one incarnation. Logging out to do edits that you don't want to be reflected in your "real" account is problematic. Does User:Reyk consider that to be acceptable editing? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do consider that to be acceptable editing. Policy explicitly allows it. Unless the edits themselves are disruptive (which I see no evidence of), there's no problem with anything 88.104 is doing. If you're not satisfied with that you know the way to SPI, but in the meantime is there a reason for your apparently automated creation of zillions of badly sourced microstubs? Reyk _YO! 23:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it. If they will not, I ask admins to stop them. I'll be happy to discuss the articles, but this is an ongoing disruption - which is the only reason I am posting on ANI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If they'll stop, then the rest of this can all be discussed amicably over a nice-cup-of-whatever-beverage-you-prefer. That includes allogations of my breaching SOCK policy, and debates about masscreation, and discussion of sourcing, etc. -I've asked the user to stop, and they haven't done so; that's why I'm seeking admin intervention - to extinguish the ongoing fire. They've created about 20 more in the few minutes since I first posted here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

C, I agree that "Logging out to do edits that you don't want to be reflected in your "real" account is problematic". But I am not doing that. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most of the articles seem to be for places. They appear to be trying to turn {{Khash County}} blue.--Auric talk 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Auric, sure, and I'm happy to discuss that. But please glance at [46] and indeed just their ongoing contribs.

 Right now, they must stop and discuss. Right now. If not sooner. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's interesting, but it gives no timescale.--Auric talk 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*What you are doing is avoiding WP:SCRUTINY; what axes have you to grind? what is your real position? have we had history you don't want anyone to know about? That's part of the problem - if you won't tell us your real account how does the community know you're not me (you're not we both know that but no one else does) or anyone else who comments here.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No axes, nothing to hide. But that's irrelevant right now. Do whatever you like to me later. Just stop. Then we can talk. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*You fail to assume good faith; why would I "do something to you to later" - I didn't even block you as a sock or start an SPI on you - geez. So far you haven't forwarded a single objection to anything I've created; you say you want to discuss but you haven't said anything meaningful on topic. And when you do, your comments can be assessed, but if you won't show us what your position is, how can we assess that properly? As I told you these were discussed at the stub creation long long ago - for all I know you were there then. WP is not a bureaucracy. I ask you to stop editing in your logged out mode and come to the table as your (wiki)self. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't even block you as a sock or start an SPI" - gosh, thanks! I am so very grateful that your munificence, the Admin, didn't just abuse your powers.

I have a reason: WP:MASSCREATION. I can give specific reasons regarding specific articles, if you'll just damn well stop for a bit!

I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with you in the past, FWIW - although still, it's irrelevant.

You're an admin, for Gods' sake. Please stop disrupting the wiki, and fall back on core principles, so we can discuss it. Surely you can see that creating 10 articles per minute needs a bit of a chat, without explicit approval? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• So we've had interaction. What was it? This is the part of you anon where no-one can tell your real motives. As I said and keep saying: this was discussed long ago. It doesn't need to be discussed routinely regularly. About 90% of the populated places in Iran are now completed; you think that we don't need the rest? What other articles don't we need? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem unable to read; I said, "I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with you in the past".

As you have raised the topic of your adminship, I looked up your RfA. I note that it is from 2007, and is considerably different from current standards. So it is natural that, after so long, you might not be aware of current expectations.

Would you be prepared to submit to a fresh RfA? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since you're a sock we can never know what other editors think of you...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think Carlossquarez46 needs to follow policy and get Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval approval for mass creation. NE Ent 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*You started out of the gate accusing me that I would do something to you... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand that statement; please clarify it and supply diffs. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your addition above "Do whatever you like to me later." speaks for itself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here. Carlossuarez46 has been writing stubs on Iranian settlements since 2011, and I don't see any reason why he should stop now. WP:MASSCREATION isn't applicable here, since it doesn't appear that he's using any kind of automated process; when all he has to do is copy the previous article and change the population info, it's rather easy to create multiple articles in a minute. Unless there's some flaw in the Iranian census data (and if there is, the IP hasn't mentioned it), these are all sourced articles on notable topics. If there's a legitimate complaint about the quality of the source, I'd be interested in hearing it, but otherwise I don't see why the IP is demanding that a three-year article-writing project be stopped now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There's probably no problem at all with the creations, which should make getting the required approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval fairly straightforward. NE Ent 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

My first post in this matter was to ask you to stop and discuss. [47]

Your response was on my own talk, "I'm a bot not a human". [48]. Again, I asked you to stop while we discussed, but you continued.

And that is how we arrived here at ANI.

I don't think I 'started out of the gate' with any accusations at all.

However, you started out by accusing me of being a sock. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the response was "I'm not a bot, I'm a human"[49]; precisely the opposite of what you claim. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31 do you think anyone can create 10 articles within 1 minute without using automation?

I do indeed have questions about the source quality, and I can discuss that if he'll stop to give me a chance! 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, open 10 browser windows, have the articles written in word and cut and paste. You'd be happier if these went one per minute, that can also be done, but it would just be a longer stretch of my time. You talk about your vague objections but nothing concrete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then perhaps there is nothing for you to lose by pausing for a few minutes and allowing the IP to expand in their apparent concerns? You can always resume if their complaints are meritless. Resolute 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• No, see WP:MEATBOT. Whether Carlossuarez46 is use full automation, semi-automation, or even cut-and-paste doesn't matter. NE Ent 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As you can see, I haven't created a new article for about an hour and anon has raised nothing during that period. How much longer does he or she need? As for WP:MEATBOT there is no sacrificing of quality nor disruption. Show me the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• There is no universally accepted definition of "automation," but any series of rapid edits may be considered automation. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Identifying_the_use_of_automation_tools and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Amendment_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28Nobody_Ent.29. NE Ent 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, Re "vague objections" - I can make specific objections, and discuss this, within 24 hours.

Can you please stop creating the new articles for 24 hours, to give me a chance to respond?

If so, this ANI discussion is concluded.

The 'side issues' about my alleged socking, and your admin conduct, could be discussed elsewhere on more appropriate fora. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC) striking, per the below 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually - I think the best solution would be if you'd submit a Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and we can discuss it there before you continue. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll hold off for 24 hours to hear your specific objections; there is a Wikipedia:RSNB as a forum if you think that the sources are not reliable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I struck my "24" thing just as you were replying.

Will you go via BRFA before making any more? Or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• You have 24 hours to present your objections. Speak or hold your peace. Excessive drama on your part is wasting everyone's time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Carlossuarez46, you are causing the "drama" here. You were, in good faith, mass creating articles in violation of a policy you weren't aware of. No big deal. However, once the policy was pointed out to you you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, unsupported sock accusations and WP:IDHT. Unless you can get the WP:MASSCREATION policy changed in the next 24 hours, your deadline is meaningless. (A quick check of notability guidelines, which I'm no so expert at, makes me think the articles are likely fine so I think you should not have an issue getting the necessary approval.) NE Ent 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to 'You have 24 hours' I do not accept that.

I think it's bullying.

I ask admins to take necessary measures to prevent you from mass creating articles unless/until you receive appropriate approval, per policy. Besides, last I heard, there was no deadline.

I'm confident I could provide objections within 24 hours, but I don't see why I - personally - should have to deal with such a 'deadline'. I think you need to go through the appropriate channels instead - which will give me the opportunity to explain my issues with the pages you plan to create.

You've repeatedly refused (here) to adhere to WP:MASSCREATION, which is a policy - so I look forward to admin responses to that ongoing problem. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to manual editing, by its very terms. You haven't complied with WP:SOCK and furthermore, you propose a solution and walk away from it after it's accepted - where's your good faith? And you still haven't provided any specifics on what you claim is wrong with the sources. Absent that, your whole pitch is drama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Continued debate would be disruptive and pointless, so I trust in admins to take appropriate action. You've been advised to adhere to policy, but are resolutely refusing to do so. I'll provide 'appropriate diffs' in due course; I hope that in the meantime you will be prevented from further disrupting the wiki. Best, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't "mass creation", I don't know what is. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now added a few specific objections [50] - really, those are just examples. We're talking about thousands of articles, made out-of-process by an admin who refuses to stop.

Seriously - I do understand places are considered intrinsically 'notable' - but a village of 24 people in "4 families", with the only ref being 'search it here' and a 2006 excel spreadsheet that mentions it? Seriously? If this is permitted, I'm gonna write about my bathroom.

And that's just one of the hundreds of articles they created during this ANI discussion - at like 10 articles created per minute. I hope you can see why this is disruptive? It could take years for sensible editors to make any of this encyclopaedic.

How many has the user made? I don't know. Thousands.

Anyone can automatically make this stuff, from random non-reliable-sources; it just pollutes the accuracy of the project and creates massive amounts of work for others. This is pretty shocking stuff - especially from an admin. And when asked to desist, their response is to accuse me of 'socking' and ask me to thank 'em for not blocking me. Good grief. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• The articles seem perfectly appropriate to me. including the one mentioned above. There is no question about the notability, even at a very small size, and I can see nothing inappropriate with the sourcing. Unless you can show somethings actually wrong about the articles, I don;t the the reason to complain about them. The rule relating to mass creation was intended to stop totally automated or semi-automated processes unless they could be shown to be accurate, as we had before that--and after that--several such creations that caused considerable trouble; it was a necessary rule & I certainly support it. But I see no agreement there on the number of edits which would be considered a mass creation: someone did suggest 50, someone else suggested thousands. It's perfectly possible to create 50 routine articles of this sort in a few minutes by copying and pasting, if one has a suitable reliable source, and I do not consider this semi-automation. The guiding principle is the WP is not a bureaucracy. All limits on article creation are meant to prevent harming the encyclopedia, not to prevent its improvement. (And, fwiw, I definitely do consider editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny to be very close to bad faith editing.) DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• 1) The spreadsheets are the official Iranian census reports. If you think that a government's census reports lack reliability, you are mistaken. The link is to the US's geonames database which is used as a reliable source throughout wikipedia. 2) you claim that I have created "hundreds of articles ... during this ANI discussion." This discussion began at "23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)", as your initial edit is timed. Everyone is free to check my contributions: no new articles (much less 100) during this discussion. Now you are lying to try to make some point??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Opinions vary on these contentless cookie-cutter geographical location microstubs. Some claim all geographical locations are inherently notable and therefore MUST have an article even if there's nothing to write about. Other, myself included, reject the notion of inherent notability altogether. Mechanically grinding away at a meaningless task just to achieve a 100% completion rate is fine if you're a video game addict, but not for an encyclopedia. Here it just serves to dilute and diffuse content so that it cannot be used. I don't remember if "Random article" was ever useful, but these days you can never get anything except these mass-produced and utterly vacuous "articles". Finally, if you think 88.104 is in violation of WP:SOCK, you know the way to SPI. Badmouthing someone, but being unwilling to go through the proper channels, is not a good look. Reyk _YO! 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not in violation of SOCK. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple question - which I have asked before: will you adhere to WP:MASSCREATION or not?

After hours of dispute, you have refused to adhere to that policy. I've no idea why you have not been blocked until you will (except, of course, you are an admin so you're special). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is the problem with the articles of Carlossuarez46. I see many of them coming into the list of articles with disambiguation pages and I seen them leave almost just as quickly. When I requested some edits on an article with many dab-links, responded quickly, politely and solved the links to disambiguation pages. His field of work is outside my interest (except solving the dab-links) but I have no indication that Carlossuarez46 is creating sub-standard articles. So what on earth is the problem? The Banner talk 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Apologies for saying they created "hundreds of articles during this ANI discussion" - they only made 38 new pages.

38

23:29, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Yar Mohammad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Anur ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gargij ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Qir Mohammad Mir Kazehi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bi Barg Rigi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Esmailabad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Amirabad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Saraj ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Yusef Hasan Zehi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khodadad, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Qader Bakhsh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bajar, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+55)? . . N Rahimabad, Sistan and Baluchestan ? (redir) (current) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)? . . N Rahimabad, Gowhar Kuh ? (redir) (current) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm ? (projs) (current) 23:20, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+541)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm ? (create) (current) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer ? (projs) (current) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+460)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer ? (create dab) (current) 23:15, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab ? (projs) (current) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+467)? . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab ? (create) (current) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar ? (projs) (current) 23:13, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+462)? . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar ? (create) (current) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gami ? (projs) (current) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+461)? . . N Mowtowr-e Gami ? (create) (current) 23:11, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad ? (projs) (current) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+947)? . . N Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad ? (create) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+34)? . . N Mowtowr-e Esma'ilabad ? (REDIR) (current) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khodadad ? (projs) (current) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+602)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khodadad ? (create dab) (current)

88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is it OK if I mass-create 10,000 articles about the rooms in the homes around me, if I reference it to a spreadsheet from my local housing club? More to the point - if I'm asked to stop, should I stop and discuss it? Would it be OK if I just said "oh, you're probably just a SOCK so I will ignore you and carry on regardless"? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You still fail to mention what the problem is of his "burst-creations" (a lot of articles in a short time and then quietness). The way you act gives me more the idea that you have a grudge against Carlossuarez46 and are out for revenge than that you serve the interests of the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggested test-case; perhaps someone can nominate Purjangi, Khash for AFD. And we'll see how it goes.

I can't easily do it myself, as an IP.

I'd think that an article about a 'place' with a population of 24 with only a ref to an archived 'census' would be deleted, but we can see if we try.

If it isn't, I really am tempted to write articles about 2b My Street, Someplace - and to mass-create 3,4,5,6 and 7b. They're all real places too, and I can show an equivalent 'reliable source'. I can even write a bot to make them, 10 per minute - no worries there. And I shall do so - not WP:POINT, but only if it's OK to do so.

Hell, if Wikipedia accepts articles on such places - great! I have a million articles to add!

So which way are we going here? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the notability issue, articles on populated places are practically always kept at AfD (and given that somebody tries to nominate one every few months, I doubt consensus has changed since the last time this happened). Part of Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia is to function as a gazetteer, according to the five pillars. Gazetteers traditionally include settlements, even small ones, and do not include individual houses or rooms, so there's a pretty clear distinction here. Keep in mind that one of the first major increases in Wikipedia's article count came when a user created articles on every settlement which was counted in the US census; I don't see why Iran should be treated differently. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a lovely argument, and one we can have elsewhere.

Meanwhile some fucking admin who thinks they're God is adding 1000s of articles that don't adhere to WP:V, and when I request they stop I'm accused of being a 'sock'. How about that? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, calm down please. Stay civil. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so to rephrase that in civil terms;

A user is creating thousands of articles which do no adhere to policy;

I asked them to stop, but they refused.

So I asked for help from admins, because it is an ongoing issue that is disrupting the wiki. I explained why with regard to policy.

The user has refused to stop.

The user happens to be an admin, but I don't think that is relevant.

OK? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles created do not breach WP:MASSCREATION as they are not automated or semi-automated. I think this point has been made several times. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DGG and The Banner: this seems like much ado about a minor issue. Can't we just go back to improving the encyclopedia without all the personal snipes? – Connormah (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, dude; MASSCREATION consensus says "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed".

This user is creating thousands of new pages.

Surely you cannot be saying this is not 'mass creation]? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see MASSCREATION might well apply, since cutting and pasting is semi-automated, as far as I'm concerned. At the same time, Carlos has stopped, from what I gather, so I might ask, as the IP has done elsewhere, what admin action is required? FWIW, I removed one of the IP's PRODs since such a deletion in these circumstances needs to follow a discussion. Given how much trouble the IP goes through to get their point across (and can you please try and do so without hitting "return", twice, after every period? sheesh!), they could have created a dozen accounts already to send these stubs on four-family villages to AfD, so a proper community discussion can shed some light on this. Now, I'm not going to close this thread, since the IP seems to have delicate toes and I'm a bit overweight, but I don't think there is much else to do here. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting is no more automated than using a keyboard. They're both done on a highly automated machine using its technical facilities. Either can be considered automated if done by a script, but not if done by hand. (I interpret semi-automated as done by a script with manual checking, and automated if done without such checking) Anyone who creates articles on factual material, especially numerical or geographic material, without inserting the data by cutting and pasting is in fact probably doing it sub-optimally, as any other method is much more likely to introduce typographical errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies,

IFF TheCatalyst31 stops mass-creating articles in breach of policy, then sure, that's OK.

Or if they put in an appropriate bot request, in accord with WP:MASSCREATION - that would be groovy.

For 'right now', we have a user creating massive amounts of articles without agreement, who is refusing to stop and discuss things. That is why I sought admin help here.

As of now, they have not agreed to adhere to policy, and they've continued to create articles.

OK, so maybe they stopped right now 'coz they've gone to bed or whatever; but I will probably sleep too, and I don't want to awake to find they made another 1000 bot-like articles that will need fixing. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter IP??? His articles are free from errors and are constructive. Carlos has been working on Iranian articles were several years, why now does it matter if he's found a way to generate them quicker if they're accurate? Between 2 and 10 isn't problematic, if it was over 10 then it might be appropriate to request permission. Leave him alone, let him get on with it and do something useful. Stop rule warring half a dozen times with the same old thing. Somebody close this thread as soon as possible please, the Manchester-based IP has now been blocked for disruption.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When did the mass creation of microstubs with minimal sourcing and no evidence of notability become "constructive"? bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He's attempting to provide very basic information about real world locations in a developing world country. You could argue that it might be better to created sourced lists by district instead of a stub for every place but it remains a constructive approach and attempt to improve us as a resource. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

2002. — Scott • talk 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Which was approved by BRFA, which is what masscreation requires and precisely what Carlossuarez46 has been requested to do. NE Ent 12:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the BRFA was filed in 2006, four years after the Rambot stubs were mass-created, and two years after they were kept at VfD. Copy/paste creating is not bot creating, and there's nothing wrong here. He's helping, moreover, by creating articles for places that most people won't know how to search for, since these places' names are in the Arabic script, not Latin. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to make things clear: I do not object to Carlossuarez's work; in fact, I have congratulated him on it not too long ago. I do believe that MASSCREATION applies (I differ with DGG, but that's possibly because he has a clearer idea on what "semi-automated" means than I do, and I don't know what those scripts are and what they can do--don't bother explaining), but Carlos has been doing this for years and I am not aware of any previous problems with his contributions. Or, to put it another way, I assume he has permission, whether tacitly or explicitly. Ent's link I do not understand; that is, I don't understand what it has to do with this, but I'm probably betraying my technical ignorance.

  What made this get out of hand is first Carlos's insistent line of questioning about the IP (socking, etc), which in my opinion was unnecessary: if everything is above board with these creations, then the source of the question should be irrelevant. Second, of course, is the IP's...insistence, which got them blocked for actions in another thread, involving yours truly. Reyk's and Bobrayner's comments, however, indicate that not everyone is at peace with those creations; their's may be a minority opinion, but it should be taken seriously--ANI is not the place to do that in, that goes without saying. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the issue. The articles are mass created, but they are not bad articles. They are perfectly notable. On the subject of "automated editing", copy-paste is no more automated than my fingers hitting an arbitrary plastic key and somehow making these words. I could have just easily found each and every word here in another article and diligently copy-pasted them to make this paragraph, and it would be no more or less of a paragraph, because it still conveys (or konveyshehehe) the same amount of ideas. KonveyorBelt 18:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Historically, "automated" editing has been difficult to define (as indicated by WP:MEATBOT) -- see a discussion from last March about whether something was or was not "automated." The simple, policy compliant thing to do remains getting WP:BRFA approval; Carlossuarez46 could have done that already with far less fuss than this ANI thread. I'm a very IAR contributor but somedays it just makes more sense to cross the tees and do the eyes. NE Ent 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Question for @Carlossuarez46: Why have you accused the IP of being a sock with no evidence? I know that there is a guideline/policy that states this may not be done, and some editors may consider this a personal attack. (If someone else knows it please link to it below). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA NE Ent 02:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm you state I've accused the IP with "no evidence". The IP stated here that he/she has edited under other names. Per WP:SOCK: a user may not edit logged out to violate any of the prohibitions on socking generally: "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy." The IP session was used to violate WP:SCRUTINY and WP:HAND, particularly using the logged out account for a set of edits he/she doesn't want traced to his real account. His/her disruptive editing earned him a block, but his main account is "clean". At least one other admin has expressed concerns about this above. In the bigger picture; as the IP requested above: "All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it.", done and done. This dead horse has been flogged - and we're discussing meta issues and diverging - and there is no consensus that my edits are improper, and they will resume when convenient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping.

Per WP:MASSCREATION, will you please now sumbit a request via BRFA before you make more articles? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that A7 does not apply to places - and that's fine, regarding potential deletion. However, just because we make an exception for places when choosing deletion, it does not mean that you should create new articles with such weak sources. There are core policies that state creating such articles is prohibited - WP:V, WP:GNG. We can discuss the nuances in regards to places - I don't think ANI is the right place for that.

My main concern is, you (an admin) are adding articles to the wiki that policy says you shouldn't create in the first place. I accept that other policies say that such articles should not necessarily be deleted - but that is another issue.

You're creating articles from information that is like this;

Place	Pop (from a spreadsheet)	Geo coords
Someplacename	10	1,2,3
Anotherplacename	20	3,4,5
Yetanotherplacename	30	6,7,8

You've got literally around 20 bytes of information about these 'places', and from each of those you are making articles that are about 4000 bytes - that is, 200 times times more than the information seems to need.

