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

Viriditas again

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

---

Viriditas appears to be starting throwing his aggression around again at Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol: [1][2]. This is clearly inappropriate. Can someone nip this in the bud? I'm not sure how anyone is expected to interact with someone as hostile as that. Cheers, Second Quantization (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Viriditas, he is certainly being very aggressive, but the "other side" could also stand to stop cherry-picking terrible studies to use as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems almost like baiting to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

All involved need to just relax and smoke a joint (where it's legal of course).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume I am on the other side? I picked some well cited papers (50-60 each) which discuss related topics, then I faced a barrage of attack. I didn't cherry pick them, (where are these alternative studies, indicative of the literature, that you say we are ignoring?) I picked the most highly cited I could find which were within ~5 years. I have no preformed views on this topic, and could not care less if cannabis is legalised or not. There is a reasonable discussion we could have about this topic, but Viriditas is jumping in with comments like: "Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing. Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job. It's only a matter of time now. It's over guy, pack it up and go home. ", "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense. You're no skeptic, that's for sure.". How are we meant to address someone that claims that scientific peer review is a "Peer review, as in the political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day? You mean that broken, biased process which serves the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, but not the interests of the public and patients? Is that what you mean?". Also "Where are all the bodies of the dead cannabis users and why are you hiding them?" Second Quantization (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems according to Viriditas I'm not cherry picking but that: "The cannabis literature is more than 90% negative and chock full of false assumptions, half-truths, and scaremongering because it is funded by first and foremost by drug "abuse' and drug control and prevention programs, and this starts at the United Nations and works its way down.". Seriously, when someone claims mass conspiracy in the literature ... There is no reliable source we can use to show anything, because he will instantly trump it by saying that's all part of the conspiracy. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely why I said you were ignorant. You appear to know absolutely nothing about the United Nations drug program which is seeking to outlaw cannabis in every country. This is reported on in reliable sources virtually every week. BBC did a story two days ago, and it's been all over the news since Uruguay voted to legalize it in 2013, which greatly upset the UN .[3] There is nothing conspiratorial about this at all, you're just completely ignorant on the subject. The UN repeats misinformation and propaganda about cannabis to further their anti-cannabis agenda.[4] Virtually every claim they've made about cannabis has been totally debunked by experts in their respective fields, so one wonders what's going on here. With all the problems in the world, with all the war (which the UN has totally failed in their stated mission to end) and hunger and suffering, one wonders why the UN is threatening other countries who legalize cannabis. To whose benefit? The only people that benefit from the criminalization of cannabis are 1) drug dealers, 2) the prison industry, and 3) authoritarian governments, who prefer to restrict the freedom of their citizens to alter their consciousness (cognitive liberty), which is ironically a violation of the human rights charter that the UN is supposed to uphold. This is an historical fucking fact, not some crazy conspiracy. Heck, you didn't even know we were discussing deaths from Marinol, yet you responded to the topic. And now you say you've never heard of Marinol? Is this some kind of a joke? Stop discussing topics you don't know anything about. You are wasting a great deal of time. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a random look at the article and this is what I found when I zoned in on what I find to be the most controversial claim:

Impact on psychosis A literature review on the subject concluded that "cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis." Arseneault, L.; Cannon, M; Witton, J; Murray, RM (2004). "Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (2): 110–117. doi:10.1192/bjp.184.2.110. PMID 14754822. In other words, THC and other active substances of cannabis may accentuate symptoms in people already predisposed, but likely don't cause psychotic disorders on their own. However, a French review from 2009 came to a conclusion that cannabis use, particularly that before age 15, was a factor in the development of schizophrenic disorders. Laqueille, X. (2009). "Le cannabis est-il un facteur de vulnérabilité des troubles schizophrènes?". Archives de Pédiatrie. 16 (9): 1302–5. doi:10.1016/j.arcped.2009.03.016. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

This is what I see as cherry picking - the first source is a primary source journal. It is not a secondary source interpretation or analysis of the journal's contents or conclusions. This is a misuse of the primary source. We cannot make this claim: "A literature review on the subject concluded that...." and then make our own conclusions or analysis in Wikipedia's voice. Then the next source is a non English source and you will have to excuse me here but...why? The US and the UK have all done studies and there are tons of journals. Are we saying that there are no English sources of equal validity? This does seem outrageous to me and I can see why some would get a tad tired of having to deal with this kind of thing if it is persistent and I think it may be. Then, when I go to your talk page I notice what appears to be a non neutral notification to you about other contributions to these "Cannabis" related articles and in turn a quick discussion of "Ideological warriors pushing their viewpoints and ignoring the science because peer review is a means of subjugation by "the man" or whatever". You will excuse me if I say you been here long enough (since 2006) to know that you are bringing the attention to yourself in a manner that makes me wonder who is the one pushing what agenda. I suggest that this is a heated content dispute and you may want to take into consideration what it looks like to others and not just what others look like to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"I took a random look at the article and ..." Erm, no one has claimed this article is perfect and I have never defended that subsection. The specific issue under discussion is THC and myocardial infarction. There is no discussion related specifically to psychosis, so I don't see why you are talking about it? I see no one who has defended that subsection and has nothing to do with the myocardial infarction which was. The validity of viriditas argument that there is a conspiracy [5] amongst Stroke, Lancet etc to exclude pro-cannabis publications related to myocardial infarction is not related to the psychosis section. Second Quantization (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it is a historical fact. This was published in the Los Angeles Times eight hours ago: "For years, scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials...Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Suzanne A. Sisley, clinical assistant professor of psychology at the university's medical school...has been trying to get the green light for her study for three years...scientists have had difficulty getting approval to study how the drug might be employed more effectively...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects...In the last 10 years, the government had approved just one U.S. research center to conduct clinical trials involving marijuana use for medical purposes...The scientist who runs that center, Igor Grant, said his success in getting Washington's sign-off was due in large part to something other scientists do not have: the full force of the state..."Every one of those studies showed, in the short term, a beneficial effect," Grant said. "There is very good evidence cannabis is helpful."[6] Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That does not say what you think it says. It does not support the specific conspiracy you were advocating that positive research about the health risks can not be published. Funding in relation to exploring medical research is a different but unrelated issue. I should also note your hypocrisy. You said "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of". That article only uses that term when referring to cannabis. You berate me for the very things you do while yet again conflating separate issues. Second Quantization (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not advocated any "conspiracy", that's your claim, and the source says exactly what I just quoted to you verbatim; how could it say anything else? It most certainly does support the idea that "positive research about the health risks can not be published" and I quoted it directly from the article: "Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects", emphasis added. Of course, I'm sure you'll continue to misrepresent this until the end of time. There are roadblocks in the US to publishing "positive research about the health risks", and if you had bothered to follow the saga of just two scientists quoted in that article, Suzanne A. Sisley and Igor Grant, you would have acknowledged your mistake. Exactly what do you think the sentence "scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials" refers to here? It refers to the inability to study and publish positive research. Would you please stop whatever it is you are doing and actually educate yourself on the history of cannabis research in the US? I mean, just this once, try to educate yourself. You say you have no clue as to what Marinol is, yet you participate in a discussion about it without even educating yourself on the topic. Do you think some people might find your behavior frustrating, perhaps even disruptive? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get you at all, you claim peer review is meaninglessness because journals won't publish positive research, and you argue about the NIDA despite none of the sources being funded by the NIDA. You take the claims of Cannabis advocates at face value. You continue to focus on medical usage studies not getting funded and extrapolate wildly from an article in the LA to attack all peer reviewed papers in this area. Now you are using the very marijuana term that you attacked me for: ""But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and ...". The studies are not funded by the NIDA. Your issues are irrelevant. There is no evidence of a conspiracy amongst journals (some of which aren't even based in the US) to exclude positive research. Second Quantization (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are just continuing your content dispute here and I was avoiding that by using a completely different sampling of the article. I suggest DR/N.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By looking at samplings of the article rather than Viriditas' behaviour you are turning it into a content dispute. I am concerned with the aggression by viriditas, as shown by the diffs above and the claims of conspiracies. It's purely the behaviour that I am concerned with, and that should be under discussion here. Second Quantization (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seriously though...that Marinol section has a huge chunk sourced to About.com. More eyes are needed on that article. The argument on the talk page seems to have wandered a bit and it does indeed show that individual primary source studies are being suggested as references and your own (or other's) interpretations or analysis of them are being used. Don't. Per WP:RS/MC: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I don't think that is happening in that discussion. Also...everyone needs to stop talking down to each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already left a message on Viriditas' talk page but your behavior will be looked at as well and I do think there was some baiting going on and a little bit of "I don't hear you". Look, it wasn't sweet roses but it wasn't a personal attack in my view but a rather odd analogy with terms you simply zoned in on. Tell me...do you really think he was calling you a chicken fucker?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I don't think your message on Viriditis's userpage, in which you tell Viriditis that you "agree with him entirely", think his "chicken fucking" insult was "hilarious", and that he is "free to ignore" your tentative advice to edit himself was helpful. It only encourages disruptive behavior. It also seems unfair to the other participants in this discussion, because your language here strongly implies that you admonished Viritis, but the language of thea actual note borders on encouraging him. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't referring to me since he made the statement on the 11th and I had never commented on that talk page until the 12th ... Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly more eyes are needed on that article, and I encourage people to edit it, including yourself, so that's it is compliant with WP:MEDRS. Now you draw a comment, this time, about the Marinol section. I know nothing about Marinol before, my comments have not been about it, and I am not particularly interested in learning more about it (if there is something big in the USA about Marinol; I'm not American). My issue was with the myocardial infraction content related to cannabis. I have never edited the Marinol section nor proposed edits to that section so it is of no relevance to me. My comment "edit looks good" is in reference to: [7].

I have not proposed any changes to the article as of yet, nor have I made any changes to the article ever. I'm perfectly capable of being reasoned with, and if someone can dig out secondary sources they think are better from the literature I'm perfectly happy with that. I haven't made up my own mind what the article sections should look like. That is why I notified wikiproject medicine to hopefully attract some medical editors who would be more aware of the best sources in the literature: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Cannabis. I highlighted a section of a peer reviewed article (the part of the paper which describes the literature generally), and some others that may be relevant and all of which had a decent level of citations (~50-60 from google scholar) which I had obtained through Google scholar. I think my editing history shows that I don't have some sort of secret ideology against cannabis (in fact I'm in favour of the legalisation of and taxation of cannabis, but that doesn't mean that this scientific literature shouldn't be accurate summarised with regards to heart attacks). The criticisms being thrown around by Viriditas are that there is a conspiracy (read his comments) within the literature itself followed by lots of invective. Constant claims of conspiracy amongst reliable sources, and ceaseless hostility are behaviour issues. Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...the section this entire transaction took place in is the "Marinol, Cannabis, and Mortality" section of the talk page. If this is your claim: "I have not heard of Marinol before and am not particularly interested in learning more about it " then I suggest you stop further discussion in that section and leave it to those who are interested in the subject in question. I am sure you are a reasonable editor and you do seem highly intelligent...I just don't think you know what you are doing and where you are doing it at, at the moment. I really don't know what else to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the section heading but not what I discussed (I don't think I have commented in that section about Marinol at all), there are two edits under discussion as far as I can see 1. [8] 2. [9]. My comments are related to the later, not the former. I see well cited papers about THC generally, cannabis specifically, in the area of myocardial infarction. It seems there is some weight to mention something about this. I responded to claims of conspiracies about these sources and that I am a bad skeptic etc. It is unreasonable to have people respond to peer reviewed sources with claims about conspiracies etc. Second Quantization (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, there's a bad astronomer, so why can't you be the "bad skeptic"? Think about it: major street cred, hot chicks/guy magnet, whatever. It's a bit sexier than "Second Quantization" (you don't get out much, do you?) Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Scientists who study cannabis in the U.S. are only able to get permission if their study results show something negative about cannabis, no matter how contrived. Researchers who want to study positive aspects, such as the benefits of medical cannabis, have been blocked by bureaucratic processes run by agencies who want to keep the drug illegal and classified as lacking medical value. I gave you a link to today's Los Angeles Times article up above as a source. This is common knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You were/are alleging a conspiracy amongst journals, not a lack of funding into medical applications. Second Quantization (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to this I suggest you create a separate section for "cannabis / myocardial infarction " and then I am requesting that you copy paste the exact sections of the source that I presume are journal articles and not individual studies as it is clearly being challenged and I myself cannot access the source. Accessibility of a source is not a requirement, but since it is being directly challenged you are required to show exactly what passages are being summarized and how the sources are being used. This may not settle your distress about the editor, but I feel it is the source of the issue as you have explained it and I for one want that settled as clearly it is at the center of this. Don't hurry or anything. I'm outa here for the rest of the day and will be returning later this evening.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Mark, I think you missed the point here. I don't think anyone came here asking you to immerse yourself in the content dispute, but simply Mark, if I could redirect here, I believe the main point is to address disruptive editing. The timeline, from my POV at least, looks like this:

1) I noticed a section in the article that claimed that smoking cannibis was safer than using Marinol. The supporting reference was a FIA document in which cannabis activist group asked the FDA for Adverse Event Reporting System data on deaths from Marinol. The document stated that five deaths had been reported, and pointedly stated that these were merely case reports, and no conclusions could be drawn regarding causation. Since the supporting reference was simply case reports, I deleted the comment.