Example: Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh. All you 'know' is, it's a village. In that particular example, you don't even know the population or where it is.

Just that the name was once mentioned on a census.

I do understand that the wiki gives a special case for places, but really... there is no encyclopaedic information about that village, except that it probably exists. Nothing. But you've made an article that, with templates, is over 800 lines long. It adds nothing to the encyclopaeida at all.

So please, will you stop adding any more, and allow discussion? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• As discussed above it doesn't apply, so no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to show a great dislike of administrators. You keep repeating that I am one. You also noted earlier that that's not relevant. I beg to differ from your interpretation: it adds "nothing" to the encyclopedia is your opinion. It is not the majority opinion. As one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is to be a gazetteer, putting an article about each place is part of what Wikipedia is. given that we're not paper, we're uniquely able to do that. Once an article is started others can expand it (including IP's like you who cannot create an article) - some have already begun to expand Aghuyeh, East Azerbaijan among numerous others. You don't like the sources, but you didn't complain to RS notice board. The census published by the Iranian government and subsequently taken down is used throughout. Geonames is published by the US government. Other sources are also used. Rather than trying to stop or delete articles, improve them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem attacks.

As to whether 'mass creation' applies;

On 16 Feb, you created over 1000 new pages.

[list blanked--page size increase of some 25% is not helpful. it's in the history if you want to see it. Drmies]

I put it to you that that is 'mass creation' in anybody's terms. Nobody can realistically say a user can create so many valid articles in such a short time, without automation. Whether you're copy-pasting onto tabs, or using a program or whatever tool, is beside the point. You are mass-creating articles.

I am challenging whether your mass-creating is appropriate, with reference to policy.

So far, you have refused to acknowledge the policy, and your retaliation was to accuse me of being a 'sock'.

I intend to challenge that in the appropriate places - if you want to accuse me of socking, please use the right forum for it. I might do an RFC/U about your conduct. And the content of the articles (for mass creation) can be done on BRFA or AFD or whatever. ANI isn't the right place for that.

The only thing that belongs on ANI is, if admin actions are needed to prevent disruption. At the moment, you are refusing to follow policies; you have already created thousands of problematic articles without appropriate approval. I'm just asking you to stop it, and follow policy. Is all. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Your behavior here demonstrates that even were MASSCREATION to apply - which is doesn't to manual creations - it would be futile to go through that process. So even were it to apply, IAR also applies, which is also policy, and off we go. You have threatened to take various articles to AFD, plesee do so if you think you are correct. But I think it quite unfair that your objections should deprive the English-language Wikipedia of these articles (which seem to have no problem at the Farsi wikipedia). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm with drmies on this one: while I don't quite comprehend IP's tenacity, Carlossuarez46 could easily afford a two-day conversation about this mass creation. No one will suffer if a stub article containing an Iranian village name and population is delayed by a week, and then this entire thread could be archived and never read again. Sharpened axes could once again rust in peace. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We've had a two-day discussion here and what has come of it? There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I am doing (a minority opinion certainly objects, I see that). I am often in a minority in XFD discussions, but I would not repeatedly trying to force my position on others by trying to make them stop what the community doesn't prohibit. What ever happened to WP:BOLD, avoiding WP:BUREAU, and trying to make an encyclopedia (including the gazetteer part)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you don't have to stop: a brief pause (causing injury to no one) and an explanation, then you will most likely be able to continue just as before, but with even more consensus behind you, avoiding future problems of this sort. I don't see any reason to block or stop you, but I feel that IP has the right to ask for some clarification before add more new entries.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The community prohibits the mass-creation of articles without prior approval. Full stop. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, you've said many things that indicate you do not understand current English Wikipedia norms - such as, "your objections should deprive the English-language Wikipedia of these articles (which seem to have no problem at the Farsi wikipedia)" for example. I wonder if this is because you passed RfA in 2007, when standards were very different indeed.

I have already asked you on your talk page, but I ask again here;

Will you voluntarily resign your admin status, and go through RfA, to show your current knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and to ensure the community has faith in your being an admin? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mr.Choppers: I have answered all the sourcing questions. Notability can be tested at AFD, not ANI, as the IP states. Opinions on what gazetteer entries add to the project don't require further response. The IP's interpretation of MASSCREATION in not correct (or at least doesn't have a consensus) as has been discussed above, there seems only that procedural clarification. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, do you think that a user creating around 1000 new pages per day is 'mass creation', or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You do understand that the policy only applies to automated and semi-automated creation, not to manual cut and paste. Continued provocation is a great de-motivator. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please directly answer the questions;

1. Do you agree that creating 1000 pages in 1 day is 'mass creation'?

2. Will you stop until you get approval from WP:BRFA per WP:MASSCREATION?

3. Will you voluntarily resign your admin status, and go through RfA, to show your current knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and to ensure the community has faith in your being an admin?

88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• 1. No, WP:MASSCREATION applies to automated and semi-automated editing only.
• 2. No, not necessary.
• 3. No, that seems to be your true objective.

That said, I'm done with this thread, feel free to comment but I will continue to create articles and otherwise improve the encyclopedia. Dealing with this drama has certainly made editing wikipedia less enjoyable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Given those answers, I ask admins to prevent Carlossuarez46 from creating new pages in breach of policy. Again. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@88.IP, 1) what "harm" is Carlos doing to Wikipedia with this "mass creation" of articles? (WP:HARM unfortunately refers to BLPs only) and 2) review WP:GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places (such as these villages) are deemed notable. I'm sure they would hold up at AfD. Carlos here has been doing this for a long while without incident, and while his behavior may not be perfect (I don't care about that point), he has explained the policy basis for his actions multiple times to multiple people; and almost everyone who has commented in the section other than you agrees with him. Why won't you learn to drop the stick? First with the section-close edit warring and now here. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashn66 - he's creating many thousands of articles in a short space of time which do not meet the core principles of WP:V WP:N. Also, he's not obeying policies and guidelines.

Hey, can anyone explain any policy/guideline reasons why it is acceptable to create shite like Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh? The reference there shows it (probably) exists, and that's about all. I understand that there's no CSD, and that geo places are somehow 'special', but I don't see it adds anything to the Enclyclopaedia.

And please don't say 'take it to AFD', because we're talking about thousands of articles he's created.

I'm kinda sorta working on a RFC/U and/or Arbcom case, but just seeking opinions - why would anyone think that Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh was valid?

Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you read all of what I wrote, and carefully? ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

---anyone who thinks I'm just being a dick, please just look at [51]. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(Ansh666, I will read it carefully now and respond soonest) 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, OK, I will respond to your points in turn;

• 1) what "harm" is Carlos doing to Wikipedia with this "mass creation" of articles?

It dilutes encyclopaedic information. For example, I could find a spreadsheet showing the "winners of the local chess championship in the town of Rachel, Nevada. I could create 1000 articles from it. That would not increase the "sum of all human knowledge" because it'd be massively open to misrepresentation - anyone can create pages showing things like that - and we do not allow them, for good reason. WP:V and so on.

By creating 1000s of poorly-sourced automated articles, he is making wikipedia just a little-bit-less-reliable.

The articles need to show verifiable facts. Adding that 'foobaabazz town' exists (ref a-spreadsheet-that-doesn't-even-exist-any-more, see archive-here) is the weakest imaginable case. It seems to have some special status, because it's allegedly a 'place' in India.

If that is the case, then I can find a spreadsheet from the UK council showing the geo-locations of every pothole in the UK. Are they notable? No, of course not.

He's adding places with a population of zero - and population 'unknown'.

If we allow that, then others can add 'places' like the bottom left corner of Main Street in Birmingham.

There is no WP:V at all.

2) review WP:GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places (such as these villages) are deemed notable.

OK, Brian is sleeping in my kitchen tonight; can I haz article?

>I'm sure they would hold up at AfD.

We shall see - shall we? That's the wiki way. I'll nominate some as soon as possible. But I need to check them, and I can't check 1000 articles in 1 day - it's just not possible. That's why the wiki is careful about mass-creation.

>Carlos here has been doing this for a long while without incident, and while his behavior may not be perfect (I don't care about that point), he has explained the policy basis for his actions multiple times

Yeah, but, I have explained his behaviour is against several policies many times too.

>to multiple people; and almost everyone who has commented in the section other than you agrees with him.

I don't think that is true. I think lots have sided with him - after all, he's a special-admin, and I'm a humble IP. But at least some have wondered if his blatant disregard for policy and his personal attacks were perhaps 'a bit out of order'.

>Why won't you learn to drop the stick?

Actually, I probably will. Because sadly, I've almost no chance to challenge the entrenched community of admins who defend each other. I probably will just give up, like thousands before me who wanted the wiki to be a better place.

>First with the section-close edit warring and now here. 6an6sh6 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I get angry. Then I quit, or get blocked. That's how it goes.

Poor wiki. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, another heavy dose of WP:IDHT and misquoting of policies - inching me closer to leaving this place, unfortunately. May I suggest you actually go and read, in detail, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places before you come and try to quote them back to us? Also, Carlos isn't one of those admins that is well known and often-defended (Drmies didn't know he was an admin before yesterday, was it?); being an administrator gives him no special standing in this...dispute. And again, while his behavior hasn't been perfect, his actions outside this thread have been endorsed by everybody who has commented here with the exception of NE Ent and Drmies, who agree in principle with his actions but think that a BRFA would help. As they say, actions speak louder than words. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, admins break policy and guidelines, and an IP is ignored. Actions speak louder than words? What do you suggest I do? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting "IDHT is just lazy in the extreme. I did hear it, and responded. I am more knowledgeable about wiki policy than you.

This is an easy one.

A user is making a shitload (1000s) of pages that don't conform to core policy. We have a policy to deal with that - WP:MASSCREATION - so, he can put in a request, and it can be discussed. That's all.

It seems like he is refusing to do that, hence asking for admin help. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't hat this again, I put the relevant sentence in my edit summary but I'll quote it here again: "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring." - the bolding isn't even mine. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, between edit conflicts and my internet going out I keep losing edits. Anyways: "I am more knowledgeable about wiki policy than you." - literally every editor who has commented here would disagree with you on this one; seriously. Do you even read what I write? Anyways, as to what you should do, I've said that already: drop the stick. It's clear you aren't going to get consensus on this little crusade of yours. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting of my comments of this page is outside of policy.

Please don't quote template guides at me, like I'm an idiot.

I'll "drop the stick" if you want to drop editors who care about the wiki. Let me know. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if you want me to go away, I'll go away. Fine, have it your way. Let me know if you want me to retire, too. [/sarcasm] ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

TL;DR - Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) is creating thousands of articles - between 2 and 10 per minute. About places in Indiasorry, didn't check details; Iran - kinda meant 'India' in the sense of Indian subcontinent but that's wrong, I apologize 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC), apparently based on an archived spreadsheet.

I've asked them to stop to discuss it, per WP:MASSCREATION.

The user has responded, but has refused to stop.

That's about where we're at - an admin refusing to adhere to policy, apparently because they think creating 1000 articles within a day isn't 'mass creation'.

That's what I'm asking admins here to deal with. Is all. The rest is just... well the usual ANI thing. Some users called me a 'sock', some bickered about the ANI itself, and so on. I tried to shut down such things, [52] but meh.

Bottom line - user mass-creating articles without approval. Needs approval. Refuses to apply for it (to date). Is all.

If I were cynical, I'd point out that if the user was not an admin, they'd have been blocked within minutes. But meh.

88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you SLOWED DOWN and PAYED ATTENTION, it would be obvious that they're in Iran (that fundamental a mistake), and that very few people agree with you, and I doubt that the administrator status had anything to do with it. Ok, that's it, I'm done. Bye. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop shouting, and learn to spell, and I'll bother to respond. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time Carlossuarez46 has spent in this thread is greater than it would cost them to simply follow policy and file a BRFA request. NE Ent 09:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue here. If Carlos was creating rubbish, then that's an issue. Oh no, someone's adding new articles to WP. Hold the front page! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Most here seem to be in agreement that this is not automation and does not require a BRFA. Per WP:GEOLAND, these articles are perfectly acceptable. @NE Ent, how about the time time that the IP could be spending improving the encyclopedia that has been wasted drama mongering and beating this issue to death? The IP just needs to drop it and move on, this is getting tiresome. This is exactly how we lose valuable contributors to the encyclopedia. – Connormah (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to chime in that I agree that this does not constitute mass creation as contemplated by rules applying to bots. I would further add that my view, as a disambiguator, is the opposite - the faster we can get all of these articles into the corpus, and their ambiguities hammered out, the better. bd2412 T 16:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked." WP:MEATBOT. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• If the above is considered acceptable, it seems I can start mass-creating articles about every household in the UK. They are "populated places", and there's government censor records on them, and other RS such as the telephone directory and the council tax register. There are around 25 million households, so it'll increase the number of articles on Wikipedia more than 5 times. Yay? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just my POV, but I have questioned the rationale behind having a one or two sentence stub about a village with a dozen or two inhabitants (and most of these are tiny, rural villages not towns or cities). It's like having a Wikipedia entry on every subdivision in every U.S. suburb. Neither are very notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, it's even less than that. For example, Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh - there is absolutely zero information about that village. All we have is, mention of it in a spreadsheet that was apparently once on an official site, but no longer exists there. The archived version of the spreadsheet doesn't seem to have any official title or anything to show it is authoritative - the header translates as "Census of Population and Housing 1385 (excluding institutional households and nomads)", but that is all.

And the entry for Mowtowr-e Hajji doesn't even have population information - just asterisks, which it says means it has less than 3 households, and the data is excluded "to maintain confidentiality"!

I actually tried to PROD that one, but the prod was removed "per WP:NPLACE" - which I don't understand, because that's just an essay.

The relevant policy seems to be WP:N, and this certainly lacks "significant coverage". 88.104.19.233 (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know it was that bad. This really should be addressed, what merits notability of a location, but there doesn't seem to be a big movement to go in this direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to close thread and change venue

Since it appears highly unlikely that an admin is going to block Carlossuarez46 on the basis of WP:MASSCREATION, and there is therefore no admin action to be taken, and since the community has failed (three times) to pass specific notability guidelines for populated places, I suggest that an uninvolved admin close this thread, and the discussion be moved to the Notability Noticeboard, since the notability of the articles being created appears to be the only issue remaining. BMK (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard is dead. The page you linked redirects to WP:N. ₆an⁶sh₆ 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm on the schneid today, batting 0 for 2. In any case, notability questions must get decided somewhere else other than here. BMK (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN may help, but that doesn't deal directly with notability issues. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's disappointing. Please understand, the only reason I asked ANI for help was, he refused to stop and have a discussion about whether they're appropriate. I hoped admins would enforce that principle, in line with policies - if he'd stop, and use BRFA to propose these mass creations, then I'd have a chance to put my case forward regarding specific articles and problems, and others could give their input. But if admins won't do anything, then there's nothing further I can do. *shrug*, no big surprise, but disappointing. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) ...and, he's already started creating hundreds more. Well, fuck you ANI, this has been a total waste of my time. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC) -and the icing on the cake, you award the disruptive admin with a medal, and refer to me as a bastard. [53] Very classy. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• 88, the major problem here has been the way you've handled the whole case. Whilst the articles and the rate of creation may have been sub-optimal (I doubt anyone has disputed that), as has been pointed out to you multiple times, there is nothing wrong per-se with what they were doing; no evidence of automated creation has been presented, and your comments about creating an article on every household in the UK are not helpful or relevant. Various people have told you this, but you have failed to listen. Carlossuarez's user status is irrelevant in this situation, and they have discussed the issue - here. Multiple times over. The fact that you don't like their answers doesn't make them not exist. I think you need to move away from the dispute, and find something else to do here. In other words, I'm seconding the closure of this extremely long thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, it's you that are not listening. I've given policy/guideline based reasons, and there has been no policy/guideline based counterargument.

"nothing wrong per-se with what they were doing" - yes, there is; any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at WP:BRFA.

"no evidence of automated creation has been presented" - none is needed, because it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.

If he is not using some part of automation, then he's typing at over 9000 words per minute (see his contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles such as Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh clearly does not have the most basic of requirements, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent.

Note, there is nothing in N that excludes places. The only defence given was WP:NPLACE, which is an essay.

So Luke, please respond directly to those points. Explain to me why it is acceptable for the user to break those policies and guidelines, and why I am wrong. Show me a policy or guideline to justify the user continuing to create them, when asked to stop days ago - tell me why they've not been stopped. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• General consensus here is that this is not semi-automated or automated; copy-pasting manually does not count any more than using a computer generally does, and you can do that incredibly quickly with a very big monitor/multiple monitors and a lot of tabs open. Looking at my history from yesterday, whilst linking in an article I wrote, I linked it into five articles in one minute, without automation (and that's using Ctrl + F to find the mentions of the subject), so this being copy-paste is perfectly plausible. General consensus is that all recognized settlements that are regarded as villages or higher, if their existence is verifiable, are notable. This is derived from countless AfDs throughout the entire history of Wikipedia. This has all been pointed out to you by various editors, many of whom hadn't even heard of the editor you are complaining about (and I am indeed one of those editors, I believe), so you would be wise to heed the advise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I can't see any such 'general consensus'.

A couple of previous arbcom cases have discussed what is and isn't "automated" at length, and decided that the exact method doesn't matter - whether it's using copy/paste or AWB or a bot, or whatever. The effect is the same.

I accept that you linked an article to 5 others in 1 minute without automation - I don't see that as a problem. But he is creating 5 (and more) new articles per minute, every minute, for hours.

How can anyone create so many completely new articles in 1 minute and be checking them properly? Humans just can't check that fast. That's why MASSCREATION wants it to be approved beforehand - because it can't be checked by a human as they are being made.

I also cannot see any "general consensus" that all recognized settlements are OK. If that were the case, surely the N policy would have changed, or NPLACE would have been upgraded from an essay. In fact, I think that's been discussed several times but rejected, because there was no consensus. I'd be quite happy if those discussions were re-opened, and maybe a consensus could be found - but, it has not happened yet.

In addition, there is nothing in the reference that supports the claim that these places are indeed villages-or-larger. Unless you're saying that anything listed as "Housing" (and not even a listed value for the 'population') is a "village"? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You say you "can't see any such 'general consensus'"? Well, let's see, those that endorse Carlos's actions (not words) and don't feel the need for a BRFA or something similar (sorry about the pings):

• User:TheCatalyst31
• User:DGG
• User:The Banner
• User:Flat Out
• User:Connormah
• User:Dr. Blofeld
• User:Nyttend
• User:Konveyor Belt
• Me (User:Ansh666)
• User:Lugnuts
• User:BD2412
• User:Lukeno94

Those that endorse Carlos's actions but feel that a BRFA would be helpful or necessary:

• User:NE Ent
• User:Drmies
• User:Mr.choppers

Those that don't endorse Carlos's actions:

• You (User:88.104.19.233)
• User:Liz
• User:Kww

I think that's pretty clear.

As for policies, this is the proper one. I've linked it to you twice above, yet you seem to not acknowledge its existence.

Now, can somebody please close this? This is getting ridiculous. ₆an⁶sh₆ 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My name is Drmies and I endorse this message by Ansh666. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666 + Drmies, WP:NGEO is not a policy. It's an essay. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A bit self-restrain (max. 100 new articles per series, max 2 series a day; excluding talk pages of such articles) should be enough concession to this WP:IDHT-IP. I endorse the request of Ansh666. The Banner talk 20:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, a complete halt is in order.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I came to the thread late, but you can add me the list of people that consider this kind of mass creation of stubs to be misbehaviour, and the concept that this isn't the sort of thing that require BRFA to be laughable. This is obviously mass-creation. I don't actively fight this issue anymore because too many people don't understand the fundamental principal that nothing is inherently notable, but it remains true: nothing is inherently notable, and we should not have stubs about topics when we have no reason to believe that there is substantial coverage in sources about them. All of these mass-created articles should be deleted, and all editors that create them should be cautioned not to do this kind of thing again.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Added (for completeness, not that it matters too much). ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On what policies do you base your opinion, Kww? The Banner talk 21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My question as well - please point me to the policy that says, explicitly, that "nothing is inherently notable". BMK (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, a reminder to all that the last time ArbCom dealt with the question of sub-stub creation was the Doncram case last March, and at that time they did not find any controlling policy, which lead to this as one of the remedies:

The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

BMK (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATION as policy, WP:N as guideline, plus the knowledge that it was this very kind of behaviour with respect to geodata that lead to the consensus that WP:MASSCREATION becoming policy. As for anything being inherently notable: no class of item has ever been accepted as inherently notable. Even the ones that generally get lenient treatment are given that treatment on the basis of "there must be sources out there", not "this sort of thing requires no sources". The occasional creation of this sort of stub isn't prohibited by policy, mass creation of them is. It serves as a fait accompli, an attempt to overwhelm the completely justified merge and delete discussions. I suspect that the sheer magnitude of articles created by these various geobots and geoscripts over the years is part of the reason that the deletion arguments fail: not because the content is worth keeping, but because there is so much of it that people have grown inured to it.—Kww(talk) 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words, there is no policy that says that "nothing is inherently notable", merely your own interpretation of the interaction between a policy and an unrelated guideline. In that case, I would suggest that you start labeling it as your opinion when you bring it out, otherwise people might get the idea that you, as an admin, were quoting an actual policy. BMK (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I point you to WP:WHYN; you already seem familiar with the GNG part of N, but please note;

"Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

• We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles

Also please note that the only mention of the subject-specific notability essays says, Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas - it does not suggest that they override or replace the core notability policy.

You're asking us to prove a negative. That's impossible. N clearly says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article - it doesn't say "...except if it meets the requirements of the content-specific essays". In the same way, it doesn't say "except if it's written by Jimbo". I can't prove a negative; just that there is no policy supporting what you are saying. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, BMK, it's a simple statement of fact: there is nothing in WP:N or our policies that confers inherent notability on any topic: there is none. In the context of Wikipedia, nothing, nothing at all, has inherent notability. And no, they are not unrelated. The impetus behind the rules on mass creation were exactly the same as this: Fritzpollbot's creation of geographic stubs that did not meet our notability guidelines. It's a cause and effect relationship.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps nothing has "inherent" notability - but general consensus, no matter how little you like it (and you made it clear you don't like it) is that settlements classed as villages or larger are always notable, and that a lot of hamlets are as well. This is based on countless AfDs throughout the history of Wikipedia, with very few going against this (and those that did are usually where the village-size is questionable). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Or EVERYTHING is notable. That intersection where those two roads meet? Write a Wikipedia article, it's on a map after all. That casserole your grandmother makes? Well, it came from a recipe in the paper so that means its referenced by a reliable source. And, apparently, every single person who has ever played a professional sport, even for one game, is notable. The problem is that the bar of notability in some areas is set way too high (even notable academics get swiftly deleted) while too low in other areas (a village in Iran with 6 inhabitants has a article?). It's completely inconsistent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, can you explain why you think this somehow immunizes Carlos from the need to get bot approval? We have required bot approval for all other mass creations of geographic articles. That's the reason for WP:MASSCREATION's existence: to get agreement in advance that the source quantity and types used in the mass creation are sufficient. Why do you think that Carlos shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions as Kotninski? Why are Iranian villages different from Polish ones?—Kww(talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• MASSCREATION is hardly unambiguous - no definition of "semi-automated" is provided, and most of it is written as addressed to bot-operators, not to non-bot human editors. Assuming that Carlossurarez46 is not a collection of code, it's not at all clear that his actions fall under MASSCREATION. Yes, numerous people have expressed the opinion that it does, but just about as many have disagreed, so this can't be said to be clear-cut. BMK (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's absolutely clear-cut, BMK : "semi-automated" doesn't require paragraphs of definition. There's no way that Carlos could be editing at that speed and volume without an automated boost. No one can type and edit that fast. I don't think that you are arguing in good faith: you approve of Carlos's goal, so you are ignoring clear-cut policy that disapproves of his means.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashn66, I decided to try and do the same as you - to summarize opinions given here. I got this;

• Needs to stop mass creating - at least to explain, discuss, get consensus;

• • 88.104.19.233
  • NE_Ent
  • Resolute ('you can always resume if their complaints are meritless')
  • Drmies
  • bobrayner
  • Liz
  • KWW
  • Reyk (asks you to explain why it is OK)
  • TheCatalyst31 (wants more info and discussion of sources)
  • Scott_Martin (mentioned approval of RamBOT in 2002 - so, this need similar approval?)

(10 users)

• Does not need to stop;
  • Carlossuarez46
  • DGG
  • Flat Out
  • Dr Blofeld
  • Nyttend
  • Konveyor_Belt
  • Mr.choppers
  • Ashn66
  • Lugnuts
  • BD2412
  • Lukeno94
  • The Banner ('What on earth is the problem' - but maybe that has now been explained?)

(12 users)

This indicates we need discussion and consensus before proceeding. I've suggested BRFA many times, but if others think another venue is more suitable, that's fine too.

ANI is certainly not the right place for a discussion. However, it is the right place to force the user to stop, when they have refused to do so. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you still have not explained what the problem is. The main thing I have heard from you is "he has to stop because I demand that" and a lot of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT AND WP:IDNHT. No serious arguments. The Banner talk 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're misconstruing my comments if you think I belong in the first section. I have absolutely no problem with Carlossuarez46's creations; my request for information was to you. You're provided more reasoning for why you want this stopped since then, and I still don't see any need for Carlossuarez46 to stop. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thus, my own suggestion;

Either Carlossuarez46 voluntarily stops to await consensus-outcome elsewhere, or admins block them. (Up to now, he has adamantly refused to stop, and is continuing creation).

Then we can discuss this in an appropriate place, and get the discussions off ANI. We can make it an RfC; maybe people can propose making essays like GEO into actual guideline or policy if they want.

In fact, that's all I've asked for since my first post here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. In my (and apparently several others) view(s), Carlossuarez46 is doing nothing that would require a block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. – Connormah (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It would prevent him from running an unapproved bot, which is the point of this entire discussion. He's in blatant violation of our policies about mass creation of articles.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you prove he is running a bot? The Banner talk 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since when is copy-pasting considered a bot? It still takes human effort to create the articles, unlike a bot, which I imagine could be left running in the background or something of the sort whilst a user performs other tasks. – Connormah (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only instances that I'm aware of where copying-and-pasting has been considered to be "semi-automated" editing (not being a bot, there is a difference) was when an editor was forbidden from doing anything automated or semi-automated, and the procedure that editor needed to follow was very specifically defined as typing into the edit box by hand. Even then, when he was brought up for violating the sanction for cutting-and-pasting, many editors objected that it wasn't a violation. By that as it may, a bot is automated, scripts are semi-automated, and maybe other methods can be considered to be semi-automated as well, but they are not bots, and there is no way that CS46 is running an "unauthorized bot". To claim that is to distort these definitions well beyond any reasonable interpretation. I doubt very much that a block of CS46 for "running an authorized bot" would stand up to scrutiny for more than extremely short period of time. BMK (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the specific details of the method of creation matters. They're mass-creating thousands of articles that do not meet basic requirements (N). That's all. Arguing semantics seems pointless; surely creating several thousand articles at a rate of many-per-minute is "mass creation" according to any regular interpretation of those words.

That was the conclusion in the arbcom case I think you are referring to - [[54]]. After considerable discussion, it didn't matter whether they were copy-pasting, editing offline with word-macros, using a program written in python, or sending the submissions via carrier pigeon. The effect is the same. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your call for a block is utterly inappropriate, because regardless of what consensus there is right now, there is simply no way of warping things to say that the consensus is that CS46 is using a bot. Their current editing rate would be perfectly justified by a strong internet connection, and the copy-paste method, with multiple tabs involved. You have been shown (by all bar Kww, pretty much) that your comments about these places do not sit with long-standing consensus. [55] and [56] both seem perfectly valid to me, and they are both sourced well enough (with a source that can be copy-pasted rapidly, without any need of retargetting). You have also been told on multiple occasions that this is not the correct venue for discussing this, and yet you continue to drag this on for a ridiculously long period of time. Why do that, when you've been shown to be out of touch by the majority of editors? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.(emphasis mine) "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked." (emphasis mine) NE Ent 01:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi. Regarding those two articles that you think are 'perfectly valid', I cannot find either موتور 22بهمن or پرويز‎ within that spreadsheet? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe ANI is the correct venue to ask for a block of a user that is creating thousands of articles that do not meet WP:N.

I agree this is not the right place for discussing policies.

You've not shown any policy reason why I am wrong. You say "long standing consensus" - can you show me where?

I have no wish to 'drag this on' - I just want them to stop editing, so we can discuss it in an appropriate place. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Try lines 3027 and 3118. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me exactly what it means by "موتور 22بهمن (موتور جليل ريگي )"?

Sorry, I can't speak Persian. I assume you can, if you are so confident in the sources?

What indicates that it is notable? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that the only reliable source presented for Mowtowr-e 22 Bahman, Sistan and Baluchestan is a spreadsheet that used to exist on an official website (but has been removed) - and that it is listed there.

That is not "significant coverage in reliable sources" - and as explained above, WP:GEO is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline.

You are creating many thousands of similar articles.

They can't be deleted using CSD #A7 because they are places. And PROD doesn't seem acceptable either.(example - even though I dispute that removing the PROD on the basis of an essay is wrong)

That means, they'll have to go through AfD.

How many thousands have you made?

Do you really not agree that these invalid articles, resulting in several-thousand AfDs, is disruptive? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

88, you really need to drop the stick and stop beating this dead horse. Regardless of what Kww has said, there is clearly not going to be a block of CS46 over this, you've repeated your charges ad infinitum and they're not carrying the day, your intransigence is verging on IDHT territory, and is beginning to be disruptive. No one is carrying your banner here – you have some moral support, but no one's stepped up to take the weight with you. I respectfully suggest you need to back away from this idee fixe and find something productive to do. BMK (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, BMK, you really need to stop defending the indefensible. Carlos is clearly violating policy, and it's unfortunate that a small group of editors is disrupting all reasonable dicussion of his misbehaviour by clinging to fig-leafs like "he may just be cutting and pasting really fast". He's not. He's making automated or semi-automated edits in clear violation of our bot policy,.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you're not doing yourself or 88 any favors here. There are already serious doubts about your judgment as an admin, you shouldn't get yourself into an even deeper hole by stating as fact that which has not been established as fact, and putting forward your opinion as black-letter policy. It may come as some surprise to you that your saying that something is so does not, in fact, make it so. I suggest that you either produce some real evidence or stop making unsupported assertions and throwing your weight around. BMK (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell me with a straight face that you believe that no automation is involved with Carlos's edits. I don't think you can, and if you can, I think it casts serious doubts on your judgement. He's using automation at some level. There's no way to achieve this volume and speed without it.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for your evidence that he's using a bot, Kww. And there is no "clear" violation of any policies here unless you can prove so. – Connormah (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Not using a bot" is a strawman argument, clearly refuted by the explicit wording of the policy statements I've posted above with relevant sections bolded. NE Ent 03:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Same comment to you as to BMK: you can't seriously be making the argument that there is no automation involved in this volume and rate of edits.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is equivocal. BMK (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I can make manual edits at a much faster rate than Carlos if I had a mind to. Tabbed browsing is amazing, you should try it some time. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've posted about 75 already written articles here User talk:Carlossuarez46/Khash Copy and paste the articles after each stub template into twenty open 20 tabs on your browser hitting save each time. Amazing, even you can do it - no script, no python, no automation - simply write your article beforehand and put it in mainspace when its ready. This is getting tiresome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care how you're making them, as I said above. It's just the fact that you're making a lot of them, and they don't meet N.

I'm not sure how to resolve this discussion - and I am tired of it too. I'm tempted to send one of the articles to AfD, but 2 things are making me hesitate; 1. I'll probably be accused of "forum-shopping", and 2. You'll probably create 1000+ more of them while we're discussing the deletion of the single example. Especially if the discussion in the AfD gets as long as this has.

I'm open to ideas... 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. One quick question while I remember - how are you getting the Anglicised versions of the Persian names given in the spreadsheet? Do you have any source that shows the Anglicised names, or are you translating them yourself, or what? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK applies: if you are sitting at your computer doing your best to pretend to be a bot for hours at a time, you are a bot. WP:MASSCREATION still applies, and your edits are still disruptive, Carlossuarez46: the time to get consensus about what kind of sources thousands of articles require is before they are created, not after. That's the whole point of limiting mass creation of articles: get a consensus as to what kind of sources an article about a tiny Iranian hamlet requires and what the template should look like. The last time the topic was specifically discussed, the consensus was 2:1 that a geodata item and a census entry was insufficient sourcing to create an article.—Kww(talk) 13:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Somebody close this. This is ANI, FFS, where incidents requiring administrative action are reported. There is no incident here: if there is, there's thousands of them. BMK is correct: no one is going to block Carlos as a result of this discussion, and this was the wrong venue for a larger discussion to begin with--which hasn't stopped anyone. Kww may well have a point about a lack of inherent notability (and the constant question "where's the policy that says that" from both sides is getting tedious) but this discussion here, which should have ended a long time ago, will not answer the more general questions. So please, someone close this behemoth and archive it, and continue this elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea. I recommend WP:BRFA NE Ent 13:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRFA is, indeed, the correct place for this discussion, and Carlossuarez46 needs to stop creating these things until that discussion is complete.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:Lord of Rivendell

This user is being extremely disturbing. He got blocked two times before (check User talk:Lord of Rivendell for proof).

My first complaint is his edit sprees without consulting any other users in talk page and not obeying the plurarity rules. In Turkey article he keeps doing edits as he likes (see Turkey: Revision history for his edits and see Talk:Turkey about the other editor's complaints about him). Now he sees me as his enemy and began to conflict with my edits, throwing mud at me. (i think he is getting obsessed with me)

My second complaint about him is his racism and his nonsense slander on calling me associated with a terrorist organisation. If you go to the page [57] you can definitely see that he is saying those words; (I began to suspect that KazekageTR is a Turkish-speaking Kurd (probably associated with the PKK or DHKP-C, etc, i.e. an "extreme-left" militant organization) whose sole intent is to deface Turkey-related articles.). (by the way I've a Meskhetian Turk origin) First of all, i've made huge improvements on Turkey-related articles. For example i've completely renewed the page Modern equipment and uniform of the Turkish Army and significant edits on Turkey etc.. Secondly, i've got very upset because of a comment like that. I'm not a terrorist and no one calls me a terrorist one way or another. And what he did is racism and totally not acceptable.

Thank you for your consideration. KazekageTR (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting notification of this thread: "Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And check your watchlist you racist."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's the WP:CANVASSING: [58] and [59].--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an exception for notifying concerned editors; I think that being called an "asshole" without provocation makes me one of them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the way that i've notified him cause i was very angry at the moment. And about those two users, they were the ones who recently got problem with Lord pf Rivendelll. I've simply asked help for my first complaint. There is nothing wrong with it. And did you read my compliants by the way? KazekageTR (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were angry, you should have used the default notification message ({{ani-notice}}) to avoid showing bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR has been accurate in his complaints. Rivendell's behaviour has made it very challenging for other editors to make any contributions to the Turkey article, he continuously monopolises the editing space (he has made over 300 edits to that article in less than 50 days) and initiates edit wars when "his" revision is altered. His unwillingness to reach a consensus for his sweeping changes is made much worse by his evident battleground mentality (see diff, diff, diff), which is ultimately the bigger problem here. To Rivendell everything is a confrontation, he may leave forever one day only to carry on his battling the next.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Although KazekageTR is right in his complaints, he may be wrong in the way that he phrased his complaints. Epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i don't think that me calling him as a racist isn't bad. Cause he sees the issue of being a Kurd as a something to get 'suspected' and i believe that is racism. Are we on the same page here User:Epicgenius?? And if you check the edit histories of those pages we've conflicted in (especially in Turkey), you will see that i was understandable, patient and tolerant to him. I've always stated those Wikipedia rules that he wasn't obeying in my edit summary or in the talk page. By the way because i was reverting his reckless edits, he started to be my enemy(like i said on the top) and opened up a section here in order to block me from editing. The admin found me innocent and warned him instead. After one/two weeks from that event, he got blocked. KazekageTR (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are on the same page, but you shouldn't assume bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If i was assuming bad faith, things would go way different believe me mate. By the way thank you for your interest, we can use your thoughts on this issue, of course if you state them... KazekageTR (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, but I find that it's better to get over having "enemies" if you want to continue to be a productive editor on Wikipedia. I understand that there are going to be times when you feel challenged and provoked, but try to not get caught up in revenge, squabbling and holding grudges. If it gets really bad, work on different articles on WP and keep your distance. Having enemies can be a quick way to slide into edit warring which can result in a block or, eventually, an indefinite block. When it comes down to "disruptive editing", admins don't want to spend time sorting out who is right and who is wrong, they'll just block your account because of your behavior, not the content of your edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My "problem"s with Lord of Rivendell have been limited to normal editing disputes, I have not encountered the personal attacks noted above. I do agree with KazekageTR that throwing around Kurd as an insult is not a positive trait. On the editing front, it is true that Lord of Rivendell makes long series of edits, but it's also true (as they pointed out on Talk:Turkey) that they in the past reverted edits by others which were just copy-pastes into the article from other articles made without attribution. In general, it would be useful if the talkpage was more used in conjunction with editing (and it has begun to be more used lately). I get the feel of increasing escalation over the past month. Lord of Rivendell should be strongly informed that throwing around insults is not an action conductive to a collegial editing environment (KazekageTR I assume has taken note that reacting by calling someone racist is not the most helpful move), and from that point if editors manage to keep a cool head and discuss things, I see no need for immediate blocks. CMD (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not limited to Rivendell, but calling someone a Kurd as an insult is pretty racist.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not suggesting any action actually be taken against KazekageTR for that outburst, and wouldn't even if they hadn't gone back and changed it. CMD (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well User talk:Liz, so you're saying that provocation is something like 's*hit happens' ??. You cant just insult or try to insult a person like that. I can call you a terrorist and 'suspect' that you are a Jew and it is okay too? Look at [60] he is provoking me again by the way.

And that section is not just about this insulting thing, if you check my first compliant you'll see that he is not a cooperative person and often making trouble that bothers us all. By the way it wasn't just happened now, it happened so many times. Please refer to Turkey article for further information.KazekageTR (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not restricted to any one editor, I'm not singling out Rivendell or anyone else because I have seen this kind of behavior too often while contributing to Turkey-related articles to dismiss it as an individual flaw of character. But all too often when someone makes an edit to an article about Turkey, they will come across someone who will say, you have added/removed this and that to make our country look bad, you must be a Kurd! I don't know Kazekage's ethnic origin and I don't want to know it, but I can imagine that having to read such mindless tripe can make even the most level-headed editors lose their cool. So when someone retorts that this is racism, it might not be ideal editing behavior, but does it mean that they are to blame? Is that what our admins seriously think?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR, this is just my personal point of view. Go ahead, call me a terrorist, I know that I'm not and it makes you look ridiculous for using over-the-top language. However, if you are calling me a terrorist because you think I'm Jewish, then you (or any editor) is guilty not only for being ridiculous but showing bias and not having a neutral point of view.

But, and I think this is where we differ, although no one likes people to say hostile and negative things to them online, insults do not affect what I think of myself. If someone attacked me, I'd report it if it was a personal attack (as defined by Wikipedia policy), not because it hurt my feelings. If someone attacks you, it reflects badly on them, not you. And, I'm guessing, that most longtime editors at Wikipedia do not believe insults thrown around on WP because it's a sign of an immature editor and one who will get a warning and perhaps a limited block. Do not feel like you have to respond to insults unless they cross the line into a personal attack. Otherwise, I'd recommend rising above it and keep focusing on editing, not getting into personal grudges. You'll be happier, too, if you have a thicker skin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well how about that. He is teasing me again User:Liz, check [61], it is a personal attack indeed. Do you need any further proofs ?

• The question you asked proves that you are not a Turk.

I think this is an unnecessary edit summary and I would call it an insult (that is, if you are Turkish, I don't know) but not as an personal attack. I think this merits a warning on his user talk page but unless this is continued harassment over a period of time, it's unlikely to earn him/her a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a clear and direct personal attack. It's a direct continuation of his accusation (so to speak) that KazekageTR is a Kurd. Furthermore, the idea shown by the editor, that one shouldn't be editing the article simply due to ones origins, is not a collaborative attitude. CMD (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a really serious crime in the terms of law as you know. That is pure racism, fascism. Well I dont know what the hell he wants from my ancestorial backgorund(I already said him im not Kurd, my family has Meskhetian Turk origin.) And CMD is totally right. He is reverting my edits because he is obsessed with my race. That is totally unacceptable.

Whooa he is on an edit spree again ([62]) and he does not obey the rules that we made on talk page. Now he is typing Turkish,to his summary 'Herşey yalan, bunlar gerçek' which means 'Everything is lie, these are truth.'([63]). It is an edit which violates. Do you need further proofs to say that he is not cooperative person mate? Are you just going to say ok to his senseless edits/comments/trash talks ? WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT KazekageTR (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on his edits on the Turkey article but just looking over his contributions, he does leave some hostile and taunting remarks in his edit summaries to other editors that warrants a warning from an admin.

But I don't agree with your accusations of "fascism" and as far as "racism"? As far as I know, Turks and Kurds are different ethnic groups, not races. I don't see the insult but I agree that trying to identify the ethnic background of editors and imply that this is the basis of bias is inappropriate and has no place on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My first complaint about him was his reckless edits like i said. He is not clicking the undo button but reverts our edits manually(i believe he does it for avoiding another block). I've summoned CMD and Underlying lk as victims of his edit sprees on Turkey article.

We often use racism with fascism(like idioms) in Turkish language, thats why i wrote racism too(i know it is not applicable in this situation).