2) Viriditas reverted my edit, offering "Nothing is being compared. It is a documented fact that high does of Marinol lead to death. It is also a documented fact that high doses of cannabis /does not/. End of story, no comparison was made." as his only explantion.

3) As his explanation for the reversion was did not address my explanation for the edit (He simply insisted that the inadequately sourced statement was true), and he did not engage on the Talk page, I undid his reversion and explained myself on the Talk page.

4) Viriditas responded by calling my arguments "bullshit", reiterating his claim that "high doses of marinol kill people", once again not addressing the sourcing issue, and called me a "chicken fucker". I think if you will read his response again, you'll agree that it was pointlessly insulting, and that it once again completely failed to address the explanation for my edit. I pointed out that it was a non-MEDRS citation and could not be used per the source itself to prove marinol "kills people". He simply insisted that marinol does kill people and insulted me.

5) At this point (to be honest, I was pissed at his behavior), I went to the literature and dug into some of the issues behind the safety of smoking cannabis. Its quite possible that my motivations at this point were somewhat vindictive, but it is also very clear at this point that there is a basis for a content discussion about including this material in the article. Viriditas has responded to every attempt to rationally discuss this by engaging in personal insults and other disruptive behavior.

From my point of view, we can handle the content dispute among ourselves so long as everyone debates in good faith and treats each other with respect. You have made it abundantly clear that you regard my position on the issue of cannabis toxicity with skepticism. It is also possible that I am guilty of baiting Viriditas to some extent. But nobody likes to be called a ignorant, a chicken fucker, or to have their painstaking efforts at literature review summarily dismissed as "bunk. Give it up and go home". Nor can one reason with such a person and achieve consensus.

I respectfully request that you I think the main thing is that we address the behavior issue here. Once that is done, we can settle the content dispute among ourselves. If you want to block me for a few days for my role in this, that's fine, I'll take my punishment. But order needs to be re-established if Wikipedia is not to become a version of Lord of the Flies.

If the content dispute is to be discussed here, I'd like to make the point once again that unlike marinol, cannabis (as least in the smoked form) is not an FDA approved drug, and has not been through the usual clinical development process. While MEDRS generally indicates that the best sources are meta analyses of phase 3 trials, no phase 3 trials have been performed on smoked cannabis. Nor have phase 2 trials. If we are not going to include any remarks on the potential risks of smoking marijuana in the article, because the sources fall short of the aforementioned standard, then we really shouldn't be saying anything about it's potential benefits either, as these lie on equally shaky ground. And then we will not have an article at all other than the chemical structure of THC. On the other hand, if mainstream opinion expressed in review articles is that marijuana may be useful for epilepsy, and may increase one's risk of heart attack, it may be reasonable to include both of these mainstream views in the article, even if both are based on weak underlying data. Someday large randomized clinical trials will be performed, but for now, the data available is all there is. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. "Keep fucking that chicken" means "keep up the great work", it does not mean "keep having sex with animals". Look it up yourself. And try to read for context. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry V., I'm an old man and do not keep up with the latest slang. And in particular, the following comments seem to support that your comment had a less benign intent than you are claiming above. How do any of the following comments support concensus building?

Frame it anyway you want out of context, but there is no consensus that cannabis causes the strokes and heart attacks you are proposing, which is precisely the problem. You're only as old as you feel. I feel about 1,500 years old, if that makes you feel any better. When I was a kid, we kindled fire and hunted buffalo, and we liked it. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job.

• Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up.

• You're content to cite political propaganda as fact

• But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense.

• Someone is vastly ignorant in this discussion, and it isn't me

• At what point did you stop critically evaluating the medical literature and start accepting it without question?

• Don't let little things like facts get in the way of reality. You seem to be ignorant about a great deal.

• Sorry, we're not buying the usual round of bullshit. Sell your pharmaceutical snake oil elsewhere.

• Your argument from ignorance stinks.

• Unbelievable. You actually appear to be ignorant of the most demonstrable medical conspiracy of the 20th century

Please sign you comments. I am losing track of who is saying what here. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The bulleted items above are quotes from Viriditis in the discussion on the tetrahydrocannibinol Talk page and were posted here by me. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, taken completely out of context by you. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why don't you tell us then exactly what context justifies calling a fellow editor a "chicken fucker", repeatedly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant", making personal attacks, and the like? In particular, how does it help build consensus and make the editing process more effective? Formerly 98 (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You were not called a "chicken fucker", and I've already answered this above at 06:43, 14 March 2014. Furthermore, you have made no effort to build a consensus of any kind. You reverted two different editors and then quickly injected POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes. If you were trying to build consensus, you would have reverted once and then quickly gone to the talk page to discuss it. You didn't do that. You reverted two different editors twice without discussion because you felt that they were unfairly representing a synthesized THC product produced by the pharmaceutical industry to replace cannabis, a product that doesn't work and has been implicated in multiple deaths, according to the sources. As an act of revenge editing, you then proceeded to add without consensus the statement that cannabis is associated with heart attacks and strokes, a statement that has poor evidence to support it and is highly controversial. At no point did you ever make an edit based on any kind of consensus, so please stop claiming that you did. You engaged in outright POV pushing, removing negative material about a pharmaceutical product intended to replace cannabis while adding speculative, negative material about cannabis in its place. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• To the best of my understanding, my reverts were within the rules described at WP:BRD. And I clearly was active on the Talk page, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

• You're back to the disruptive editing behavior of insisting that "Marinol kills people", arguing off-topic from the actual issue, which is that the supporting reference was not MEDRS compliant. If you find a MEDRS compliant source for that statement, you can add it to the article, and I'll be the first to defend your right to do so, as long as you do so in a way that does not involve making comparisons that are not supported by the data.