As you have noticed, it is a personal harassment and it is a very disturbing one indeed, and it is wrong to get obbsessed with someones ethnical backgorund and imply that in a bad way. That is not something to get along with. KazekageTR (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley

The user named "William M. Connolley" accused me of "nationalistic purposes" after I changed the orded of names of Nicolaus Copernicus in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus I changed the name "Mikołaj Kopernik" on the first position, and the German version of his name succeeding. I did it because "Kopernik" is the ORIGINAL last name of the person you know by the name "Copernicus". However, the user "William M. Connolley" accused me of nationalism, and he should be warned. Wikipedia is not a place for such a debate, and his revert of my contribution does not have any sensible explanation. This is the full accusation by this user aimed at me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=595856126&diff=prev "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes." - this is what he wrote. How can I put Copernicus's real name on the first place in that article without being attacked? Yatzhek (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even used the article talk page to discuss this but come straight here? --Malerooster (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at two other threads concerning Yatzhek, [64] and [65]. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:LAME under "Ethnic Feuds." 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, we use the name he's best known by in English on the English Wikipedia. Everyone knows that DP 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Our article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a classic target of nationalist edit warriors. The article itself has been protected or semiprotected 22 times. Given this background, User:Yatzhek's attempts to give priority to what is said to be Copernicus's Polish name don't appear innocent. Consider looking for support on the article's talk page before reverting again. Some past discussions of Copernicus’ nationality can be seen here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is a discussion for the article talk page, not AN/I. Instead of seeking sanctions for those who disagree with you, you must instead build consensus for your editing choices. Takes longer but it also results in edits that are not reverted and no boomerang effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Malerooster - what should I discuss? He called me a nationalist and you say I have no right to report it???

@ User:EdJohnston - I know Copernicus is best know under his LATIN name, but why is the German name at the first place? Is it just alphabetical order? I don't think so. In other articles the names are not segregated by the first letter of the language, but by the importance. You see, in Poland there is much controversy about foreigners trying to "steal" Kopernik from the Polish nation and persuading others that he was fully German and call him a German astronomer. Some time ago the German Wikipedia had such an information but as I see now it was deleted. Still, no word about his Polish heritage. 80% of the last names in his family was pure Polish. His first language was Polish.

Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136591/Nicolaus-Copernicus

Anyway - if "William M. Connolley " will not reveive a warning, I will stop believing in justice on Wikipedia. If I called someone a nationalist I would immediately get a warning or even worse. I smell prejudice. Yatzhek (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes" is not the same as calling you a "nationalist" (which I didn't realize was a bad thing to call someone). He was arguing with your rationale behind the edit (which isn't ideal) but wasn't calling you a name.

By the way, I bet any editor or admin who frequents this page can give you a list of terrible things that have been said to them during their time editing at Wikipedia so there is no "prejudice" involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a nationalist has overtones that would be pejorative (same as calling someone a communist, socialist, zionist or fascist would be a pejorative. "comment on the content, not the editor" is the maxim. However, "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes" is borderline content related. "Restored preferred English spelling and common name" would be preferred but the edit is correct. Applying an ideology is not a proper edit summary as it is irrelevant and inflammatory. It's an incivil edit summary that isn't worth a warning but it could be brought to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Liz Sooo, tracing your way of thinking, when i said now "stop you antipolish attacks!", it obviously wouldn't be the same as calling you "anti-Polish", right?

@ User:DHeyward -- he DID'NT restore the English spelling. I left the English spelling untouched. What he did is reverting my contrib, and placing as first the German equivallent of his original Polish name. Calling my purposes "nationalistic" is highly beyond the Wikipedia rules! Yatzhek (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So why are you are so concerned about an edit that coincidentally promotes a certain nationalistic purpose? That page has a steady stream of editors insisting on such edits, and other articles are likewise subject to boosterism. It's unfortunate if WP:AGF editors are caught in the crossfire, but it's worse that the community has to deal with it over and over. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Yatzhek, I'd agree with that assessment. First, saying "Stop your anti-Polish attacks" is inflammatory and should not be said in an edit summary. But--I'll use myself as the example--if that was said to me, it means that one of my edits was negative toward Polish people and culture. That is different from calling ME "anti-Polish".

It's a distinction you will frequently see made on AN/I. It is more serious to call people a name (saying who they are as a person) than to criticize an action they made (their behavior). Both are bad but name-calling is more likely to lead to a warning and a limited block than criticizing the content of an editor's edits. At least, that is the impression I've gotten from reading cases on AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is quite obvious from the above statements by Yatzhek that WMC's comment was on the money, Second Quantization (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was called a "nationalist" only for switching the order of names of Copernicus, and placing his ORIGINAL NAME "Kopernik" on the first place in the brackets, and putting its German equivallent on the second place. This is not vandalism! I did it to improve the reliability of information and the importance of facts. For what I did I was immediately called a "nationalist". That's highly unfair, and this is the reason of this notification. Yatzhek (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: What colloquial language did Copernicus speak? BMK (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to our article, lots of them. Not conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should've checked there first, of course -- although the surviving evidence would seem to point to German as more important to him than Polish. BMK (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus#name_listing would be the place to discuss whether the name order should be changed. NE Ent 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

s/(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)/Serbo-Croatian/g

The trigger for this discussion are these entries from the history of the article Tuone Udaina:

• 08:22, 19 February 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,134 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (Undid revision 596114359 by Joy (talk) it incorrectly suggests to naive readers that there is a language called 'Croatian', but there isn't, merely a standardized register)
• 02:06, 19 February 2014‎ Joy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,147 bytes) (+13)‎ . . (no, it doesn't suggest anything false, you're reading too much into a very simple and common moniker, Undid revision 595568445 by JorisvS (talk))
• 11:00, 15 February 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,134 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎top: it's "Krk" in the entire language, not just in the Croatian standard register; saying "Croatian" suggests things to readers that are false)
• 19:45, 14 February 2014‎ Joy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,147 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (gratuitous use of genetic linguistics terminology on an article tangentially related to that language - unlikely to attract anything other than trolls, Undid revision 592676462 by JorisvS (talk))
• 20:08, 27 January 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,091 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (entire lang)

JorisvS (talk · contribs) is one of the linguistics editors who regularly uses the term Serbo-Croatian, a piece of genetic linguistics terminology that is nowadays considered démodé, and a non-trivial part of the speakers of that language consider it offensive, annoying, flamebait, whatever, because in the real world practically all you hear about is Bosnian language, Croatian language, Serbian language. The Serbo-Croatian terminology is maintained on the linguistics articles, because the linguistics editors have an organic consensus that it's the right thing to do, that the right sources support it. It is nevertheless done with a considerable amount of effort, as this issue appears to be very contentious for a bunch of people, and it comes up in the topic area almost constantly - the reverts and discussions about it are practically incessant.

That uneasy consensus is in turn propped up by another organic consensus which is that there's no normalization of linguistic terminology across the entire set of articles that mention those languages - for example, in an article about a Serbian village, we don't replace "Serbian" with "Serbo-Croatian". This is mainly because the encyclopedia describes, it doesn't prescribe - if the preponderance of sources about a topic are using the "Serbian" terminology, and there's no real reason to use something else as there's no reason to force the controversy to spill over into another topic area.

Tuone Udaina is a biography about a person who was the last speaker of a neighborly language; it's not a core linguistics article and it's not an article about Serbo-Croatian. The changes above are problematic because this could be a slippery slope into encyclopedia-wide changes from "(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)" to "Serbo-Croatian". That would be most unhelpful, because I would posit that it would lead to nothing constructive, just more vandalism and more endless discussions, and any perceived benefit to readers would pale in comparison. In effect, the main effect of such changes would be to create more work for everyone, because after all it'd be a lot of fiddly little changes and a lot of diffs to read for recent changes/watchlist watchers.

I believe that this falls under the anti-advocacy provisions of WP:ARBMAC, but I don't want to enforce that because it hasn't escalated and because I'd be easily perceived as involved.

I've warned JorisvS previously about similar kinds of changes at User talk:JorisvS#Croatian. Sadly, there was little effect.

I'm looking for explicit community consensus here that we're not going down this slippery slope, and a nod from other administrators that they'll be on the lookout for excess contentious search'n'replace in the topic area. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus at the English Wikipedia, per the reliable sources, that there is a common language of Croatia, Serbia etc. and that it is called "Serbo-Croatian", the POV-motivated influx of emotional locals notwithstanding. This consensus is reflected in the articles about the standardized languages (Croatian, Serbian etc. and in the main article itself, Serbo-Croatian). Aside from misguided emotions of locals (which would make a rather silly reason), why would one specifically indicate a "Croatian" or "Serbian" term for something if it is the same in the entire language, i.e. Serbo-Croatian. I can't think of one. In fact, I'd say making explicit reference to the standard forms makes naive readers (for whom it is all too easy to think of a one-to-one correspondence of language and country) think that these are somehow distinct, or at least consider that there exists an independent "Croatian language" (which is incorrect). Maybe they'll be somewhat surprised seeing "Serbo-Croatian" and think 'what is that?', but that is what the link to the article is for, and in the end this will better inform our readers. --JorisvS (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no such consensus, or at best, you are misinterpreting it. The closest thing to existing consensus is similar to what we have at WP:ENGVAR: if the article is relevant to one particular national variety, use that name in it; otherwise, use "Serbo-Croatian" as a fall-back, because the term is relatively obsolete and/or in use only in specialist linguistic circles. That does not reflect the "misguided emotions of locals", but is a reasonable reflection of what the external world does. Check any travel guide or country-specific article in English to see what I mean. There is a limit to which structural linguistic POV (that Serbo-Croatian is one organic language) may interfere with sociolinguistic POV (that speakers feel four different languages), and real-world POV (that there is a wide range of context where the same thing is called "Serbo-Croatian" vs. "Serbian" vs. "Croatian". No such user (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that topicwise there is such a consensus, which is reflected pretty well in the articles about them. I did not mean to say that there is consensus regarding what to say when indicating a native term ("Croatian:", "Serbo-Croatian:", ...). The point I tried to make then was that it is misleading to say, for example, "Croatian:" without any qualifiers. This problem does not exist if, for example, "British English:", or "Australian English:" would be written. The world may be naively (i.e. without knowing the reality of the situation) adopting talking about "Croatian" and "Serbian", but this does not mean we have to blindly follow suit. In fact, I'd say that knowing the situation and keeping our mission (i.e. to inform people) in mind, we should use "Serbo-Croatian" wherever the terms do not differ in its standard forms, so that people are informed better. --JorisvS (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I started this discussion - you are deeply misguided when you so blithely disregard the very real cost of going down this path. There is near zero value to English readers in immediately conveying the information that a word is spelled the same in all of those variants, and there's a very tangible cost in volunteer time that would be spent policing this exercise in naivete. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not about trying to convey whether or not there are spelling differences between the standards, but about incorrectly suggesting something that it is not. The goal of Wikipedia is not to serve people's petty misguided emotions (i.e. POV!). Policing is only necessary because there are people who have misguided feelings about this. But if it is really about policing being too time-consuming, we should be able to work out something that reduces that. --JorisvS (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Joris, with due respect, you sound like a promoter of The Truth™. In your world, there is only one language Rightfully Called Serbo-Croatian®, and everyone who fails to call it by its Rightful Name™ has "petty misguided emotions (i.e. POV!)", so they need Policing™. However, reality is much more complex than that. It is not Wikipedia's job to disseminate The Truth™, but to reflect, in the neutral manner as possible, what the world actually does and thinks about the issue. Here, majority of the people refer to that language by its local, context-dependent names, and the world mostly follows suit.
Apart from fact-knowing, there are other qualities required for writing good and neutral [encyclopedia] articles, and they include nuanced approach and good judgment. You are, I think, sadly lacking them. Finally, let me quote H. L. Mencken: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." No such user (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can understand how you could interpret what I said that way. if the argument is sound, I'm quick to change my mind. If there were any proper linguistic arguments why Croatian and Serbian would be distinct languages, then I would be rather quick to follow those. The nature of the problem is, however, not complex: Linguistic evidence points extremely unequivocally in a single direction: these are really one language. Grammars completely identical, lexicon some 99% identical, and easily mutually intelligible. The problem is not linguistic, but social: The only points going in the other direction are thoroughly non-linguistical: native's feelings and laymen's usage paralleling the existing countries. Travel guides may well follow locals' preferences to avoid unnecessary for travelers who are not interested in the issue. Really, how does just following emotion-guided and naive usage inform our readers (unless I'm utterly mistaken about the mission of encyclopedias)? I'm not saying we should not properly describe how natives tend to feel about their language, just why we should not follow it. --JorisvS (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that the feelings of locals trump accuracy and neutrality. The bottom line of this discussion is 1) Is Wikipedia meant to primarily serve humans, allowing for some mild bias in articles 2) Is Wikipedia meant to primarily serve as a store of knowledge, where strict application of NPOV would hurt a lot of local reader's feelings, and furthermore possibly find itself running against almost entire local scholarship on the topic. If the former is the case, then the inevitable question is: where do you draw the line? Unless there are strict well-defined criteria on what constitutes "nuanced approach" and "good judgment", these are just empty phrases that can be abused to push a particular POV, possibly without limits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@JorisvS: And how exactly the term "Croatian" fails to inform our readers? And why do we, on Wikipedia, for example, express things in imperial units, when metric are international and superior? Why do we call the same thing sometimes "soccer" and sometimes "football", when it's internationally called the latter? Why do we express the dates as DMY or MDY when ISO standard is YMD? And so on.
@Ivan: your argument boils down to: "since there is no single objective way to draw a line, we should never draw one". There lies the slippery slope. No, I'm afraid there are no "strict well-defined criteria on what constitutes 'nuanced approach' and 'good judgment' " – but I know one when I see one, or, more precisely: it becomes glaring when it gets crossed. No such user (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because merely "Croatian:" suggests a distinct language when it is blatantly not. We would not say "Canadian French:" when the term is the same in all varieties of French, we would say "French:", wouldn't we? As for the units, Wikipedia should always use metric and international unit and imperial units only as secondary units when it may be necessary because there are many readers unfamiliar with the international ones. Maybe we can find something similar for (Serbo-)Croatian? --JorisvS (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@No such user: The problem is that what is glaringly "obvious" to you is not obvious to others. I don't see absolutely nothing wrong at all by writing that Krk is a word in Serbo-Croatian. So what if some Croatians perceive that as insultive? Should we delete the article [[Serbo-Croatian]] altogether because millions of Bosniak, Croat, Serb and Montenegrin nationalists feel insulted at the very thought that they speak the same language? Or rewrite [[evolution]] so that it gets along with superstitious beliefs of much of mankind? Is really Wikipedia supposed to be a therapeutic device for cognitively and culturally challenged editors to help them come to terms with reality? The only sound argument for using Croatian in lieu of Serbo-Croatian would be when the the former is more specific, i.e. in case of Chakavian dialect words which are "ethnically" Croatian-only, or words/phrases specific to the Croatian standard. This is not the case with Krk. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, though in the case of dialect words, it is more precise to make explicit reference to the dialect in question (e.g. "Chakavian:"). But, yes, for words specific to one standard, it would make sense to say, for example, "Croatian:". --JorisvS (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by the single instance of "Serbo-Croatian" in that particular article. What I am bothered is when someone replaces one accurate and appropriate term (Croatian) with another (Serbo-Croatian) for quite spurious reasons, and then edit-wars to keep that change in. The argumentation about "words specific to one standard" and "suggests a different language" are just your own rationalizations: that is not how the world uses the terminology, sorry. I'm just about equally bothered when someone changes AmEng to BrEng spelling, one citation style to another, BC to BCE, metric to imperial, you name it: it's disruptive (and, to add a few personal categories: annoying and borderline insulting). No such user (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You claim that "that is not how the world uses the terminology", but I must strongly disagree: From what I've seen that is exactly how the terminology is used. Many natives talk about it as if it is a distinct language and naive/uninformed people from other parts of the world will also use it that way. The latter people, especially, can't be blamed for that, they simply don't know the situation, and just assume that a different language is spoken in different countries (they of course know that this not always the case, but it is the default nonetheless). It is therefore not true that both terms are equally accurate and appropriate, and so it not comparable to changing spelling between variants. --JorisvS (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that Tuone Udaina is under the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions regime. That's about all that I can agree with in your post, I'm afraid. I don't see any advantage or willingness from the community to take a particular side in the Serbo-Croatian language dispute, one that is wrapped up in nationalist pretensions and a long and colourful history of disputes on Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC).

As I explained already, the community has already effectively taken a number of positions that directly relate to these disputes, mostly by handling it in a fairly sensible manner. We need to continue to do so, rather than go down the path of exclaiming "nationalists!" and doing gratuitous things whose main effect will be to lead to a situation worse that the one we're at. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Krk is the same in Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin, i.e. all Serbo-Croatian varieties so both are correct. Just use both, e.g. "Krk in Croatian (Serbo-Croatian)" if necessary. This is also arguably a linguistic issue (the term itself is discussed). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I never disputed the bare factual accuracy of the change. It's almost orthogonal to what I was saying up there. Adding more didascalia like that is more wasted effort, and just a tad less likely to lead to an unproductive result. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Somali editor User:Middayexpress doesn't want human rights mentioned on Somalia page

Hi, I'm having some problems. I stumbled upon an editor who it seems is a long-time guard of pages related to Somalia.

User:Middayexpress does not like references to the page Human rights in Somalia being made on other Somalia pages. I don't know what the editors motivation is.

• [66]

• [67]

• [68]

I think this is pretty unreasonable. Hey, it might be OK in Somalia, but this is wikipedia.

Thank you, Zoompte (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The newly registered Zoompte account is a sock of the indefinitely blocked User:Andajara120000. The trademark breathless edits, anti-religious pov, anti-Somali/anti-Ethiopian pov, and obsession with associating the Tutsi Bantus with Nilo-Saharan populations are all the same. Identical obscure edits on the same otherwise quiet pages as well (see for example here and here). He's also clearly quite familiar with Wikipedia protocols, unlike actual newbies. Middayexpress (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not anti-Somali. Well, I might be now, after meeting you. :) Zoompte (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New user (or old person with new account) can you please provide me with the evidence of you trying to use the TK page to resolve this matter. You are reporting something but you are engaged in an edit war against what looks like a stable article. --Inayity (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi yes, I've written on the talk page for Somalia. Zoompte (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as the one where you wrote "Repaired content removed by a Somali Muslim editor" are unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Zoompte (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we are to focus on content and not the contributors.

Please take sock allegations to WP:SPI. They have the tools to confirm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, hat has already been done. AcidSnow (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Unrelated, according to CU. Middayexpress, I'm afraid you can't simply revert with the sock accusation. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I never asked for CU; a clerk felt that the difs were compelling enough to warrant one. Socking was also not the main reason I and the other editors reverted, as we explained elsewhere. It was actually pov-pushing (e.g. labeling a 1909 map of British East Africa as "British Kenya", though British Kenya was actually established over a decade later, in 1920). Middayexpress (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend IBAN for TreCoolGuy and TDFan2006

These two have been at it for months, and even with TreCoolGuy's recent block, TDFan2006 intentionally left bordering-on-harassment messages on Tre's talk page. Additionally, TDFan2006 has consistently reminded TreCoolGuy of a previous SPI, and previously added a note to his own user page that he was keeping an eye on TreCoolGuy. These conversations have led me to highly recommend an IBAN between these two users, as very few (if any) of their interactions have been positive. See [69], [70] (the DrummerSL is a nod at the SPI), and after Tre removed the nod, TDFan replied with this, [71], [72] (which was later reverted. For what it's worth, the interactions largely seem to be TDFan2006 finding ways to provoke TreCoolGuy. gsk 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not just trying to make Tre feel like a guilty bast... whoops, gotta be careful about what I say. Anyway, I'm not just trying to make Tre be guilty, I was just saying that his comment wasn't really civil, he should change comments via guidelines and that he has been confirmed a sock... uhh.. oh yeah, a sock master. TDFan2006 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are not "bordering-on-harassment", they are harassment. See m:Don't be a dick (no that is not an insult, it's a link to an essay on obnoxious behavior) and leave TreCoolGuy alone. -- John Reaves 21:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you being bias and just being on Tre's side? TDFan2006 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt there's a bias or "being on sides" if more than one editor notices your behavior. Of course, saying things like "guilty bast..." do not help your situation at all. gsk 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not In fact, I’ve blocked him before, that’s why I even saw your edits on my watchlist. -- John Reaves 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Come on, everyone calm down. Was TreCoolGuy's comment on my talkpage civil? No, not even slightly; it was pure trolling, hence why I removed it. I probably could've said my bit a bit more neutrally, but there we go. TDFan2006, you need to back off TCG, and I suggest unwatching his talk page and refraining from commenting there unless invited. It is fair to note that TDFan has only ever commented on TCG's talk page once outside of this topic; which was [73]. Not particularly nice, but understandable. I think this is Much Ado About Nothing, at least for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would like a permanent interaction ban from TDFan2006 for harassment. He keeps on reminding me that I'm a sockpuppeter and asked me which you can check on my talk page You have been confirmed a sockmaster. Why haven't they blocked you?... He told me on his talk page which I questioned him about was why he said that he was keeping an eye on me and another user. Which is very stalker like words to say. Then just recently TDfan went to my talk page and called me DrummerSP. Personally I don't like to be reminded about the mistakes I have made in the past but he keeps on bringing it up. So please put a permanent block on him. - TreCoolGuy, 19 February 2014
• I'm having a look at this as well. The comments here by TDFan are way out of line, that's for sure. But I'd like to find out something else first--Admrboltz, what precisely was the reason for the last block? I looked through a whole bunch of TreCoolGuy's edits and didn't see the vandalism, though I saw what could be considered not OK, maybe. They asked you twice on their talk page for the reason and didn't get an answer, and I'm curious myself. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I thought this was odd too, and when looking through Tre's recent edits, I couldn't find a justification for the block either. gsk 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block itself was justified to some degree (although probably a little later than it should've been) - the vandalism occurred when they slapped the block tag on Rusted Auto Part's user page, but that was a while ago. Unconstructive editing, however, is what they should've been blocked for (and the gem on my talkpage is only one example of that.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, TDFan just took a break, which could be very convenient. We're not going to block TDFan, though I see no reason why we can't tell them that they should stop these "reminders"; GSK has already pointed out that this is harassment. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking a wikibreak until tomorrow. I just felt a bit uncomfortable. TDFan2006 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, doesn't look like Tre deserved the block. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion dispute over recreation of deleted page is escalating, leading to personal attacks on talk page and accusations of vendetta by User:GMoneyWCAR

A few months ago, I ran across a page for a hardcore band, Assassins, I believe I was patrolling new articles at the time. Seeing that it was not notable, I proposed deletion, and it was deleted after an AfD(Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassins_(band)). I recently noticed, as it was on my watchlist, that it was recreated, then moved to a different name. Looking at it again, I felt the article was still not notable, and speedied it per G4. GMoneyWCAR, the article creator, removed the speedy, and stated at the talk page that he felt it met WP:BAND 7. I indicated that I disagreed, and replaced the speedy as it had been removed by the article creator. He has now claimed on his talk page, my talk page, and the article talk page that I have a 'hidden agenda' of some sort, based on the fact that I live in the metro Detroit area, which is the same area this band his from. He has now posted a rude ad hominem on my talk page questioning my 'moral compass', claiming that I have a hidden agenda of some sort. I did take this dispute resolution, to which GMoneyWCAR responded by reporting me to AIV, which was denied. I believe an administrator needs to intervene to resolve this issue one way or the other. If I'm mistaken about my belief that this band is non-notable, then I apologize, however I do not believe that to be the case.

I would also like to point that I also have many contributions, mainly to obviously unrelated aviation articles. It can also be seen that I was new article/recent change patrolling, and at that time I nominated many articles for deletion. I do not have a hidden agenda. I am concerned that GMoneyWCAR may have a conflict of interest, as most of his contributions are to articles about hardcore musicians, many of which are managed by the same agency. Skrelk (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Guessing from User:GMoneyWCAR's userpage, they are an agent of Outerloop Management and are using Wikipedia for promoting their bands. Except for We Came as Romans, most of the citations are to Outerloop Management themselves or the band's own website. I'm tempted to AfD Outerloop Management and 90% of the bands list on GMoneyWCAR's userpage.--v/r - TP 02:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, my moral compass is all over the place as well. Terrible thing. Anyway, only after I started cleaning up the article did it occur to me to look for the G4 rationale, to find that it is correct. TParis, you're the brains in the outfit tonight--who how can GWar move something on 19 February that was deleted on 24 January? And go ahead, delete it if you like and if your moral compass allows it. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey @Drmies:, I don't understand the question.--v/r - TP 03:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It was deleted. How can GMoney move it if it is deleted? Drmies (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe he recreated it, then moved it Skrelk (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: The answer that you seek, young padawan, is in the logs of both pages: [74][75] ;) Page was created in a Sandbox on 31 Dec and moved to mainspace. It was deleted 26 Jan. On 27 Jan, the sandbox version was restored (probably from an offline copy) and moved to mainspace on 6 Feb with the sandbox's history (not the original article's history). On 19 Feb, it was moved to its new title. --v/r - TP 05:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • @TParis: Thank you, master sleuth! Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Outerloop Management for deletion as non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outerloop Management. DES ^(talk) 15:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not work for Outerloop Management in any capacity and only created pages on artists of interest that are notable artists. Because of the genre of music, there are only a handful of labels and/or management companies that work with these artists, thus tying many of them back to Outerloop Management, which is one of the most prominent management companies pushing this genre of music. If you want me to accept you don't have a hidden agenda, stop assuming it back in my direction. Besides the fact that after five years of working on Wikipedia pages, I've decided I am done with Wikipedia and had been planning on quitting this for quite some time now because of this exact reason. GMoneyWCAR (talk)

If you don't work for Outerloop Management then they owe you a fruitbasket or something. I went through thousands of your contributions and while not 100% of them were directly related to the company, more than 90% seem to be (and the other edits to bands and albums may still be related in some way I can't see). I'm sorry that you feel driven away because of the questioning of the notability of your articles, but Wikipedia does have standards for inclusion. -- Atama頭 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

COI single purpose shared account with likely puppets

Indiggo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paul Lewis Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Victorian09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sharkdiver94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Indiggo77 has admitted to being a shared account and the subject of the article Indiggo. An examination of their contributions page reveals that they are pretty much a single purpose account in this matter, and have been edit warring to maintain a particular image.

If it was just one of those things in isolation, and the account was actually new, I'd go with warnings. However, it's plenty of things, and it's been going on for nigh on six years.

It is also a little too convenient that Paul Lewis Smith recreated the Indiggo article which Indiggo77 had originally tried to create. Victorian09 and Sharkdiver94 appear to be socks as well, more SPAs focused on Indiggo. It's certainly not rabbit over at that article.

Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabriela and Mihaela Modorcea (aka Indiggo) are behind Indiggo77.63.247.160.139 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And this suspected duck continues to make disruptive edits to Indiggo despite multiple warnings. BigCat82 (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

now violating 3RR, engaging in edit warring. BigCat82 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the history of this article and see a days-long edit war involving a lot of parties. Granted, Indiggo77 is usually on one side of this, but I could block multiple people for getting involved. Instead, I edit-protected the article for 3 days, or until this whole mess gets sorted out. I'm sure I protected the wrong version but that's not my concern here. -- Atama頭 06:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not concerned with the article so much as the socking and shared COI account. I do have some concern that it might be promotional, POV, or non-notable, but I'll let other editors deal with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as you. I just wanted to stop the edit-warring temporarily, I wasn't expecting this to be a solution, just a way to slow things down until a solution is found. I'm tempted to lift protection with this block of Indiggo77, but if they retract the legal threat (which they can do at any time) they'll have the ability to start the war all over again. I don't want this to seem punitive to all sides, but I don't think that this NLT block is the final answer. Not to mention that they may use socks to start the edit war again, so we can let an SPI root them out if there are any. If another administrator wants to lift the protection earlier I won't object, but be ready for a potential mess if you do. -- Atama頭 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Legal threat [76] 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• They seem like a nice couple of girls trying to improve/bling up a bit their bio/profile, why demonize them, they are twins editing only their own page about themselves, is the one person one account so frozen in stone that it needs to dump a load of authority on this pair of girls for trying to improve their article? There is also an ip 63.247.160.139 addie that seems to be going after them with some kind of focus also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/63.247.160.139&offset=&limit=500&target=63.247.160.139 lots and lots of removals, warring Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SHARED, WP:COI, WP:3RR WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:LEGAL, all of which they have violated, as well as WP:SOCK, which is pretty hard to believe they didn't violate as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Mosfet, yeah, sharing accounts is a big no-no, as is writing about yourself (behavioral guideline: WP:COI).

I agree it would be nice to stop spam-templating them and try to discuss things and show them the 'correct way' - ie, they could suggest edits on the talk page.

But no legal threats is an even bigger no-no... and needs dealing with promptly. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of reading, you need to back off from the set in stone authority and consider twins girls editing together an article about themselves , not correct but why the hard hat, is something broken ? The is the smallest, least dangerous legal threat I have ever heard. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer in WP:NOTPROMO, because I want this site to stay free, and I don't want it to become an advertising service. A legal threat is a legal threat. It's a policy, with backing from the WMF's lawyers, to protect the site and its users. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is zero danger in that angry/hurt comment to the IP addie from the girls. The article is locked so there is no danger of any advertising, they look notable to me, WP:AFD if you disagree. Ban them from editing their bio , restrict them to the talkpage but don't ban them foreverMosfetfaser (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know there's no threat? Why are you so intent on defending everything they've done wrong? If they were three grown men pushing an article on a herbal "male enhancement" pill, would you be so defensive of them? Why are you defending them violating numerous policies meant to protect this site and its honest, non-promotional, non-edit-warring users who don't have a conflict of interest? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not intent on defending everything they've done wrong at all. They are not three grown men pushing an article on a herbal "male enhancement" pill , they are young twin girls editing their own little bio of minor importance. I already fully supported restricting them to editing the talkpage only. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I indef'ed User:Indiggo77 per WP:NLT policy. There are no exceptions for us to make our own judgement about the viability of the threat, and there's no escaping the intent to chill others' behavior. It's a strictly legal concern, regardless of what types of edits or articles are involved. It's entirely in their power to get this block lifted promptly, all they have to do is withdraw the threat in a public and unambiguous manner. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is the same principle as three grown men editing an article on an herbal "male enhancement" pill they created, they have products to sell and they want people to know about them and receive recognition for them. The only difference you bring up is ultimately a sexist one: sex and only sex. They have been blocked at any rate. Now it's just a matter to see if further evidence of sockpuppetry comes up. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (twice. busy here, innit?)

Is an SPI necessary or helpful? I don't know - thoughts?

I still assert that when the crisis is over, it would be nice to try and explain how they could make suggested edits (as long as they accept the NLT stuff, of course). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:REALNAME we probably need otrs ID. And they need 1 account per person, of course.

Hope it can be resolved. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be a great idea to SPI any of the suspected accounts should they become active again, especially if they otherwise continue to behave like Indiggo77 and Indiggo77 does not withdraw the legal threat. If they remain inactive, however, less work for everyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth it anyway, to be honest; with the 4 accounts listed above - if only to clear the issue up. Plus it takes a while usually. I can't start one myself, 'coz I'm an IP. But if you want to wait and see if they edit, that's fine too. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, a SPI may be necessary in this case, especially with egregious behavior such as that shown above. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since multiple users have asked for it, I've gone ahead and filed one. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser won't be able to do anything here. The claimed sockpuppet accounts haven't been active for years so there won't be any records left to compare them to, and checkusers almost never link accounts and IPs. Any sockpuppet findings will have to be based on behavioral evidence. -- Atama頭 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If I'm correct, CheckUser only stores data for 3 months. So, a SPI wouldn't be as helpful, but at least it should be tried. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, I've volunteered at SPI many times (as an investigator and/or petitioner) and I'm pretty sure 3 months is the rule for stored data to be checked. CU won't be able to help. I think the biggest issue to address is the legal threat (which has to be retracted or there's no question), then the admission of being a shared account, and finally the general disruption (ownership, edit-warring, etc.). I think I'm pretty sympathetic to conflict of interest editors because of my work in that area but this kind of disruption isn't acceptable from anyone. Oh, and I agree that OTRS needs to be involved before we assume that account is really the article subject, we don't want someone getting away with impersonation. -- Atama頭 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Lewis Smith has logged back in and posted on the SPI page, if that helps. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that helps, a lot. :) -- Atama頭 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A clerk refused the checkuser against all of the alleged socks (including Paul Lewis Smith who actually has posted recently enough that a CU could check him against Indiggo77). Giving this more thought, I think that I'm inclined to agree. I've dealt with sockpuppets a number of times, and I've found that there are a number of reasons why sockpuppets are used, with the most common being the following:

1. Avoiding scrutiny (being able to make edits while hiding who you are).
2. Forming a false consensus (making it appear that someone is agreeing with your argument by pretending a second account is a second person).
3. Evading a block or ban.
4. Avoiding 3RR in the midst of an edit war.

None of those seem to apply here. Rather than trying to be sneaky and avoid scrutiny, Indiggo77 admitted to sharing the account with multiple people, basically confessing to breaking Wikipedia's rules. They wouldn't do that if they were trying to hide what they were doing to avoid sanction. None of the accused socks have been involved in discussions or tried to back up anything that Indiggo77 has done. None of the accused socks appeared while Indiggo77 was blocked to continue what Indiggo77 was doing; the only editor who edited during a block only did so to deny being a sockpuppet. And lastly, despite being in a long-term edit war, none of the other socks showed up to keep Indiggo77 from violating 3RR (I'm not sure if they even know what 3RR is). Victorian09 and Sharkdiver94 only edited a handful of times each, over a very short period of time (22 minutes and 48 minutes respectively). The only account that differs is Paul Lewis Smith, and I see nothing that indicates that the editor is anything but a fan of the group. So my suggestion is to forget the sockpuppet accusations, there are plenty of other problems to address here. -- Atama頭 16:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: I removed the protection from the article, since I no longer believe that Indiggo77 has been using sockpuppets, I don't see any indication that they plan to retract their legal threat, and things seem to have cooled down. There are a number of edit requests on the article's talk page and I want people to be able to participate at the article again as long as there are no more edit wars. -- Atama頭 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass IP spamming on AFD

ON #wikipedia-en-help an helper directed my attention to this AFD discussion which seems to have multiple IPs Spamming Keep. Given that Geolocate places the Ips to Israel this seems like a classic case of IP hoping. I propose that this AFD is semi-protected .--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I only see three "keep" comments from IP users in that AfD, and two of those are from the same IP address. The appearance of only two different IP address users in a discussion doesn't seem to be a "mass" amount of IP-hopping that would require semi-protection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's a third keep now also from an unsigned IP user, very similar language in the Keep justification, but now from a mobile device in Tel Aviv rather than a desktop device in northern Tel Aviv. I suspect Jeffrd10 is correct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's also a German IP, so I don't know that they're all the same person. Unless there's a deluge of IPs though, I wouldn't worry about it too much. -- Atama頭 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There are however at least three in Tel Aviv - and they seem to be keeping at it. And they seem to be SPAs.Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would say it's likely that if they're not all the same person they're at least meatpuppets. It's pretty rare to see IP users participate in deletion discussions for articles they didn't create themselves, and add to that that this article was created two days ago, it seems unlikely that there's such a mass of "foot traffic" that three random people would all happen upon it, then make nearly identical comments. I think it's telling that the first IP user (the one who created the page) made two totally different comments in the article. Likely that was before he realized that his IP would be visible and he was hoping to pretend to be more than one person.

That said, it's not like these discussions are majority rules, so it doesn't really matter how many times they !vote. If anything it's hurting their case. It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these IP addresses, though, since it's pretty blatant puppetry of some sort. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to make the same suggestion. Sometimes a bad "keep" argument just strengthens the "delete" arguments. And if the IPs come up with good arguments to keep the article, then their argument should be heard. The only time we need to be concerned is if the AfD gets flooded and turns it into a mess. I wouldn't want to be the admin to sort through that when closing. (I won't be since I !voted already but still.) -- Atama頭 19:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin unilaterally rejecting move of Jahi McMath for no discernible reason except "process"

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

---

There exists an article about Jahi McMath - a sensitive, recently-deceased-person issue. As the article is not a biography but rather is about the medicolegal debate over her death, JeremyA initiated a Requested Move to move the article to Jahi McMath case, as per the precedent of Terri Schiavo case. There was immediate, significant and unanimous support. No objections were registered by any editor. I decided that rather than wait around with the article at an inappropriate title (which suggests that the article is a biography), and that it was apparently entirely uncontroversial, I would speedily move the article per WP:SNOW.

Admin BrownHairedGirl has unilaterally overturned this closure, for no discernible reason other than process. She did not participate in the discussion, did not register a support or oppose !vote, but apparently believes that for the sole reason of "process", we have to sit and wait for a week to make an otherwise-entirely-uncontroversial move. This, I believe, is not in keeping with the goals of Wikipedia - most notably the idea that process should never get in the way of doing what is right. What is right is to move an article that is not a biography to a title that does not suggest it is a biography.

One should not be able to use "process" to delay an article move that one doesn't express any objection to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• She's absolutely correct. The nominator, or someone who has been involved in the discussion, should not close such a discussion... especially when the discussion hasn't even lasted 2 days. A bold move could have been doable, but if a page move request has already been opened up it comes across as an attempt to force the issue. Closing discussion reeks of attempting to block out other opinions, even if that's not was intended. Also, when she reverted the close there were only two explicit supports, plus the nominator and a non-explicit support. That's not quite WP:SNOW material yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• See the page history of Talk:Jahi McMath and my warning [77] at User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Closing_RM_discussions:_final_warning.

Editor NorthBySouthBaranof

1. Repetaedly moved the page while a requested move discussion was still open.
2. Closed a discussion in which they were WP:INVOLVED, and which had run for only 1 day, contrary to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves

I have no view in the merits of the move proposal, but this editor should be aware of a WP:BOOMERANG in coming to ANI to complain about their own edit-warring to breach basic principles of consensus-formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that you have no view of the merits of the move proposal is exactly my point. If you had expressed objection and opposition to the move for a content-based reason, I would have no issue with reverting the closure. It is your interjection of needless process and bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake into the matter that makes no sense. If you don't think the article should be at Jahi McMath, why do you care if it's at Jahi McMath case? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I care that a consensus is properly formed, because that way we get a stable outcome. That's why we have consensus-forming processes. What exactly is your problem with waiting for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion? Why the hurry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is not a biography of Jahi McMath (as per WP:BLP1EVENT, we can't possibly write a biography of her), it is a descriptive article about the medicolegal and public dispute. As per Jeremy, the move and restructuring to non-biographical structure significantly aided in the resolution of editorial disputes - notably, by removing the birth/death dates from the first line. Moving the article back to a biographical title invites the reversion of these restructuring moves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, why the hurry? WP:NODEADLINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, why the delay? WP:IAR, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You still haven't actually said you oppose the move, meaning you're literally doing this for no other reason than slavish adherence to process. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If I had a view, I would be WP:INVOLVED. Only an uninvolved admin is allowed to intervene in any situation.

The editor who opened the move discussion could have tried a WP:BOLD move, which might or might not have been reverted. Instead they opened a consensus-forming discussion, a process which may take a few days. Having started that process, let it continue until an uninvolved editor determines that a consensus has indeed been formed. User:Atama explains below what a mess we would be if objections came after an early close.

I still await your explanation of why you are in such a hurry. Have you read WP:NODEADLINE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• When I opened this move discussion I thought it a fairly obvious move and considered a bold move myself, but decided on a discussion as a courtesy to the editors of the article. Given that the move helped to resolve a long standing debate over the article, I think that NorthBySouthBaranof's bold early close was reasonable. As no one has complained about the early closure and the move has been completely non-controversial, I think that insisting on following the letter of the rules for no reason other than for the sake of following the rules is counter to the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. —Jeremy (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Can everyone just calm the heck down? There isn't a burning need to move this article, and the RM hasn't had much time; there have been a lot of talk page discussions about the article so I think it's fair to let it run at least a day or two more in case other views come in. But just boldly closing it early like that is probably a step too far, and once you are reverted, just let the process run.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl is correct. Consider this scenario... The page gets moved right now, someone objects tomorrow. Now you have a mess on your hands. If a few days go by and nobody objects, moving it per snowball is probably okay. What I don't understand is this... Why start the process if you think the process is unnecessary? If you wanted to move it because you think nobody is likely to object, why not move it? If you wanted to open a discussion out of courtesy, do you think it's courteous to move the article quickly after the discussion began? I'm not a slave to process but it looks like this is an attempt to be bold but pretend you aren't being bold by having a token discussion first. If that's not your intent, then let it play out the way it's supposed to. -- Atama頭 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification: I didn't start the process, JeremyA did. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• NorthBySouthBaranof didn't just close early. That was done after NSB had three times moved the article despite the discussion still being open. NSB's first move was at 11.29 on 19 Feb[78], less than 8 hours after the RM discussion was opened [79]. Two further moves followed[80][81]; I reverted them all.

Move-warring an open discussion, despite being warned, is plain disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Insisting on bureaucracy for no other reason than bureaucracy disrupts the ability of editors to improve the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no bureaucracy. There is a WP:consensus-forming process, which is a core policy of Wikipedia, and that can take a few days. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so why the hurry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precisely. Once the process has been set into motion, it is disruptive to attempt to bypass that process, especially by edit warring. A solid consensus is not built on a day's discussion from 4 editors. Give it time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• For the benefit of NorthBySouthBaranof, the reason why we are insisting on process (not bureaucracy) is well-explained in the essay "Understanding IAR (Ignore All Rules)", in the section, "Why have any rules, then?" It boils down to consensus though, ensuring that a consensus has been reached. This isn't bureaucracy, "we do what the policy/precendent is because that's what's written", it's a way to fairly establish what the consensus is for a decision before implementing the decision. As I said before, we have two ways of doing things; discuss to reach consensus, or be bold and do it and go back to discussing matters if someone objects (the old BRD method). It's disruptive to do that backwards, though, to be bold while in the midst of discussion. And again, I'm not objecting to a snowball closure, I just think it was premature to implement it so quickly, to implement it by someone who is involved, and it was definitely disruptive to get into a move-war about it. -- Atama頭 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A pot-kettle footnote to this saga. Only minutes after posting here to defend their move-warring and close-warring[82][83], NorthBySouthBaranof asks another editor (User:Konveyor Belt) to "please engage in talk page discussion rather than edit-warring". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because there are actual content-based objections to the change. If you can't distinguish concerns about article content from concerns about bureaucracy, I'm afraid I can't help you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You should then open up a brand-new RM and see, again, which editors support or oppose the move. Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: See the explanation by User:Atama at 20:28. WP:BRD is not bureaucracy. Consensus-seeking is not bureaucracy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Benja the Beauty Boy

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

---

I am concerned with the editing patterns of Benja the Beauty Boy (talk · contribs · logs). This user first edited earlier this month, and after reviewing a few of his edits, I noticed numerous warnings on his talk page and blocked him yesterday for 24 hours for disruptive editing. I noticed today that he seems to have returned to his disruptive editing. What is the best course of action regarding this user? BOZ (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is Bambifan101. -- Atama頭 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, given the editor's topics of editing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous warnings on the user's talk page came from Jim1138, Geraldo Perez, AddWittyNameHere, Josh3580, and NicatronTg, so I am inviting them to comment here as well. BOZ (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe my only interaction with them has been the reverting of a straight-forward case of section blanking at List of recurring South Park characters and leaving a warning at their userpage in response. Both of these actions on my side were done through Huggle and were rather basic; the kind of stuff I come across pretty much any time I am vandal-fighting.