• I've freely admitted here that a small part of my motivation for continuing to dig into the cardiovascular AE profile of cannabis after that first exchange was that I was angry. (But you'll notice that the sentence I added describes "possible association" and does not go beyond the strength of the supporting evidence.) I apologize and will endeavor to do better in the future. You, however, are still insisting on your right to behave abusively to other editors. That's where the problem lies and what we would like to see changed. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• What is this, an episode of Fringe? Quick, someone tell Walter that Formerly 98 has crossed over from the other side where in his alternative world, BRD means revert-revert-POV push-without discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I became curious about the surprising claim that "fucking the chicken" means "keep up the good work", so I Googled it. The phrase originates from something newscaster Ernie Anastos said to another person who misspoke on air, and Anastos did compare the phrase to "keep up the good work", but he was making the comparison sarcastically, not as a compliment. It is a sarcastic phrase applied to someone who has put their foot in their mouth in public. Here's a link: [10]. Now if you look at the context of the diff in which Viriditas said it, it's obvious that he is not saying it as a compliment, and it becomes equally clear that his attempt here to re-frame it as a sincere statement of "keep up the good work" is not accurate. It is clearly a confrontational use of a phrase that is either (depending on one's cultural inclinations) vulgar or blunt. It is not conduct that helps move a discussion towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Formerly 98 had no consensus to edit war and revert two different users. Formerly 98 had no consensus to add controversial content claiming cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Yet you are here complaining about me not helping move a discussion towards consensus? Crazy. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. I don't think you'll find "edit-warring" defined as "any edit that Veritis disagrees with", as it seems to be used here.

You didn't engage in BRD at all. You blanket reverted two different editors and then added controversial content, without consensus. But somehow, this is my problem? Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the unsigned comment is from Formerly 98, and I'm replying, instead, directly to Viriditas' reply to me, but more to communicate with administrators watching here, than simply to him. I don't know whether Formerly 98 had consensus or not. My comment was about Viriditas' use of the phrase "fucking the chicken", and his subsequent assertion here at ANI that he was merely telling Formerly 98 to "keep up the good work". I suggest that administrators evaluate for themselves whether or not Veriditas' new comment is consistent with any of the following: sincerely saying "keep up the good work", showing an understanding of the complaints of editors here, showing an understanding of the reasons for the previous block, or helping move discussions towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA

• I'm not here to get involved in the THC content discussion, but as for the aggression noted in the opening post, there is also [11] and [12]. Those personal attacks were not justified by what came before, and took place well after Mark Miller's advice: [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking you at all. I've said that the reason I've ignored you for the last year (almost) is because I think you are intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, you've been following me all over the place trying to get my attention. And the reason I've said you're intellectually dishonest is because you deliberately violated WP:SYN last year to push a POV, and when I confronted you with it, you dismissed it by giving me a "these aren't the droids you are looking for" line of bullshit. I called you on it then and I'm calling you on it now. An admin should not be defending and promoting the violation of our core policies. Block away. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• After looking at the diffs Tryptofish posted above, I am certain I do not see "personal attacks". Frankly, I see candid discourse – and I see Viriditas' part as the rebuttal of what came before it.—John Cline (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

John, is your assessment of the comments I posted above the same as those cited by Tryptofish? Maybe I'm being Miss Manners here, but I did not think this language was helpful in consensus building. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus building? You mean your two reverts and injection of POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes—without any discussion? Is that the consensus building you are talking about? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to this aboveFormerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I've noted that the rules of BRD are different in this dimension. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In reality, I have never said anything remotely like "these aren't the droids you are looking for", even allowing that it might be some sort of paraphrase instead of a direct quote. In the time between Viriditas' return from his block and the message here that I left on Thargor's talk page, my interactions with Viriditas have been zero. Zero. If I'm incorrect, find the diffs. Otherwise, the comments above are exercises in fiction (and pretty bizarre at that).

It's an unfortunate situation that, in Wikipedia today, editors who have been contributing content over a long period of time can get away with stuff that would get a new editor blocked in a nanosecond. It's a real double standard, and a regrettable one. Despite what one member of Viriditas' fan club says here, the diffs I've provided are about as clear a violation of NPA as anyone is ever going to see. Some civility issues are ambiguous; this isn't one of those. I don't really care about blocking Viriditas. I care about getting him back into acceptable conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The comments directed at you Trypto were NOT personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were, in any reasonable interpretation, but that comment reinforces my point about a fan club. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no fan club. Mark and I used to fight like cats and dogs, but we learned to respect each other and now we ask each other for guidance and help. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Then it is unfortunate that you did not heed his guidance here: [14]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have, and I don't believe I asked you for your opinion. I did ask you to give up your obsession with me and what has now turned into a bizarre form of fan fiction. You've created and perpetuated this framed narrative of who I am and what I do that does not exist anywhere in reality. Pretty sad, really. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Given the tiresome task of explaining the metaphor of the Jedi mind trick in relation to what you actually said (of course you never actually said anything about droids, my gosh), I would much prefer a block. I keep forgetting the cardinal rule: never, ever use a metaphor on Wikipedia. Tryptofish, you did show up in multiple discussions where I was involved, and while it is true that you did not interact with me directly, you interacted in those discussions, which to me, means you are trying to get my attention. Wikipedia is a big place, just try to avoid me. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess learning a lesson about metaphor use is a start, especially if it is followed by learning another lesson about the use of insults. And I suppose it's a tiny bit of progress that we have gone from "you've been following me all over the place" to "it is true that you did not interact with me directly". But still no diffs! Trying to get his attention? How? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not this shit again. You and Thargor have been trying to troll the fuck out of me recently. In December, Thargor was trolling my contribs and decided to nominate an obscure article I created for deletion, at which point you showed up to play good cop bad cop. [15] Between then and now, you've showed up on my watchlist quite a bit. Thargor most recently stalked me to Abby Martin, where he began to disrupt the page. Then, in a discussion related to that disruption, you showed up on surprise, surprise, Thargor's talk page.[16] Both of you cannot seem to get over your obsession with me, and you both seem to just "show up" on random pages out of the blue trying to get my attention. Isn't it time you stopped trolling? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about those two specific articles. I could argue that your conduct in pushing fringe scientific theories warrants a monitoring of your activities, but I really don't have the time or energy for that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you've been targeting my contribution list and more specifically, my edits, outside of any talk page. For example, several days ago, you nominated Radioio for deletion. The only reason you did this was out of WP:REVENGE because I had added a link to an interview by Radioio on the Abby Martin article. Your continuing disruption of Wikipedia is part of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS behavior I documented last week on this same noticeboard. And, you seem to have a lot of time and energy for this, as it's all you've been doing for several weeks now. And since I've never pushed fringe scientific theories anywhere on Wikipedia, I'm afraid you're just making stuff up again. As I've said before, please stop using guidelines like WP:FRINGE as an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia and violate NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that I found the Radioio article via the Abby Martin one, which I found via your talk page that I follow. You can make all the accusations you want, but they have no basis in fact and are not helping your case at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been disrupting Abby Martin with WP:DISRUPTSIGNS behavior while nominating articles for deletion due to WP:REVENGE editing—all because I am the author of the article and I am the editor who added the link to Radioio. You've even admitted it. How is this not factual? At what point are you going research and write an article instead of hounding and harassing editors you disagree with? Oh, but I'm the one with the problem, right? Of course, because I object to your disruption, so therefore, I must be the one causing the problem, eh? What kind of twisted nonsense is this? It's like the beginning of this entire thread. Because I object to Formerly 98 edit warring and adding controversial material, I must be the one causing the problem with my "aggressive" behavior? Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not disrupting any articles, not nominating anything out of revenge (you're simply not that important to me, sorry), and I didn't check the contributions to see who added what, I merely followed a link I hadn't seen before to an article that looked like this and, after some significant searching, had only press releases for sources. This paranoia needs to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You disrupted multiple articles, one of which you admittedly found by watching my contributions, after which you made a bad faith nomination of one of the links I added for deletion, and then tendentiously tried to remove multiple links in the article over and over again. This is all covered in WP:REVENGE and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which perfectly describes your behavior. Frankly, your denial here is pathetic. I'm convinced that all you do is follow people around and harass them. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