From a quick look at things... They have not responded to a single one of the ten warnings they have gained in the past three weeks; they have not responded to their block and they are still continuing the behaviour that got them in trouble. Their lack of communication makes it impossible to guide them towards proper behaviour on the off-chance that this is more a competence- or understanding-based problem than purposeful non-constructiveness. However, considering their behaviour is rather standard vandal-behaviour (changing information without sources; adding false information; removal of content; ignoring warnings; continuing such behaviour after a short block), I would lean towards purposeful disruptiveness instead.

One way or another, it looks to me like they are heading towards an indef block rather quickly and indeed, plenty of non-constructive users have gotten themselves indeffed with far and far less warning.

Regarding Atama's suggestion that this may be Bambifan101... I cannot call myself particularly familiar with Bambifan101, but if it's him, he has seriously changed his modus operandi. Although the subjects chosen seem to fit Bambifan's usual territory, pretty much none of the other types of behaviour listed are present: no edit summaries, snide or not, and no rebuttals and angry remarks at talkpages (in fact, no edits outside articlespace except for the single uploading of a file and two edits to templates related to the articles edited; X!'s edit counter shows no deleted contribs, so it's not the case that there were any that have been deleted since either). However, they do seem to add false and/or unsourced information to pages, so I suppose that it is a possibility. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that too. The lack of any participation on any discussion pages seems uncharacteristic. It's just the first thing that popped into my mind, since that editor has been so visibly disruptive for so long, but my first guess is probably off. In either case, if the editor can't or won't respond and continues to be disruptive, a permanent block is warranted. -- Atama頭 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

List of metro systems

Conduct issues resolved, so what remains is a content dispute ... and that's not an ANI matter.
For a concern about original research, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard would be a good place ask for input from uninvolved editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I'm very concerned about an invented rule that was created out of the air by a group of editors at List of metro systems. The rule is basically original research and is not referenced and from the talk page, it appears as if it was added deliberately in an attempt to split the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is considered by by the official operator's source and a reliable secondary source to be one system. It was added yesterday by User:BsBsBs (see the diff here), which I have strongly opposed as inventing rules out of the air is a clear breach of WP:NOR. However, editors ignored this and this is the rule that was invented: "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies." The official operator of the system defines Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal law:

제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.

1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail.

〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉

Source: Terms of Passenger Transport.

I also brought this reliable secondary source to them, which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website:

Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world. The total route length of the system extended as far as 940km as of 2013. The first line of the subway was opened in 1974 and the system presently incorporates 17 lines (excluding the Uijeongbu LRT and the recently opened Yongin Ever Line). The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators. Many extension projects are under construction on the already extensive subway network.

Source: Railwaytechnology.com

Clearly, the source is defining this metro system very differently from the way it is listed on that article because of this invented rule that is pointing to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. I need the help of an admin to remove this original research and list Seoul Metropolitan Subway the way the sources define it, not by a group of editors' original research that they claim "consensus". They have now splitted that system into different lines, which is unacceptable. Massyparcer (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. This seems like an inappropriate forum for this. An WP:RfC seems like a better idea than ANI. As a neutral party (I came here for the IP spam item above), I would like to point out that according to this diff, when BsBsBs "censored" you, they reverted to the original wording of your post, which you had edited twice, rapidfire. It seems much more plausible to me that they did so accidentally due to an edit conflict than that they deliberately removed parts of your talk page. They seem like an experienced editor would know that nothing good would come of clipping out parts of someone's response on a talk page, and the parts they cut out weren't even particularly damning or critical. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove the statement about censoring but I would still like to here about constant breaches of WP:NOR by inventing a rule out of the air and going against what the source says. One of the editors has claimed that inventing a parameter for the list out of the air is fine - Is this true? Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a content dispute. If you can't reach agreement, use the WP:dispute resolution mechanisms. You may want to start at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

What was Admrboltz reason for blocking?

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

---

• After the whole discussion about the interaction ban, User:Admrboltz blocked me for three days for no apparent reason. I asked this user twice for why did this user block me but I did not get send me a message back for the reason. While in my history I haven’t caused ANY vandalism in a while so I would like to know why did this user had the need to block me without giving me a reason why after asking the user twice. – TreCoolGuy (talk) 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Vance Miller

A Claim has been made at Talk:Vance Miller that the subject is perfectly capable of manipulating his own wikipage, is there anyone who can see the wood for the trees here?Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How come there are only two recent edits to that talk page? Epicgenius (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

wkvm? wikipedia vance miller by any chance?

In any case, I hatted the thread on that page that had "asshat" in its title as not within talk guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone can figure that out, BTW. Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK I removed the information completely from the talk page (the thread that said "asshat"). BLP applies to non-article space too. We allow a little bit more leeway on discussion pages than in articles, partially because they don't get viewed as often but mostly because it's sometimes necessary to talk about unverified negative information when attempting to discuss biography content. But we never allow full-out attacks against an article subject. -- Atama頭 21:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Edit war: There is now an edit war heatedly going on, I don't have the time to deal with it directly, but someone needs to step in. -- Atama頭 17:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Spent just a bit more time looking into this... The edit war has cooled off for the last few hours after both editors were warned, so no need for intervention yet. Both Epicgenius (talk · contribs) and Auchunesha (talk · contribs) have violated WP:3RR but I'd rather not block either of them (despite it being a bright line), I don't think it's necessary unless either starts up again. -- Atama頭 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To give an idea of what is happening at this article, here are two SPAs that have recently been active at this article:

• Auchunesha (talk · contribs): User was created yesterday (Feb 20) and their only contributions to Wikipedia are to start a recent edit war.
• Wkvm (talk · contribs): User created on Feb 2, removed or mitigated criticism of the article subject that day, then stopped editing before jumping into a recent edit war which began when their earlier edits were undone.

I don't see much else that's fishy at the moment, but these two may be worth watching. -- Atama頭 20:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've notified both editors that they are being discussed here. -- Atama頭 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page, user page, of a blocked user being vandalized in a bad, bad way.

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

---

By 162.251.113.10 here and here. I don't know the proper venue to report this, but it's got to stop.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested protection and reported the IP; possibly overkill, but. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Brian France

Could I get a few admin eyes on this article, please? An SPA has been edit-warring with me to restore this version of the article, which has significant issues with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV among others, and also removes all of the inline citations I've added. I've tried multiple times to engage him on his talk page, my talk page, and article talk, but his only responses have been to remove my post so I know he's at least found article talk, but still won't engage there and call me a "bizarre obsessive". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Nikki's assessment: reverted last edit by Jealousgarcia. NE Ent 03:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: there is disruption here, edit warring without proper invocation of BLP (which saves your butt, Nikkimaria!), failure to communicate (civilly), SPAism, abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. Indefinite does not equal infinitely, as any Ent can tell us, but I do not have high hopes--I could have used WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale. And next up, Bill France, Jr.. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the user had been using an IP to edit-war as well, I semiprotected the article until Monday. Seeing as the Daytona 500 is Sunday... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frasier (season 1) and user Jetromp/99.244.151.88/Etsd

I have attempted to remove certain pieces of trivial information from the Frasier (season 1) article, but have been reverted multiple times without explanation or discussion. I also believe the editor to be using up to three different accounts as sockpuppets (evidence [84], [85] and [86]) to continue doing so. I will admit that I allowed myself to be drawn into an edit war, but the user has been completely uncooperative and continues to add trivial information about actor's sexuality. As a gay person myself, I find it annoying and a little insulting that this editor should want to make such a big deal of pointing out that certain actors are gay when it has absolutely nothing to do with the show or the article itself. Ideally, I would like the content to be removed and the page protected, but perhaps an administrator stepping in will dissuade the editor from re-adding the trivia. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The epitome of original research. "NOTE: After commenting on the attractiveness of Roz's date, Fraiser remarks that Niles might be gay. In real life David Hyde Pierce is gay."[87] Horrid. Block the SPA, and keep rejecting the crap. Doc talk 07:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive/unconstructive editing by IP 89.133.98.28

89.133.98.28 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has been bombarding transport-related articles with redlinks and incorrectly formatted images. From what I've seen, their edits to articles not created by them are always unsourced and their English is awful. In addition, the IP has created many talk pages with broken English, no references or sources, and no associated articles. Although the editor appears to be acting in good faith, this seems like a severe competence issue to me. Any advice? Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge debate going on at the List of metro systems article's talk page. Maybe you should direct the IP editor to the talk page first.Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the IP is particularly involved in that. Note that I wrote "transport-related articles". Here's an edit by the IP not related to transport. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NuparuMahnika

This user has been asked to cease making unconstructive edits to UEFA Champions League and List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals, and at least two editors have been involved in reverting him/her. In response to my request on their talk page for them to stop, they simply responded "lol fuk u". I think that's grounds for a block, don't you? – PeeJay 17:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so; however, I have left a warning on the editor's talk page, so I hope that that will lead him to behave in a more civil manner. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 75.52.186.148

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

---

We have an evident problem with IP 75.52.186.148 (contributions [88]), who seems to have been spreading highly dubious WP:OR throughout multiple articles for some time (mostly relating to Germany, freemasonry, Ayrians and the usual conspiracy-theory hogwash). Given that this IP is now making bizarre accusations regarding User:Paul Barlow [89][90], I think a block is a foregone conclusion. I'd also suggest a rollback of all the IP's 'contributions' would be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask Gnostrat, etc. if I have been an unhelpful presence here. I have created tons of articles and supplemented others of low quality with the knowledge I have - simply lacking a library in my hands at every millisecond.

So my judicial murder is a foregone conclusion? That is the jurisprudence of Wikipedia?

I am willing to mellow out and follow the policies concerning original research. I have nothing to be ashamed of - the fringe and "evil"-type subjects I deal with is a form of personal psycho-catharsis in my own quest for understanding the problem of evil. I demonstrate utterly lucidity of intellect, and to constantly disparage and depersonalize me in belittling, scornful terms, and be "monitored" by P.I.'s, I find ridiculous.

Is the editorial council here prepared to even listen to me...?

There is no evident problem. Is this an examination or as you said, a "foregone conclusion"?

A rollback is simply gratuity of meanness. The ratio of quality versus negativity I have created is highly tilted in my favor.

Your personal lack of proper emotional detachment unfortunately similarly urges me to ask for any OBJECTIVE, DISPASSIONATE assessor or "justiciar" to supplant you. Good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs)

Are all of the 75.52.186.148 edits yours ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland - NO. I believe both myself and those who personally dislike me here are trying to figure out what is happening. I personally am computer-illiterate. I believe my I.P. is not static.

I shall abide by the registration suggestion given here, in order to make less complex some of the confusion, the next time I contribute.

On the other hand, ill-mannered and belligerent, bullying psy-ops tactics to silence others on the part of individuals or editorial syndicates, I firmly do not believe is moral and ethical.

Below, I do not even know what this individual is talking about... "Banned editor?" How could I even type this then?

Then choosing to accelerate things and pretend I am a fringe conspiracy-theorist and anti-Semite, a mental fallacy Wikipedia must uproot. I was not referring to Judaism, but the British nationality of the editor, in puckish or impish affect. The tone did not come out right across the Internet.

shall correct my imperfections, and perhaps others can be less imperious, on the other hand?

Does that sound fair?

Next time I edit an article, I, beforehand, shall obtain a registered account and cite and substantiate all nice and scholastic.

But no psy-ops can be hatched against me simply because I am a controversialist. And we know even editorial councils are not beyond human imperfection. No injustice is all I ask. Is that fair?

Thank you for preventing judicial murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014 (UTC)‎

"monitored by P.I.s"? Look, despite my high position among the Elders of Anglo-Zion I haven't a clue who you are. If I have been reverting your edits for ten years, as you claim, that's probably because your behaviour has been unchanged over that period. Assuming you are not a banned editor, your best approach is to create a username and to prepare contributions with citations supporting your assertions. Paul B (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at a couple of edits and HFS, that's some dense talk, with sentences that are hard to parse: "Germanenorden...was an intransigently right-wing, anti-Judeo-Masonic, völkisch secret society and simultaneously, in the deeper degrees of the society of monied officers capable of supplying arms and munitions, a "crypto-guerrilla" or atypical counter-espionage vigilance committee", that's bad already, but this edit (in Beati Paoli), is incomprehensible: check the paragraph starting "In 1071", for such pearls as "Scientific documentation in either direction relating to these questions is utterly befogged; and myth and reality blended so intricately, objective conclusions meet scholarly limitations". Dangling and ambiguous modifiers are all over the place, every noun needs an adjective needs an adverb needs another adverb--holy moly. But yes, at heart, in terms of Wiki policy, is the problem of reliably sourcing these edits, and one wonders if such statements are ever verified. The various personal attacks are just that, hot air, but disruptively so. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You do not assume a neutral tone here, Sir. Please try to be civil.

I shall try when I open an account to render my bad style and bad lexicon into "popularized" acceptable accessibility, alright? Do you know that not every person on earth had English as their first language? I shall improve, but in an atmosphere of hostility where I am not given the chance, the greater disruption belongs to those who lack objectivity of perception such as yourself. You disrupt my attempt to civilly deal with this, and I do no appreciate it -

The content they are adding, despite being pure walls of unparsable text, is unencyclopaedic. It's the contents of essays or dissertations, not an encyclopaedia, and is full of original research, individuals analysis and purely conclusions the editor has come to presented erroneously as fact. I also note that in November they "abandon Wikipedia in despair," so not sure why they're back. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of the conspiratorial nonsense being posted by this IP can be found in the history of our Dextroamphetamine article[91]:

"As of the moment, the Russian-Israeli mafia criminal enterprise operation, half-Mossad, half-McMafia in personnel, masked as the corporate cartel "TEVA" has achieved gangland supremacy in its diversion and distribution activities done in the shadows; and all the more creditably, TEVA has wrestled against the FDA in victory; and now openly celebrates its anarchistic piracy morality of materialistic profiteering in its conquering manipulation of the generic ADHD, psychostimulant market in America, and now holds sovereign robber-baron imperial possession to price-gouge and skyrocket to infinity the DEXEDRINE of old, once the balm to confused minds of suffering individuals. One can only bow in obeisant submission unto TEVA."

I cannot see how anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is an appropriate platform for such drivel could possibly become a useful contributor. The IP has incidentally also come to the notice of Wikiproject:Philosophy [92] as a result of dubious edits to our article on Schopenhauer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Every time I reply, my words are deleted. What is this? I am asking for fairness.

I did not write the stuff about TEVA. I am not interested in pharmaceuticals.

Why am I not being allowed to even have a fair hearing? This is crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014 (UTC)‎

The section title "collapsed section" of the talk page of Dextroamphetamine contains the following statement which seems consistent with the conspiracy theories you have been outlining today:

I am half-Jewish and half-Central European, so the "anti-Semitic" nonsense please do not even initiate with me, Wikipedians of ideological extremism. I can outshine and outgeneral in cerebral dialectics of counter-propaganda programming and deprogramming, generate psychological influence and unleash psy-warfare most of humankind except elite special forces cannot handle. I am speaking to you, the "frequently contributing" dominant minority of Zionist cyber-guerrillas wielding editorial-managerial power, unfortunately endlessly trying to schizophrenically scramble all objectively forthright discussion of any and all "Jewish cultural affairs", as a psy-op military tactic."

Is the above passage written by you? Paul B (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're just falling victim to edit conflicts, that's all. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? Edit conflict my eye. YOU removed a chunk of his words with this edit only just over an hour ago. His editing is problematic, sure, but he was asked a question and was entitled to answer it. I restored it. Moriori (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, edit conflict. Took me three tries to get my comment in as I kept getting edit conflicts and mine were disappearing. Yes it looks bad, but edit conflicts can cause that unfortunately. I would never remove someone's comment like that, everyone is entitled to say their piece. Canterbury Tail talk 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Edit conflicts do that sometimes. Particularly on busy pages like WP:ANI. Please don't confuse matters with unnecessary accusations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this post [93] yours? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I am now being subject to DNS attacks and viruses violently. I do not know what is happening but this does not reflect well on Wikipedia. Moriori was honorable enough to fairly and equitably notice the little bit he could of whatever is happening... I am retiring for the moment.

To repeat: it appears as if a complex game of impersonation and sophisticated manipulation, among other things, is operative. I am not a pharmacist.

Wikipedia, sort yourself out. Now I have to get my computer fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a static IP to me. It's been editing Julius Evola since October 2012, a pattern of large additions and deletions of content is constant from the beginning, with the added content being very dense. Sorry, editing about Evola since July 2011.[94] - edits about Special Forces, repeatedly talking about anti-Semitism, it's the same person all along. I think that most of his edits have been reverted as unsourced. I don't believe the statement that he/she didn't write the edit mentioning Teva. I think a nice long block is in order. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I have circumvented the cyber-attacks (I shall not mentioned whence derived these missiles), but there is no consistency of subject-matter, no ideational clustering validating any stasis of chronicity. If you look into the I.P.'s past, he/she was advocating pedophilia rights and violent Stalinism one month, and then talking about widely disparate subjects, radical right groups, etc., another: your emotionally-driven campaign to terminate my presence is not juridically substantive.

As my I.P. is bouncy, I suppose you can ban this one I am temporarily on - but one day I shall come back on a stable connection in hardcore university doctorate mode with a credible registered account, and my controversies I fearlessly plunge into I shall not fail to explore: you are merely trying to repressively assign me utlagatus status because I occasionally delve into un-PC topics. No grounds for banning, sorry.

I see many of the actual edits I made have now been summarily deleted. I suppose the judicial lynching is proceeding behind-close-doors appropriately. The truth will always win, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced, incomprehensible, unencyclopedic, essay-like original research will almost always be deleted, as it should. BMK (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, regardless of any other issues, anyone who writes about "ideational clustering validating [a] stasis of chronicity" deserves to be blocked from Wikipedia (and probably the entire internet) for crimes against the English language. On the plus side, such prolix bollocks is easy enough to spot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Prolixity is not an ethical defect. Being a knave for the sake of being a brutal knave bullying others, is. I ask whoever is in power to curtail the endless ad hominem thrust against me by these persons.

Nope. I indicated my deficiency above and agreed to "reform" - now people are merely treating me like a caged beast, picking on me like children. I say: you can ban this I.P., but my drive for truth and fearlessness shall never die; and I shall strive to spread the truth of things to others according to my limits.

I do not know why there is a discussion right now, except for the excessive animosity of one or two individuals. I have agreed to pacifically reform and register, "mechanized", the next time I do so -

Please, study the I.P. history thoroughly, it is INSANE. Obviously not one personality. How can you go from advocating pedophilia (!), Leninist socialism and violent communism to being the Julius Evola apologist extraordinaire? The rationale fails here as a criterion of judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we've had editors before who are just playing with Wikipedia/us. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure they're not here to do anything but entertain themselves. This has to be an act. -- Atama頭 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the IP's history makes entire sense if all the editor is trying to do is harm the encyclopedia for the lulz. BMK (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. If you've been editing for ten years, as you say you have, you should have learned to do that by now. You type four "tildes" (~~~~) at the end of your posts and the ip address and date comes up automatically. You can create a user identity at any time. Like now. However, like Dougweller, I'm afraid I have to say that I do not find your assertions that you are not the same editor who contributed to Dextroamphetamine credible. The language and the preoccupations are identical. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's the same person, no doubt. BMK (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the edit history of the IP, it doesn't really matter whether the same person is responsible for the 'pedophilia' edits - the fact is that the edits coming from the IP now are entirely incompatible with Wikipedia policy regarding original research. And of course incompatible with any encyclopaedia which had any wish to be comprehensible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the Geolocate report says that the IP is static. BMK (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. NE Ent 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) This is not an article. (2) The behavioral and inguistic evidence is unambiguous. BMK (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, "counselors", I munificently offer myself up as your scapegoat: ban this I.P. address in utter lunacy animated by nothing but unreasonable personal emotionalism. I can toggle things, learn things, and return in better form one day. Your action will have accomplished nothing. Are any of you even "officers of rank" here? I hardly can imagine the possibility. Your procedural irregularities and lack of professionalism, you have shown the world to your own dishonor. No good-willed person would seek to ban me, perhaps explain the formatting precisions and tiny bits of stylistic regularity to be conformed to, but banning a person out of nowhere?

I have no more words. I am interested if any of you fellows are actual "jurisprudence" figures or "justices", however...

Mock the caged beast - who is the real troll? Yuck it up, real impressive. Karma exists, the world sees your pettiness of spirit and lack of equity.

Oh no, I am not American English by birth, curse my inferior blood! Thus my diction and lexicon and verbose meandering can be dense and difficult and almost unintelligible at times - yet, it is still better to be a good-willed person who lacks rhetorical sophistic skill than a mere amoral rhetorician of a dessicated scholarship. Ban me for a day, a week, over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, good God what an achievement of heroes you men-folk erected to the God of Victory this day!