My good faith is waning. I haven't disrupted any articles (complaints of disruption do not make such claims true), I found *zero* by "watching your contributions" (the Abby Martin article I found, again, because your talk page is watchlisted as I've contributed there in the past). I did try to remove some links a couple times as they did not (and still don't) conform to our guidelines. I'm sorry that the truth of the matter is much less sexy than you're making it out to be, but this is getting to be extremely paranoid. You've been back from your block for months, and because I found two of your articles that people posted about on your talk page, I'm following you all over the place. I wish I had the time it would take to do half of what you accuse me of. I'm not going to continue going back and forth on crazy ravings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, your editing meets 5 of the 6 criterions for disruption at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS as well as WP:REVENGE. You followed me to Abby Martin to disrupt the further reading section and the talk page, and after I added a citation to Radioio, you nominated it for deletion. That is the truth of the matter. You don't research or write articles. You just follow people around and harass them. Furthermore, your bad behavior is enabled by several editors and admins who deflect your disruption onto users who complain about it, and accuse them of "aggression" when they see bad edits being made and their valuable time being wasted. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Finally, some links have been cited by someone other than me, so that's good. So, let's examine Viriditas' claims, and whether or not there is evidence behind them. First of all, Thargor Orlando and I are two different editors. I take no responsibility for his conduct, and I'm only discussing my own conduct here.

• Here is what Viriditas claims about me here: What I am saying is "shit". I am a troll, and I am "trying to troll the fuck out of [him] recently". By "recently", we are discussing what has happened since Viriditas returned from his block, last November. What is the evidence of that?

• The first example provided by Viriditas is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Fragile Intellect. It's true that I have watchlisted Viriditas' user talk ever since he was blocked last year (not posting there during the time after his block, just observing), and that is neither trolling nor disruptive, but rather to be expected following the things that he said to me, that led to his block. So I saw this: [17], and this: [18]. It appeared, on the basis of those two notifications, to be a big enough dispute that I was curious to see what it was. So I looked at the AfD, and it turned out to relate to subjects of human intelligence that relate to my editing interests (and expertise) in neuroscience, so I decided to comment. You can follow the link to see what I ended up saying there. I didn't address Viriditas directly at any point. I mostly disagreed with Thargor. I think that my contributions to that discussion were constructive and well within policy. So what is the evidence that I was playing "good cop bad cop"? What is the evidence that I was acting as a troll?

• The second example is my comment at Thargor's talk page. I had watchlisted that page the same time that I watchlisted Viriditas' page, because it was all part of the same dispute. Since that time, I stopped watchlisting Thargor, because it no longer appeared relevant to me. But I did see what is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Thargor Orlando, and the fact that I look from time to time at ANI is pretty far from trolling Viriditas. And I never commented at that ANI thread. If I were so obsessed with Viriditas or so in conspiracy with Thargor, it's pretty surprising that I wouldn't have shown up there. I watched the discussion, but did not take part in it. But I then started also watchlisting Thargor's talk again. And I saw this: [19], which caught me up short, because it had been I who reported Viriditas to the administrator who blocked him. Next there was this: [20], which was directly about the reasons for that previous block. Please note: numerous editors were accused of being paid editors working for Monsanto or the like, and it turned out to be completely false. Then, there was this: [21] and this: [22]. Now here's the diff within that second diff, and it's worth seeing the tone of what was there: [23]. And here is Viriditas' reaction: [24]. Notice how his argument is based upon his not having used either the word "paid" or the word "shill". Compare that to his actual words in the diff Thargor cited, and compare it to what I quote below from the administrator who blocked Viriditas (and, for that matter, compare it to Viriditas' complaints in this ANI discussion about editors taking what he said too literally). So I said this: [25], which also criticizes Thargor. And I was met by [26] and [27], which brought me to here. So you see, Viriditas was already accusing me of "trying to get [his] attention", even though all that came before was that AfD.

• I've made an awful lot of edits during November, December, January, February, and March. So, over all that time, what is the evidence that I have been trying to "troll the fuck out of" Viriditas? Those two links appear to be Viriditas' entire claim. And what does all of this say about him? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

erm ... Using the phrase you did is not an innocent metaphor as you now seem to assert, and you ought to have owned up to it in the first place. Your demeanour is, at this point, worse than Andy the Grump's. Say you are not "personally attacking" someone and then calling them "intellectually dishonest" might cause any outsider's eyebrows to rise. Wikipedia says we use "reliable sources" even if we "know" they are not the "truth." You see -- Wikipedia is not about the editors - it is only about what sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Erm" right back at you. "These are not the droids you are looking for" can be nothing but a metaphor in that context. The user appears to think that this figure of speech is meant literally. My justification for avoiding an editor is not a personal attack, it's my description of their argument that they used to defend WP:SYN. Your use of the word "innocent" here has no meaning nor relevance. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In most places in this world, "droid" is not quite the same with regard to civility as "fucking." Clearly you are not a denizen of a section of society which regards the tenor of the phrase as relevant to how the phrase is seen by outsider. Collect (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