And I thought Abd had some massive posts ... Ravensfire (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I've read a lot on AN/I, angry posts, apologetic posts, accusatory posts but nothing so over-the-top ("the God of Victory"?!). If you are not a troll, well, you have an inflated sense of importance. I think people would be less harsh to you if you accepted some responsibility that what you wrote wasn't appropriate for a public, online encyclopedia along with a knowledge of the Manual of Style and WP guidelines and policies. We're all just editors here, even admins, and a little humility can lead to good-will.

P.S. I think your densely worded, opinionated prose is more appropriate for a book you might write one day, not WP which is for a general reader with a basic knowledge of English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A self-published book, perhaps. BMK (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, nice Sanhedrin eye-poke, I needed that, appreciate it, fair assessor. {{xsign}20:02, 21 February 2014‎ 75.52.186.148}}

I endorse an indefinite block (or the static-IP equivalent thereof). The contributions are gibberish and many of them, to the extent understandable, are alarming. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above. The individual seems to view reality outside American materialist sensate culture, and thus should be forthwith liquidated. I am contacting the FBI riot squad paramilitaries right now as I type this to make sure this high-risk individual is suitably watched by the governmental sentries and hopefully permanently chained for such irresponsible individuality. In fact, indefinite banning is too weak: sempiternal shall be the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Block per WP:NOTHERE, please. BMK (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Diannaa and I blocked for 1 year at the same time; Diannaa won. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Special thanks go out to Beyond My Ken and AndyTheGrump for assisting with the clean-up. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Unregistered user continues adding unsourced information across dozens of articles

66.65.150.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add unsourced information across dozens of articles nearly every day over the last weeks, despite having been warned several times and given more than a final warning. RJFF (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, if they start doing it again after the block expires then escalating blocks can follow. -- Atama頭 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Some communication issue?

I know this is known as a dramaboard and I really don't want to cause any. However, I'm not in the habit of asking for admin assistance offline.
Request: Could a genuinely conciliatory admin kindly take a look at the communication issues in my most recent interactions? I'm afraid I've got a bit hot under the collar: this interaction (thoroughly gf no doubt on both sides) to me feels subjectively unfortunate and objectively wrong. Thank you, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll get a better response if you provide "diffs" (examples) of what you are concerned about and why so they don't have to guess. Are you reporting yourself? It's not clear what the problem is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little unfortunate that the IP has felt the need to come here; the interactions have been with me, as far as I'm aware (I haven't looked into any of the IP's history, because there's been no need to, so I'm not aware of any other issues). I think it's more a case of a simple misunderstanding, rather than anything else. The relevant discussion is at User talk:XLinkBot#Massive reversion at Savart wheel, where the bot reverted an addition of a YouTube link as part of an otherwise constructive list of edits by the IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that thread and the related reversions etc. While recognizing that Luke94 intends no harm (gf), for me this has been something of a put down, apparently based on a personal interpretation of a guideline/practice, which seems to me authoritarian and unjustified. Although not key to the page, the implicated link [95] was most certainly a constructive edit for reasons I have explained [96] 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I'd like to think that I'm generally conciliatory (I try to be at least). I understand that the intent was to improve the Savart wheel article by linking to a video hosted by YouTube that showed such a wheel in action. I understand the motivation behind the action. I believe that the both of you were correct in your arguments, in that our current external links guideline allows for such links under particular circumstances, yet Lukeno94 pointed out that in practice the community has come to dislike links to YouTube from articles. In my experience that is true, and I actually expected the guideline to have been updated but it hasn't

I think that there are two problems here; one is the discrepancy between common practice and our guideline, which should be addressed at WT:EL and possibly may only be resolved with a full request for comments for the community to decide definitively whether or not to outright ban YouTube video links from articles. Until and unless that occurs, the short term solution is to decide whether or not the video is proper to include for that article, which should be decided at the article talk page.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a bot that is removing links that are allowed to exist on Wikipedia in a guideline. That must be frustrating to editors. -- Atama頭 23:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehension of the situation and the informative analysis. Yes, in this case I've it really frustrating. I had no idea that carefully chosen YouTube links were now discouraged. (Fwiw, I really hate conflict with gf editors.) 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: Running an "anti-vandal" bot can place an editor in a position of real power with respect to other gf editors, including ips. I feel that such power needs to be exercised with special care. Making gf editors feel they're being treated on a par with unconstructive ips can be a real put down (especially when, as in the present case, it's the only feedback you've received for your work). I think anyone running such a bot needs to be aware of such communication issues. In the present case, for example, I was told that the guideline effectively didn't count ("full stop"). Such an argument leaves one wondering how the heck one's supposed to seek guidance for one's editorial decisions. I also found the tone of the comments quite condescending, and the double use of reversions -- one (i.e. just 1RR) by the bot, followed by one (1RR) by the user -- somewhat inappropriate. All told, for this editor at least, not a good experience. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: I'm also curious to know whether the massive reversion of all my edits (not just the implicated EL) [97] is part of the bot's regular behaviour (perhaps with ips?), or whetrher there is some other technical glitch. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is indeed the bot's standard method to "rollback" all edits by the same user in this cycle, as I explained earlier. This is to stop any intermediate edits by the same user from deliberately blocking the reversion. In your case, it unfortunately leads to the removal of a lot of improvements for one bad EL. 1RR is not relevant here (it isn't in force in this article, and reverting once does not an edit war make, despite what your revert's edit summary stated), and I'm not seeing how my edit summaries were condescending; they were short and to the point. What I said about the guideline is also accurate, as Atama confirmed; Wikipedia is a constantly-evolving organism, and this creates some gaps where policies and guidelines do not have the wording to match current practice. I suggest you read User:XLinkBot/FAQ, 86, to see exactly why the bot acts the way it does. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think the mass reversion was, as I think you recognise, unfortunate here (though of course in practice no more than a minor shock) and I think it called for some apology, however brief. My point about 1RR is that by reverting twice, once with your bot and once as a human user, you were effectively able to put me under 3RR. I cannot accept the argument about the primacy of "standard practice", as that is blatantly unfair to gf users who follow guidelines, while prefering for the most part to stay out of internal Wikipedia discussions. As regards what I perceived as a "condescension", I understand that you do not perceive it in the same way (online communication between people who don't know each other is almost invariably tricky). Fwiw, I'm referring to statements such as I'm not going to click on a YouTube link in an article. Or a Tumblr link in an article. Neither should be there, full stop. This was a carefully selected EL and you weren't prepared to take a moment to look at it, justifying your bot's automated actions on a highly personal interpretation of guidelines/practice for which there is no general consensus. And then you expect me to read the technical blurb for your bot...? Well, actually I'd prefer to try to get some sleep and get my blood pressure back down... 86.173.146.3 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see exactly where most of this confusion has come from. The bot is not mine; I just happen to have its talk page on my watchlist, for reasons that I cannot remember, and I was the first to spot it and respond to the case (I've seen similar issues to this happen before). As I've said several times, I do very much appreciate the work you put into that article, which is why I was equally careful not to hit the revert button when you reverted the bot, but simply removed the offending links, which I removed based on my experience of consensus here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Luke. I feel I'm beginning to understand the dynamics of this. Involved individuals apart, I think this discussion has thrown up some general questions:

• Is it right for a bot to remove, by default, a series of obviously constructive contributions?
• Is it acceptable for a bot and its operator/s user/s to enforce an unofficial interpretation of policy which is not present in the guidelines?
• Is it reasonable to expect operators users of bots such as this one (aimed at preventing unconstructive editing) to take the time examine, at least to some extent, the editorial implications of the issues the bot has detected -- especially after they have been challenged by the contributor -- before insisting on enforcement by repeatedly removing the implicated content?

Finally, I specifically wish to communicate to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that if this sort of unpleasant situation is an editor's reward for developing a page in this way, then I'm damn glad I've chosen to edit as an ip (thereby making me largely immune to malicious profiling by third parties). 86.173.146.3 (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• A bot cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad" beyond what it is programmed for. In this case, XLinkBot is programmed to deal with links, and nothing else; ClueBot deals with the "regular" vandalism. The reason the anti-vandalism bots work in this way is that it stops any vandalism being missed, or made unrevertable due to deliberate manipulation of edits that prevents the removal. Whilst it might be better for XLinkBot to simply remove the bad links, this is not what it was approved to do. The FAQ that I linked to makes a good and understandable case for why things are done in this way. It is acceptable for a bot to enforce "grey areas", because 99% of the time, an IP or new user linking in a YouTube video is doing so for nefarious reasons (self-promotion, general promotion, general spam, flat-out vandalism, etc). It is not reasonable to expect bot operators to examine everything their bot does; at that point, the bot becomes redundant anyway, and many bot runners are semi-active or focus on keeping their bots going (which, given the mess of code that makes up the backbone of Wikimedia-related sites, is no mean feat). If you were an autoconfirmed user, then the bot would probably not interfere with you, unless your link was totally inappropriate. You can, however, request on the bot's talkpage for your IP address to be whitelisted, in order to stop further issues with this bot - if the bot owner agrees to this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• It shoudl also be noted that the vast majority of Youtube links that get put into Wikipedia are copyright violations. This is why they're considered a no-no: they make Wikipedia a party to contributory copyright infringement. Some are good - ones that are, say, uploaded to an "official" channel - but the majority are not, and sometimes it's hard to tell even what really is official or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The operator user of the bot twice insisted on reremoving the link in person [98][99] even after I had entered into discussion on the bot's talk page, a) explaining why this is, imo, one of those "good" links that you rightly mention [100] and b) requesting clarification regarding the WP:YOUTUBE guideline which I believe I have followed correctly [101][102]. For the record, I have now also discussed my rationale on the article talk page, explaining why I believe it is a particularly valuable EL [103].

Imposing personal interpretations of Wikipedia best practice on the basis of personal interpretations such as You tube links should not be included in articles, full stop [104] is I believe "authoritarian" and unhelpful. Refusing to take a moment consider the editorial context [105] (as if the sites linked were somehow beneath the editor's dignity) is I think ungrateful and perhaps (indirectly) insulting to a contributor who has clearly put considerable work into building a small stub based on a single dated source [106] into a rather carefully sourced page [107] regarding a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Is this the sort of feedback one likes to expect when just rounding off two days of work on a serious Wikipedia page? Having had little sleep last night following the displeasure, I am now continuing to insist on these points as I think there are broader implications here for Wikipedia. Is it really such a good idea to discourage and perhaps, ultimately, drive away constructive content contributors by imposing personalized/social interpretations of Wikipedia policy? 86.173.146.3 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Are you simply not reading what I'm writing? I am not the owner of the bot. I have never claimed to be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(no need to shout) I thought that by using the bot you were "operating" it, but I apparently should have used the term "user". Apologies - the terminology here bot teminology is unfamiliar to me. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A review of the edits indicate that 86 is a new editor who is attempting to improve Wikipedia (it happens). Adding references. Changing wording. Improving it even. Probably makes more useful mainspace edits than this worthless Ent does in a month. Finds a cool (but probably 30 seconds too long) video online that demonstrates to the Wikipedia reader what a Savart wheel looks and sounds like -- and they get this? The instructions atop User talk:XLinkBot clearly say "If you feel your addition was within those policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright, you may undo the changes made by XLinkBot." That's the current policy, no matter how many times editors who should know better say "full stop." NE Ent 14:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have anything constructive to add, other than making very sly attacks against me with no basis whatsoever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, probably didn't really need to say the last part. Stricken. NE Ent 15:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I should perhaps clarify that I'm not actually a new editor (and I'm not competition here with Ent or anyone else). 86.173.146.3 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User Daicaregos - wikilawyering over basic editing rules

Can an admin here please inform User:Daicaregos of the rules on Wikipedia regarding repeatedly editing someone's discussion-page comments against their wishes. I have contacted him, but am now obliged to spend x mins of my life in here (Oh how I love Wikipedia, and pages are loading really slowly for me today as well). It's not the biggest thing ever - and I'm half tempted to leave it - but I do think he needs to be told what the rules actually are here, and he's not listening to anyone else: far from it. I'll try and make it as simple as I can to adjudicate, which means a bit more text than a short list of links...

I created a new section on the discussion page of Welsh people HERE (1), and then realised that someone else had already created a section on exactly the same subject directly above mine, probably while I was actually writing mine (I did have to leave my laptop at one point, as I often do). On noticing the duplicate section about 40 mins later (nobody had commented in between) I simply removed my own heading and merged the two, leaving an explanatory 'edit-note' HERE (2) and a little note in brackets on the discussion page too.

This is important here: all the points I addressed in my merged-section's comment exactly related to the heading-title of the section above: they both were about the problematic word "ethnicity". I then extended my comment to address other factors that relate to 'ethnicity' - Bertrand Russell's own preferred identity and the Welsh language in particular - simply because they were part a large edit that I had attempted, all parts of which fully-relate to the "ethnicity" term/issue in the section's introduction. Daicaregos seems to be suggesting that by covering so much I am somehow not playing by the section-merging rules. It does all fully relate though, and I've never heard of such rules anyway. I think this could be an area he doesn't fully understand, but I don't know.

Basically I thought I did something pretty simple, and fully 'by the book' too.

So two hours later (and without asking me first), Daicaregos reinstated my heading HERE (3), with his own note next to it. I wasn't best pleased, so I reverted his change and told him on his talk page HERE (4) that that is against the rules. I asked him not to do it again and told him why. I basically said he had to contact me about things like that, not take it upon himself to do it. I thought that would be the end of it.

Without contacting me at all, Dai then decided to the same thing again, but as a subheading this time HERE (5). Dai was then strongly addressed by User:Ghmyrtle on his talk page HERE (6) - presumably the whole discussion, similar link to 4. For some reason though, Dai is holding his ground on this, as can be seen if you read it. He's 'wikilawyering' to the nth degree, which I actually think is nothing but a waste of people's time. He is also claiming that he is being wronged somehow in all this, by both myself and ghmyrtle (you'll have to read it). Personally I have no interest in arguing with him about it, so I've started this ANI hoping it will be the less of the two time-draining evils. I certainly don't want to get into an 'edit war', so I've left the discussion page as it stands.

--

I will add that on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Wikipedia can do without. I've always thought headings should be more formal than the text within need be, and it is highly likely I would have changed the wording of the heading anyway: probably changing the first word "Creepy" to "Misleading" or "Inappropriate overkill in" - though I do genuinely feel encreeped about the matter at hand I'm afraid. Welsh people expressed as a country-wide group cannot be an 'ethnic group' by any logical definition of this seemingly newly-expressed term. There is just too much variation, even amongst the most overtly 'Welsh'. And residents of Anglesey and Cardiff are very different culturally: two very different 'ethnic groups' if you must insist on using the term that way. My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh - and I could also be from Honolulu too for all anyone here knows - and I feel that I and most other Welsh people have been estranged from Wikipedia's 'Welsh People' article. The intro has changed a little, but it's still not up to scratch: there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all, nor enough balance regarding the minority-spoken Welsh language (still currently called "its language"). I personally think a lot of blustering goes on to stop the words United Kingdom, Britain or British ever getting in. But anyway, I didn't actually need to adapt any of my heading text at all, only effectively 'merge' my new section into the one above.

If anyone else is a bit perplexed about Dai's behaviour here (ie why do this?), I think it could be possible that he wants to initiate an admin-involved discussion on the various merits of recent comments and edits made specifically by myself. I would argue that this isn't the correct way to go about that, or the best eventual place for it to happen either. For those who might be interested in pursuing that line, it can be noted that an alternative introduction to the article is actually being worked on, one that will hopefully be acceptable to enough attending people - it rarely gets better than that in these areas I'm afraid.

I think people may appreciate it if this ANI at least could be kept to the case in hand: ie to clearly affirm the editing rules for this regard, which is hopefully all that's needed. I am also happy to discuss my position regarding the UK, sovereignty, Britishness and anything related though - either one.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs)

PS. I'd like to add that I was unhappy to see the edit-note on me forgetting to sign - calling it a 'wall of text'. I did try to make it easier for someone here, and was prepared to wait a bit. Some people do write more than others - that's life I'm afraid: I don't think it's right to comment negatively on that, an that kind of thing can give the ANI-subject confidence too. I haven't been on Wikpidia for quite a while, am actually quite rusty - and that was no-doubt why I forgot to sign. Matt Lewis (talk)

Response from User:Daicaregos

Summary of complaint: Matt began a new thread at Talk:Welsh people. He subsequently decided to remove the section heading believing it relevant to the previous thread ("..an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales...", by User:Ghmyrtle. I wanted to respond to Ghmyrtle's post, rather than to Matt's post (of over 4000 bytes), so I reinstated Matt's original heading. Following discussion at my talkpage, I subsequently preserved Matt's original heading (“Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction”) as a subheading.

Defence: This complaint seems to be one of interpretation of Talk page guidelines. The Section headings guideline at WP:TPO, says “It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.”. None of Matt's posts have been deleted, nor have they been changed. Not by me, anyway. Note that that guideline also states that no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. (my emphasis).

Matt's post resulted in a rebuke on his talkpage from Ghmyrtle: “I'm tempted to remove your diatribe as, mostly, irrelevant to the article, and completely failing to respond to my point. I won't, but others might. I'm certainly not going to respond to it, though. Please try and keep to the point, rather than going off on a rant.”. I felt the same, which is why I wanted to keep his rant separate from a post that was likely to improve the article. Matt's response to Ghmyrtle included the claim that “… people here need to hear what I have to say about a few things”. Well, that should include all his words, not just those which, in hindsight, he considers appropriate. As Matt says above, “… on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Wikipedia can do without.” Quite. However, Matt is welcome to strike it through if he subsequently considers his words to have been ill-advised or inappropriate, but it is not right that only some editors have the benefit of his stated views.

For reasons best known only to himself, Matt has decided to bring content issues here. While I believe this to be an inappropriate venue for this, I must respond. His misinformed OR/POV views permeate his posts. e.g. “My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh.” (within para 7 of Matt's complaint, above). As so often with Matt's assertions, this is simply untrue. The 2011 census shows 2011 census shows “Nearly two thirds (66 per cent, 2.0 million) of the residents of Wales expressed their national identity as Welsh in 2011. Of these 218,000 also reported that they considered themselves to be British.” Q.E.D. Staying with content for a while, Matt also complains that “... there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all,” (para 7, above). Untrue again. Being part of the UK is not the most notable thing about Welsh people, nor is it true of them all (not all live in the UK or are UK citizens). That is why the UK is not mentioned in the first paragraph. It is, however, in the second paragraph, which states: “Today, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain”.

I was interested to discover (para 8, above) that Matt is working on a new introduction for Welsh People with others, away from, and without notification at, the article talkpage. Sounds rather sinister to me. Shouldn't discussion about article content be open to all? Please advise.

Conclusion: I am sorry this has been brought here, wasting all of our time. Nevertheless, I would welcome a decision on how the WP:TPO guideline should be interpreted in this matter. I would also ask that Matt is requested to add only cited information to articles, and to bare in mind that, while fascinating, people have to spend time reading his rants, so talk page posts should exclude POV and OR and be succinct. Furthermore, I would ask that editors be requested to refrain from making assumptions (Matt, (para 8, above) and Ghmyrtle (at my talkpage) regarding other editors' motivation, which is against WP:AGF. Daicaregos (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dai, people in Wales call themselves 'Welsh' - of course they do. If you ask them if they are British too, then 90% of them say "yes". IT'S NOT SCOTLAND, where between a quarter and third generally do not see themselves as British - it could be rising, we'll see by September. Your figure of '200,000 British' is taken from the island of Anglesey(!) - which could indeed be independent in another world. That's one reason Wales has no single "ethnicity" (ie in this 'modern' sense of the term). You want to call us all an "ethic group" - you can't. I'm one of a no-doubt minority in Wales who actually just just refer to myself 'British', but that doesn't make me any less Welsh. You are constantly trying to hide this diversity in Wikipedia articles, usually by attempting (and often succeeding) in removing the word 'British', or even 'United Kingdom'. I'm so tired of it. I've even had a year or so out and I'm tired of it.

I've put my proposed new introduction to others outside of the discussion page largely because you are such a disruptive presence there, and frankly in all these areas regarding UK natonality. It might be me who eventually loses my temper, but I've never been the disruptive force. I essentially get called a 'POV-pusher' for telling people that apples are apples, and I get angry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review this block

I blocked 174.118.124.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for chopping content repeatedly from Cost of electricity by source; it looked like vandalism and I blocked on that basis. I now see though that they made some kind of garbled reason for removal in the edit summary of their fourth revert, so perhaps this shouldn't be treated as vandalism? On the other hand, they made some rather odd claims at their talk page. I am going to bed and if anyone feels that my block was harsh or that semi-protection would be a better way forward and that the IP user understands how we work, they can unblock without further input from me. Any feedback gratefully received. --John (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the block was appropriate. Although there may be competence issues involved, the IP's edit history is puzzling—a few edits last year, and now edit-warring and section-blanking. Could be a dynamic IP, a sock or undisclosed COI editing. In any case, 3RR was breached and a one-day block is the standard breather. All the best, Miniapolis 00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalism, because they believe there is misinformation in the article, but definitely edit warring. A little more non-templated engagement by established editors prior to escalation would have been nice, but the post-block dialog by John is reasonable... editor indicates they discussed the edit(s) on the "talk back" page but history doesn't indicate any postings to a talk page. I'm off wiki soon myself but if a kind soul wanted to attempt engagement on ip talk page... NE Ent 03:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. --John (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

Could we get some eyes at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and possibly Anita Sarkeesian? User:Nosepea68's edits have escalated over the past few days, from directly challenging the subject and now outright trolling and repeatedlyadding thesame material to the Tropes article. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The user is up to 6RR at the moment. Woodroar (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well done, I want that too as per there's other SPA users than me white washing things of the author (video maker) of TvWiG Nosepea68 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked Nosepea68 since he had reached 9 reverts in about two hours by the time I got there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IP attacking Roscelese again

Here.

• 59.126.26.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I took care of it for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism on my pages (and the obviously associated related on the SIOA and CAIR pages) come from a lot of different anonymous IPs; I don't suppose any kind of rangeblock (to forestall all this instead of just blocking them as we see them) is possible? (Sent you an e-mail, Mark, for BEANS reasons.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an open proxy, Mark, so I took care of it some more. Roscelese, there is no range, they're from all over the world (though most likely only one person). See my own talk here. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Disruptive editing at Andrew Wakefield

User:Zackiegirl, see Zackiegirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be an SPA account engaged in a combination of edit warring and fringe POV and WP:OR pushing at Andrew Wakefield; may in fact already be in violation of WP:3RR. I believe that a block of some sort is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See edit summary: "Corrections to reflect the truth." NE Ent 03:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Clear case of someone who's here only to promote a truth of some sort. I was hesitant to push the button, but earlier activism was reverted here. Block per WP:NOTHERE, which in this case also includes edit warring, and since they're essentially an SPA on the vaccine-autism tip I see no reason to give them even more leeway. If Zackiegirl ever wishes to explain and perhaps receive a few pointers, they can place an unblock request since indefinite is not infinite. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Drmies. I have edited that article so I was reluctant to get involved. This account has campaigner written all over it. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any point in blacklisting http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com ? It can serve no useful purpose here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support this. --John (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing my talk page comments

User:Lightbreather (LB) edited an article talk page comment of mine without permission.[108] Her edit summary was: “Anythingyouwant, I hope you won't mind my anonymizing this for (currently) uninvolved editors' sakes. If so, please revert.” I did mind, and reverted.

A little while later, this editor did it again, but on a much bigger scale.[109] I have not reverted this time, and ask an uninvolved admin to please stop this cycle.

Okay, that's the short version. Now for the longer version, regarding the second (huge) editing of my comments....This kerfuffle involves the article Gun politics in the United States (the "US article") which is a subject of a current ArbCom case (the main subject of the case is the international article Gun control). The US article has a section about people wanting guns to prevent tyranny. LB wanted to prevent that section from including anything about people wanting guns to prevent Nazi-style oppression. So, on January 29, I said that I assumed everyone agreed that the Nazis were tyrannous; to my surprise, LB disagreed.[110] I subsequently mentioned this amazing thing to ArbCom on February 4.[111] Fast forward to today, LB decided over my objections to re-hash the issues that are now before ArbCom (with a decision imminent), and so I obliged.[112] I mentioned the same thing today that I previously mentioned to ArbCom, and LB asked me to delete it from the talk page, and I declined. The discussion is in the link I just gave. So then LB made two successive edits deleting many of my comments. The first edit had this edit summary: "Removing per WP:RPA after other editor refused three requests to remove WP:WIAPA Nazi comparisons." The second edit had this summary: "Restored beginning of sentence lost in removing (three) Nazi comparisons; removed requests (three) to remove Nazi comparisons". I didn't attack LB, and instead invited her to retract her weird previous statement that the Nazis were not tyrannous. Anyway, there you have it. Since my talk page comment got hacked up, I figured it's something that should be mentioned here, even though it's part of an inflamed controversy that is currently before ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion and my objection speak for themselves. This [113] is what it looked like before I removed, per RPA, Anythingyouwant's remarks, which I first asked him three times to remove. The last part of the discussion is most pertinent (scroll down to the out-dent). There was no reason to bring up my remark - taken out of context - from over three weeks ago, let alone to misrepresent it. I told Anything that, and asked him - three times - to remove those parts of his comments.

Were the Nazis tyrants? They were sick, twisted mass-murderers, and to lump what they did in with the "general tyranny" (his words, not mine) of King George's taxation without representation or current attempts to pass stronger gun regulations is beyond inappropriate.

I think it's more than a "kerfuffle" to have someone implying you're a Nazi sympathizer because you don't agree with their ideas of who are tyrants. Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a Nazi sympathizer, or anything of the sort. What I said is that you denied the Nazis were tyrannous, which is exactly what you did. Perhaps you did that to gain advantage in a content dispute; that seems much more likely than that you have the least sympathy for Nazis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Lightbreather denied that the Nazis were "tyrannous" which is a very obscure word alternative to "tyrannical" in any case. I think instead that the editor objected to lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous", which I believe is a reasonable invocation of Godwin's law. Hammering on about "Nazi this, and Nazi that" in such a discussion seems profoundly unhelpful to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't like bringing this here, and I don't even like editing an article that has a Nazi angle, legitimate or not. No one (certainly not me) advocated lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous". What I object to is having my comments edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything: That makes THREE times you've linked to my remark in thhis discussion alone. Why? Also, I explained then and earlier today why I did not agree with your oversimplified I'm-assuming-everyone-here-agrees-the-Nazis-were-tyrannous argument. And I explained further in my last reply. The Polish doctor who delivered me was a concentration camp survivor, and this conversation is causing me distress. Stop trying to make something distasteful out of what I said to refute your bogus remark of three weeks ago. Lightbreather (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well many of my relatives died in concentration camps. This is a delicate subject. I'm more than happy for you to clarify what you meant, but I did not attack you, and there was no valid reason for you to delete my talk page comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

They were personal attacks because there was no valid reason for you to add those comments. Lightbreather (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, LB, you started a talk page section today with "Nazi" in your title. And then you edited my talk page comments in that section you started, and falsely accused me of implying that you are a Nazi sympathizer. What I did was comment about the fact that you denied Nazis were "tyrannous". And you then deleted that comment of mine, along with my explanation: "it goes to the relevance of including Nazi material in the tyranny section." We should be able to agree about the simplest and most obvious fact in human history: that the Nazis were tyrants. You could say they were tyrants, but claim that they were completely different from any other tyrants alluded to in that section of the article, and then we could discuss that claim, but instead you still refuse to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants. It amazes me. In any event, I want my comments restored to that talk page, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

LB There was no need to 'anonymize' those user names, because the user was discussing their on-wiki !votes. LB, will you agree not to edit other people's comments on Any's talk page in future? Any, if they agree, would that solve this specific ANI request? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I edit comments on his talk page? I thought this was about an article talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forget that, I misread things. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How about agreeing not to edit comments he makes on talk pages in future? If there's something you think is wrong (per policy/guideline), you can always request that someone else deals with them. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RPA only is a valid action where there are violations that actually meet WP:NPA. I see no such personal attacks (see WP:WIAPA). Once your removal was undone, it fell into WP:BRD mode, and if you honestly felt it was indeed a personal attack, then your correct place for discussion was here to request consensus on whether or not it was a personal attack. DP 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted LB's small removal, not the big one. I brought the matter here instead. I definitely would like to revert, but would like a green light to do so. Before LB deleted my comments, she asked me to do so three times, and I refused all three times, and she went ahead and did it; I don't expect that she'd accept a revert if she wouldn't let me leave the comments in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO I think you would be more than justified in restoring your comments. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have just now done so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The "small removal" Anything refers to: I replaced two editors' names with four asterisks each. Since our discussion wasn't about those editors, and since one of those editors is currently before ArbCom and the other one I don't wish to hassle, I put the asterisks in MY (original) comment first... and then, yes, in A's reply - which was a COPY/quote of MY comment, pre-asterisk. And my edit summary explained my action. And when he restored their names I did not complain, even though it looks funny now. My comment with two names asterisked out, followed by his copy of my comment with the names included. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the insulting Lightbreather-denies-that-the-Nazis-were-tyrants comment, which I asked A. to remove three times. I read WP:WIAPA and WP:RPA three times, and I feel they do apply. 1. WIAPA says, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion." It goes on to list some things that are never allowed, and ends by saying: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Guys, A. didn't say Neener-neener at me. He's formed an opinion about me based on a Nazi comment taken out of context - and he's attacking me with it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not attacking you. I have said repeatedly that I do not think you have any sympathy with Nazis, you are not a tyrant, et cetera. What more can I possibly say? Now, perhaps it would be convenient if I were attacking you, because then it would be an easier matter to get me kicked out of Wikipedia, but, as Al Gore says, sometimes the truth is not convenient. Anyway, you have many reasons to be optimistic about the ArbCom case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply refactoring other people's comments are indeed grounds for a good block and its been done before. Why the hypocrisy? Considering she did it AGAIN and heasnt learn.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it too late to point out that contributors' personal opinions as to whether the Nazi's were 'tyrants' is of no relevance to article content, and accordingly doesn't belong on the article talk page in the first place? This whole kerfuffle seems to have been started when Anythingyouwant wrote "P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous" [114], and Lightbreather responded "I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree". [115] At that point, neither Anythingyouwant nor anyone else asked Lightbreather to expand on her statement, and accordingly, for Anythingyouwant to raise it again almost a month later, as a blanket statement that "You may not think the Nazis were tyrants" looks to me like a petty attempt at point-scoring, if not a personal attack. I note that Anythingyouwant has also chosen to raise this (long after the appropriate period for the submission of evidence) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop, under the heading of 'Vandalism at article talk page' - which looks to me to be (a) forum shopping, (b) an entirely out-of-process attempt to introduce new evidence (the decision is late as it is), and (c) in direct contradiction to WP:VANDAL. I suggest that this thread be closed with an admonishment to Anythingyouwant for misrepresenting Lightbreather's original comment, and an admonishment to Lightbreather for removing the personal attack, rather than reporting the matter for others to deal with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And I request that AndyTheGrump be admonished for willfully misrepresenting the facts. His omissions could not be more glaring. For one thing, he is an opposing involved party in the ArbCom case. For another, he knows that ArbCom has instructed: "If something new came up that supports a workshop proposal since the evidence phase closed, we don't need to legalistically bar editors from bringing attention to it, since it would have been rather impossible to bring up there." Additionally, Grump knows that I have been continually objecting to LB's refusal to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants, including evidence I presented to ArbCom (which Andy also omits). Grump also knows that I have already acknowledged that LB's actions might not rise to the level of vandalism, but that I also contend that inserting "obvious nonsense" is indeed vandalism, which (as Grump knows) is what I have said happened here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, please close this thread. I got what I came for, namely support for restoring my deleted talk page comments. The rest seems to be just an attempt to divert, distract, and discombobulate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Which facts have I misrepresented? Diffs please. And the ArbCom workshop phase has been closed for some time. And why the fuck do you think that Lightbreather should be obliged to "acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants"? Since when has participation in Wikipedia been contingent on 'acknowledging' facile oversimplifications of history clearly raised as polemical points by partisan contributors? And no, I see no reason to close this thread until you have provided the evidence to back up your claim that I have been 'misrepresenting facts'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I already specified the many items that you omitted, causing misrepresentation by omission. Moreover, per Arbitrator instruction on 13 February: "I'm expecting to have the draft proposed decision posted for Workshop comments within a week." That has not happened yet, and workshop comments are perfectly appropriate right now, as you yourself have been demonstrating. Lightbreather is not obliged to "acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants", but I would urge have urged that she do that, since she has denied it, and since the disputed material does not belong in a section about "tyrants" if the disputed material is not about "tyrants".

I urged LB not to reopen this mess at the article talk page yesterday, and I have urged you to not perpetuate it here. But if you insist, then we can certainly go on and on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think a contributor's personal opinion of whether Nazis were tyrants is of any relevance to article content? Not that we actually know what Lightbreather's opinion on the matter actually is, since her only comment on the matter seems to be to the effect that she disagreed with the use of the word in one particular context - an entirely reasonable position to take when faced with facile polemics. Evidently you aren't actually interested in her opinion though, since rather than ask for an explanation of why she disagreed - in that context - you chose to misrepresent it at ArbCom as some sort of blanket statement. Which it clearly never was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not care about any editor's personal opinions, except about article content. The disputed material does not belong in a section about "tyrants" if the disputed material is not about "tyrants".

First, Andy, you say that I think LightBreather is "obliged" to answer me, and then you say that I'm "not actually interested" in any answer. Please get your story straight, or better yet let this matter drop so ArbCom can finish its business. I will say to you what I already said to LB: you have an excellent chance of prevailing at ArbCom, given that LB is not an involved party (and given my own cynicism about that committee).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is a statement that "I do not care about any editor's personal opinions" compatible with your earlier assertion that "I have been continually objecting to LB's refusal to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants"? You seem to be insisting on some sort of blanket yes or no answer, rather than actually allowing LightBreather to explain her position. And no, LightBreather's opinion on whether the Nazis were tyrants should be of no relevance to article content - that should be left to the appropriate sources, qualified historians of Nazism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered. Obviously, if LB does not agree that the Nazis were tyrants for purposes of this Wikipedia article, then that is extremely relevant to whether the disputed material belongs in a section about "tyrants". I have already offered to provide LB with reliable sources proving that they were tyrants (see article talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What is most 'obvious' here is that you took a qualified statement from LightBreather ('I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree') as some sort of generalised statement you could raise later as and when you felt like it, just to make her look bad. Hence her objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I overlooked her statement until I was putting together my evidence for ArbCom. But it speaks for itself, I didn't mischaracterize it, it explains her position, it's a very flawed statement, I have invited her to change it, I have offered to present evidence that the Nazis were tyrants, and it's manifestly absurd to suggest that the Nazis were tyrants except for purposes of this Wikipedia article. Anyway, Andy, I'm not going to clutter up ANI by further responses to you about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

AccuracyObsessed

AccuracyObsessed continues to vandalize two pages by removing documented and cited information. AccuracyObsessed has been warned and will not discuss anything on the talk pages. Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg has made inaccurate, poorly sourced postings on two articles that appear to be personal attacks and may be libelous. Please view the pages and stop this user from changing well-documented history.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The information was not poorly sourced. It is in a court record. Furthermore, this subject must be covered accurately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartzenberg (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the articles in question is Sheri Fink who won the Pulitzer Prize for her reporting about the medical aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, inherently a controversial story. It seems that there is an active campaign to make Fink look bad, for example, by placing undue weight on her decision to pursue a career in journalism instead of medicine, and accusing her of a lack of journalistic integrity. There are serious WP:BLP concerns, and an active edit war is going on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested prot [116] 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's some major WP:NPOV violations in there. I've taken a stab at removing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg, we're not using an advocacy site specifically created to attack the subject as the major source of a "Criticism" section. Find neutral third party sources like newspapers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As for being "in a court record", remember WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion page, Talk:Sheri_Fink, seems awfully quiet. I suggest y'all use it before making further changes - discuss things and get consensus. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP needs to be dealt with right way. None of the editors who were not previously in the dispute have reverted or disagreed with each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, 88.104.19.233... so nice to see you back in the game with your calm, wise advice! Don't ever think you're not missed around here...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by William M. Connolley

Note: I'm trying to follow instructions on how to file this complaint; I have never done this before.

User:William M. Connolley has engaged in tendentious editing at Charles R. Burton.
When the article was created in 2008, Burton was described as an "explorer," which was duly cited to an obituary in the NYT that called him an explorer. Diff. The word stood until WMC removed it on 8 Feb with the edit summary, "rephrase a bit, make his role clear, and not-call him an explorer: it was only 4 years of his life, after all." Diff.

I reverted it about a week later with the summary, "Unquestionably an explorer." Four hours later he reverted my revert (removed the word "explorer" again) with the summary, "no, its *definteily* questionable, cos I questioned it." Diff. The next day I reverted it, adding more RSs that call Burton an explorer and summarizing, "We'll stick with the RSs." Diff.

On 17 Feb., I fixed a few little things in the article and opened a section on the article talk page asking, "Dr. Connolley, please revert your removal of reliably sourced info. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)" Diff. I also posted on his own talk page, "Hello. Please revert yourself at Charles R. Burton. The sources are clear that he was an explorer and they should not be removed. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)". Diff.To this he responded, "Stop stalking and get a life William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)" Diff.

Then User:Viriditas and User:Jonathan A Jones joined the discussion and in turn restored the word "explorer." You can see the history here.

The crux of my argument is what I posted on WMC's talk page: The article called Burton an explorer since it was created in 2008; the burden of proof to show from RSs that he was not falls on you. We have four reliable sources--including the one you let stand--that call him an explorer. Can you please explain on what basis you assert, "he's still not an explorer, sorry"? Can you please provide a rationale for deleting reliable sources? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Diff. I follow the logic of his reply, but believe it is a personal interpretation and opinion not allowed at WP, a tertiary encyclopedia. If the sources call Burton an explorer, we have to, too. Diff.

Next, WMC very appropriately moved our discussion to the article talk page. You can follow the short history of the discussion here.

My bottom line is that I feel WMC should restore the word "explorer" as the prime identifier of Burton in the first sentence. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him so have not restored it myself. Yopienso (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I warned WMC at the article page, which he did not respond to, and on his talk page, which he blanked. Diff. Diff. Yopienso (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My involvement here was fleeting. I saw the debate, and I thought that the arguments on both sides had some merit, but the strength of the argument probably lay with Yopienso. The discussion on the talk page was largely users talking past each other rather than to each other, though once again Yopienso seemed to be making more of an effort than WMC. I suggested a compromise which I implemented, but it didn't find favour with either side of the debate, and the page returned to an unedifying squabble. As this had exhausted my interest in the subject I left them to it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what I found amazing was the assertion that a person who was only an explorer for four years is thus ineligible to be called an "explorer" at all, but must remain only "British" in the opening sentence of the lead. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As the article shows, he was a soldier and security contractor for most of his life. So he could be called something based on that. What I found amazing is that someone is deemed notable based on 5 newspaper articles. These sorts of sources aren't going to carefully deal with the issues of calling someone an explorer when that isn't what they did for most of their life but only for a short period. A large published biography would presumably sort the issues out, but the threshold for notability is so low for biographies that these sorts of issues arise in the first place. Second Quantization (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he did most of his life. What matters is what he's notable for. Wallace Stevens spent most of his life working in insurance, but he's famous for being a poet. Anders Breivik spent one day of his life being a mass murderer, but that's what he's famous for, and the only reason he has an article. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think Burton is properly called an explorer, because that;s where his notability is, and because that's what he as called in the NYT obit.I doubt they would have done an obit on him otherwise, nor we an article. I also think this discussion does not belong here. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Andy Sellers, BLP violating hoax

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

---

I started looking into this article to find sources but was unable to confirm anything. And when clicking on some of the many wikilinks noticed some were created as fakes; see here the links for the alleged co-bandmates. The band never seemed to exist, the shows, some of which list dozens of cast/cameos never list this person. And most troubling besides outing what is likely a fictionalized real person, we are naming a wife, and children, noting his bisexuality, and his "his battles with depression, alcoholism and cocaine addiction". Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted for the time being; I'll have a look now to see if it's complete bollocks or something else. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that is indeed complete nonsense and will be staying deleted, thanks for reporting it. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Parkfly3 in violation of 3RR

User:Parkfly3 has engaged in an edit war, and has repeatedly deleted flag templates from List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks. Parkfly3 has ignored my warning to not edit war and has violated the three-revert rule.

• Edit #1 - 14:35, 21 February 2014 [117] – Parkfly3 deleted “flags” from table.

- “flags restored to article per WP:BRD at 18:01 [118]].

• Edit #2 - 18:16, 21 February 2014 [119] – Parkfly3 again deleted “flags” from table.

- “flags again restored to article per BRD at 19:13 [120]

- Warning message sent to Parkfly3 at 19:17 (ignored) [121]

• Edit #3 - 19:49, 21 February 2014 [122] - – Parkfly3 again deleted “flags” from table.

User:Parkfly3 is in clear violation of WP:3RR and I request that the account be blocked to prevent further disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR means that you must not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours and Parkfly3 has only just reached the limit of 3 reverts. So while there is no clear violation there is a tendency to edit warring and any further reverts will be met with a block; but as Parkfly3 has now stopped editing I won't block right now. Dolovis, you might, however, want to take a look at WP:MOSFLAG which says that "flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" and "where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." (PS: For future reference, the noticeboard for edit warring is thataway.) De728631 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of the flag template at this article appears to comply with WP:MOSFLAG , but in any event, per WP:BRD, Parkfly3 should not edit war, but should rather first seek a consensus on the article's talk page before making controversial edits to articles. Thank you for the direction to the edit warring noticeboard and if the problem continues it will be taken there. Dolovis (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

BRD isn't a policy or a guideline. It's just an essay. buffbills7701 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Russell Hantz protection needed from IP hopping disruptor

This article appears to be the latest target for a IP hopping vandal. See the closed AfD history, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 show some of the background. Can someone quickly protect the article at least for a few days? The history is quickly filling up with vandalism/reverting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reverting my edits

See here; unwarranted and unfounded reversion of my edits. 81.151.2.172 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)