True. As long as you are an arbitrator for Wikipedia you can say just about anything and use the "fuck" to your delight and nothing happens but a quick close to the discussion here. LOL! Get the "fuck" over it. I really can't say that Viriditas has a pattern of misusing the word "FUCK". Please demonstrate as much our just "fucking" stop. I see this come up all the time and I am "fucking" sick of it. As for Andy...why bring him up. That is just "fucking" rude and discusses the contributor and not the content. What the "fuck"? what does Andy have to do with this and why drag him into it. If you want to begin naming names here....I have a very long "fucking" list of editors who get away with telling others to "Fuck" off and worse. Shall we go down this road? It is a very long road so I suggest everyone rest up for the hike.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your tone is as culpable as is Viriditas' in that case. I consider your vocabulary to be less than civil, and your tone in that same category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You've confused two different discussions. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I rather think that is not the case. I read the diffs and the original discussions and find your vocabulary reprehensible. Have a proverbial cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You conflated two different discussion, one about the use of a popular culture reference to chickens and a completely different one about a popular culture reference to Star Wars. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And you will stick to that excuse" no matter what? Like your use of "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid"? AFAICT, that is a specific reference not to "popular culture" but to asserting that the person should commit suicide. Cheers -- but urging suicide is not acceptable ion Wikipedia or any online site. Collect (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Collect, it looks like you're confused again. Please read Drinking the Kool-Aid. It has nothing whatsoever to do with suicide at all when used this way. It refers to a person "holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination". In the context of the original discussion, it refers to the belief by the user that Marinol did not hurt anyone and that cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Nothing whatsoever to do with suicide"? Really? The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre,[1][2][3] where members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of the Reverend Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide. seems pretty clear to anyone at all -- sorry if you did not know that part of the story. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else in this thread: interpreting "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid" as "asserting that the person should commit suicide" is being intentionally obtuse and dishonest, and the person making such an intentional misinterpretation should either be ignored, or removed from the discussion, depending on how often they've done games-playing crap like that. Like I said, I make no comment on whether there is a similar problem with other editor(s) involved in this thread. But pretending that this could reasonably be interpreted as an encouragement to commit suicide in this way is intentionally lying. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't agree with the vehemence of that comment but there is some sense in it. Viriditas, would it be possible for you to just say things in normal words, rather than say things like "drink the Kool-aid" and "keep fucking that chicken"? If these phrases mean (to you) "keep up the good work", why not just say it using those words next time? They will be much less likely to cause confusion and offence. We need you to help improve the THC article and I really don't want you to be topic-banned or blocked, which is inevitable if you carry on like this. --John (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is manifestly little support for that proposal below, so I would suggest refraining from further comments along that line for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is duly noted, but I see four supporters beneath my (tentative) suggestion. I confidently predict and maintain that if the user was to continue along the lines he has been, some sort of sanction would become inevitable. This is something I would prefer to avoid, and I think this will be best avoided by Viriditas taking on board some of the feedback given here. --John (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

I've read the discussion above. Would a topic ban on Viriditas be helpful, given that this user seems over-invested in the topic to the point where they are cursing at those who do not share their point of view? --John (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Over-invested, as in the fact that I've made approximately two edits to the article in question, one in 2008, and one in 2014?[28] John, considering your most recent conflict with me on John Barrowman and RS/N where consensus was clearly against your disruptive removal of Daily Mail sources, isn't it too soon for you to be exacting revenge on me for scuttling your little campaign? You are clearly not disinterested here, so please stop pretending you are neutral. And for the record, I have "cursed" at nobody. "Keep fucking that chicken" is a euphemism for "keep up the great work". Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You flatter yourself greatly if you think this is about the Daily Mail and your misunderstanding of BLP a few months ago. Here's a question for you. You're obviously a clever guy. Do you think your use of "Keep fucking that chicken" was a wise choice of words? And yes, like it or not, fuck is considered a curse word by most people. --John (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My misunderstanding of BLP? That's a laugh. The community has had to personally intervene multiple times to stop you and correct your gross misunderstanding of BLP. To recap, your erroneous view of BLP was corrected in August 2013, then most notably by 18 editors in October 2013, and then most recently in February 2013 on the Barrowman talk page and on the BLP noticeboard. Is that a record of some kind, John? Talk about being over-invested! I could learn from you... Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Well, if you feel like answering the question, that'll be interesting. If you continue not to answer the question, we will draw our own conclusions from that. So, Viriditas does not want to be topic-banned. Does anybody else who is uninvolved feel it might help, given the user's behaviour? --John (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exact revenge for your failure to win consensus on the BLP dispute we had last month. Block me, topic ban me, I don't care, but I certainly don't think I've deserved either, especially when it's being proposed by an admin still bruised and hurting from his last run-in with me. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't you be topic-banned? I would rather see that than a block, for what it's worth, but it's clear you cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on those who are proposing a topic ban, and there is a presumption of innocence on the accused. I should not have to prove otherwise. As for "going on like this", the only reason I'm even participating here is to dispel your false pretense of neutrality. It seems that when you aren't too busy threatening to block people as an involved admin, you're proposing empty topic bans on your enemies. Is that what it takes to be an admin these days? Looks like we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd actually support a block right now per this edit which indicates an ongoing problem with this editor. Failing that, I think a topic ban may be called for. I would be interested in other opinions though. --John (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you need glasses. That diff indicates no "problem" whatsoever. The link shows me making a joke in the spirit of camaraderie by proposing a "sexier" user name similar to the famous skeptic Phil Plait, who uses the term "bad astronomer", where "bad" is used in the sense of "awesome". Plait is generally considered "sexy", in the sense that he's a "bad ass" astronomer. Do you really need to have every joke explained to you? Block away, dude. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be about building consensus. Viriditas exhibits a pattern of simply insulting everyone who disagrees with him and insisting that they are wrong, naive, and actively supporting oppression and bad science. If he can modify his behavior, his POV is a good one to have represented here. But I suspect he can't/won't, even in response to sanctions. I think a topic ban is a big step, but I don't see what else to do. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

At what point were you building consensus when you edit warred and reverted two different editors[29][30] and then added controversial material that claimed cannabis causes heart attacks and strokes?[31] You're POV pushing and telling me I have a problem? That's rich. But please, keep arguing for a block and topic ban. You're bound to fool someone, anyone. Looks like the gang's all here. Congrats on turning a content dispute, where you've edit warred and pushed a biased POV, into a behavioral problem on the guy who caught you with your pants down. You are clearly admin material. Oh, and don't expect John to understand what you mean about "building consensus", as he refuses to recognize consensus. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note that I find the DM to be RS other than for "contentious claims about living persons", and certainly do not always agree with John, but I suggest he is right that a hiatus from the topic at hand might improve your use of parliamentary vocabulary when dealing with other editors. Attacking John on that unrelated issue, by the way, is quite unlikely to make others take your position as valid, nor is your use of profane expletives indicative of one who seeks consensus rather than confrontation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I don't see how anyone could discuss anything at this article while Viriditas launches his pointless insults [32], straw men, conspiratorial ideation [33][34][35] and screeds at any comment [36][37][38]. Second Quantization (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a fucking joke. This from someone who follows me to a discussion he knows nothing about and admits he knows nothing about it. How can you participate in a discussion you know nothing about? This is nuts. Yet, here you are, the OP of this thread, successfully distracting from the POV pushing by Formerly 98. Nice work, Second Quantization. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it is time to discuss some sort of sanction, but I'm not sure which "topic" we are discussing here. Is it cannabis? The problem is that Viriditas moves from one topic to another, and when he gets sufficiently annoyed with other editors over a content dispute, he starts to ascribe bad motivations to them, and from there he moves to disruptive behavior. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• The trouble is that at this point it is apparent that if a topic ban will not fly, we would have to be looking at a longer block. He just came back from a three-month block; the next would normally be for six months. I would very much rather not see a well-meaning and intelligent editor taken out for that length of time if a topic ban could be as preventive. I also have some sympathy for the proposition that our article on THC is a mess, and desperately needs a cleanup. Its just the manner that Viriditas has adopted that it unhelpful. If he could just cool it, apologise for the fucking the chicken comment (and no, euphemism is not the right word for that), then we could all just get on with things. It seems that this is beyond them at the moment and we are heading for some sort of administrative action, which I would far rather avoid. --John (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're right about my misuse of the word "euphemism". It's an anti-euphemism. Thanks for the correction. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, and I somewhat agree with your desire to avoid losing the good along with the bad. And I infer that, yes, you are talking about "cannabis" as the topic for the topic ban. I'm willing to try it. But I fear that it won't work, for the reasons that I already said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume the topic ban would be on "all articles concerning marijuana or health, reasonably construed". Or the Hobson's choice of a six month simple block / Wikication. Collect (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Block history

I think that, at this point, it is useful to look back at Viriditas' history over a longer period, and particularly the context, now, for considering a possible block. Here is his block log: [39]. More directly relevant is the rationale for his most recent block, a three-month block from August to November of last year: [40]. I urge administrators looking here to read that diff carefully. It notes a history of successively longer blocks, based partly on edit warring, but based more on:

"persistent assumptions of bad faith, multiple unsubstantiated accusations, and so on and so on: it has mostly been pointed out to you before, so I don't need to go through the full list. One of the most striking features of what I saw was your own apparent blindness to the extent to which you make the very mistakes of which you accuse others. For example, you have repeatedly accused others of WP:IDHT... but you are one of the biggest perpetrators of that error; you accuse others of "making false accusations"... , despite the fact that you have a long and still continuing history of making accusations without substantiation, and in some cases accusations which the simplest checks show are demonstrably false. Perhaps the most fundamental problem is that you appear to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes your position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against you must have ulterior motives."

Viriditas has been back from that block since November. During that time, he has gotten cautions from various editors about resumption of that behavior: [41], [42], [43]. The expectation of the community is that an editor returning from a block will learn from the reasons for that block, and do better going forward (and we have lots of good editors who have done just that).

The question now is whether, on the evidence of how Viriditas is replying to other editors in this ANI thread, he has reformed the behaviors that led to past blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Trypto, you and I go back years and I generally respect your views, but you have had a running disagreement with Viriditas for some time. This section is unworthy of you, in my view, for a number of reasons but most notably because you fail to mention that fact. As you know I have followed Viriditas and often, but not always, agree with his stands. I don't agree that his blocks have all been what I'd call "justice." This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all. Again, I strongly suggest you redact the above as unworthy of you. Jusdafax 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the discussion here has focused on how to keep him around while getting him to adjust his style. So I'm not clear on how the comment "This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all" is topical. I think we all agree that the style is problematic. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree. Viriditas' style is what it is. It seems to me that the section is pushing a block or other sanctions, given the lack of consensus for a topic ban and the section's title, and personally I feel that remedial action is uncalled for. Viriditas is edgy, as seen above, and has a lower tolerance for certain types of edits than many of us do. That said, he is useful in that he does good work often and is refreshingly candid. Viriditas deserves better than this discussion. I do suggest Viriditas review WP:WQ. In fact, many here, including myself, should. Jusdafax 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, that is your answer to years of problematic behaviour? Read WP:WQ? Second Quantization (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I am fully and pointedly staying out of any calls for a topic ban or anything like that because I have a history with Viriditas, but, Jusdafax, I think the double standard complaint is valid in this case. No one is disparaging the work Viriditas puts in. The question is how long we're going to allow a rope to be in this scenario, and the uneven treatment. You, yourself, question Tryptofish's history with Viri as a motive here, yet that same skepticism wasn't welcome when it was Viri attempting to get someone he's had longstanding conflicts with blocked two weeks ago. Viri has written better articles than I'll ever get around to writing here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his contributions amount to a net positive when it comes to issues of fringe science or political topics, for example. Again, I'm neutral on this because there's no way I can possibly be objective, but the apparent double standard is troubling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I salute that neutrality here, TO. You refer, I assume, to the recent calls to block you here, which on reflection appeared unsound to me. I struck my !vote to do so, which I am sorry to see you fail to mention, on deeper consideration of the larger issues. Wikipedia, as many have noted, isn't always fair. Viriditas may not attach the same importance to a clean block log that you (I assume) and I do, but I find that his willingness to stand up for what he believes in is inspiring, characterizations aside, and suggest you work to put history aside. I admit it is not always easy, and I have failed myself badly at times. I consider Trypto a friend and feel he can take my views honestly and in good faith. If Wikipedia is to continue into the future as a vital, growing project free from feuds, we all must make that effort. Jusdafax 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor, I think you're mistaking "abusive" for "refreshingly candid". We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and most of us take secret pleasure when someone lashes out at a third party whose incomprehensible viewpoint irritates us. But when those of us on the other side of the issue, equally convinced that we are "right", start calling our opponents "morons", telling them they are "ignorant", and dismissing their viewpoint out of hand, it just turns into an ugly free for all. I think you are imagining a world in which those you agree with are "refreshingly candid" and put those other people in their place. But I guarantee you, those other people are just as capable of being rude, hostile, and offensive as those you agree with. It really doesn't work in the long run, and that's why we have WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was Jusdafax, not Thargor, who said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jusdafax, I'm saddened to find that you feel this way, and I'm going to try to give you a detailed reply. As best I can remember, my first interactions with Viriditas were: [44], [45], and [46]. I'm not exactly being hostile there, am I? What you call a "running disagreement" started last year, when I saw an RfC about March Against Monsanto. I went to the talk page there with no agenda. My first two comments there were un-noteworthy; here is the third thing I wrote: [47]. And my fourth: [48]. Shortly later: [49], [50], and [51]. I'm not pursuing anything like a disagreement with Viriditas anywhere there! As discussion went on, I began to see nastiness directed mostly at other editors, not at me, but there were things like [52] (lower part), that met my collegial comments with assumptions of bad faith, and [53] that, while seemingly polite, appeared to question my intellect because I had a different opinion. And those examples are very mild, compared to what was directed at other editors, who appeared to me to be acting in good faith, and mild compared to what came later, and led to the block. Jusdafax, it simply is not true that I'm here to push an advantage in some sort of editing disagreement. I'm not currently in any content disagreement with him, anywhere. And, Jusdafax, I'm pretty sure that my first interactions with you were in respect to CDA, where we both agreed that editors who have some sort of track record do not get to get away with things that new editors would be blocked for. I'm trying to stay true to that belief here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Trypto, it could be that the four years since our work at WP:CDA (which of course was more about admins and the community, than longstanding content builders having a "civility edge" over "lesser" editors) has given me a more realistic view of the Realpolitik we face here these days. I am aware of the Monsanto diffs and, as you recall, urged a more moderate tone at Viriditas' Talk page back then. To be brief, after warnings he was blocked and he served his time. I ask you to join me in now urging this thread be closed as unproductive. From here on out, it's gonna be more heat than light, and we should agree the issues are noted and agree to move on. Jusdafax 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you are really aware of those diffs, then you have to know that I'm not here to push a personal agenda. I wasn't then, and I'm not now. I stand by what I've said here, and I'm not calling it back. If you look at everything I've said here at ANI, I earlier said that I'm not really interested in getting Viriditas blocked, but more interested in getting him back into good behavior (see above). Since I said that, he has engaged, in his subsequent comments in this discussion, in more of the conduct that got him blocked the last time. In my opinion, the opinion of the blocking administrator, that I quote above, was not at all unjust, but was sound and very thoughtful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• You keep trying to frame the opinion of the past blocking admin as a factual narrative, but I find it to be completely erroneous without any basis in fact. The reason you keep trying to frame me as this editor that doesn't exist is indeed, your personal agenda. And that's another reason why I wish to have nothing to do with you. You're very deceptive, on a subtle level that most people would miss. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I probably won't comment here further unless directly necessary, but my comment was not meant to disregard your second look, Jusdafax, but rather just to point out the good faith in one area (where an editor has been blocked repeatedly for the same thing) but not another (when an editor you've barely interacted with, if at all, is accused by someone who has been blocked repeatedly). That's all I mean by double standard, and I raised it with you directly because you've shown me as someone who is willing to revisit issues when necessary. That's all, no offense meant by the line toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I'll be "refreshingly candid" here, but mean no offense: My question is, why have rules at all if you are not going to enforce them? We seem to all agree that the rules have been broken, and that it is a recurring situation. I would suggest there are three possibilities here. 1) We have civility rules and consistently enforce them. 2) We have civility rules and enforce them selectively, depending on whether we "like" or frequently agree with the offender, or other discriminatory criteria. 3) We just get rid of the rules altogether. I'd strongly prefer 1 or 3, each of which pretty much constitutes the old adage of "the law is no respecter of persons". Number 2 has a lot of problems. One of which is that it opens up the system for a lot of abuse. Another is that it breeds contempt for the rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been on the side of 1, as many here know quite well, for many years. I have urged 3, with sardonic intent, at times when I have not gotten the feeling 1 was respected. As I am sure most here are well aware, 2 is operative much of the time. We could debate much further on that, with multiple citations and examples, but I prefer not to. Bottom line: A debate over civility is not what is called for on this page. Again: suggest we close. Jusdafax 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Being new, I'd like to ask a procedural question. If no sanctions are taken against Viriditas as a result of his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, his extension of these violations to this discussion, and his implied declaration that he intends to continue these violations in the future, is it ok for me to assume that I and other editors also have carte blanche to ignore these rules without fear of being blocked or other repercussions? Or would the precedent be editor-specific? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I really believe people are holding grudges and simply take offense to things that are truly taken way out of context because of individual moral standards that are a reaction to as much the other person here then the editor that really...looks like he's getting sharp end of a pointy stick. I seem to remember that I had a run in with Viriditas but that we quickly got over it because...I apologized for my mistakes and he quickly offered the same along with another editor. I'm trying hard to remember, but I think we did it on an Administrators talk page I can't remember...that might have been another editor. I do remember the articles and some of the edit warring and I am embarrassed by my behavior...I sure wouldn't want to be pointing to any of that because my behavior looks worse that theirs looking back on all that. We edit a lot of California subjects and biographies. Has he cussed? Yes. Should he? No. Is it a pattern? Not really. A pattern is something repeated enough to see a pattern, but I just see someone who reacts badly sometimes when he feels he needs to defend himself and I also weigh how bad others may be acting, I know Trypto you have been in heated discussion before, it isn't as if it is a shock. I honestly don't see enough for sanctions. I do see enough that some content disputes could be referred to DR/N and if editors wish, create a RFC/U, but I don't suggest it. If anyone acted as stupid as I know I did when I first reacted to Viriditas...I wouldn't be pointing the community to as shining examples of our behavior.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Before I saw Mark's very thoughtful comment, I was going to reply to Formerly 98 that, even if things don't get resolved here, it's not OK for any of the rest of us to use one editor's bad conduct as an excuse for bad conduct ourselves, and that if they don't get resolved here, this is not necessarily the end of the overall discussion of the disputes. But then I saw what Mark said, and I want to thank him and compliment him for a very good job of helping to lower the temperature, always a good thing to do. What you ask of me, Mark, about whether I might just be taking things too personally based on what came before, and whether I should let go now, is a very good question, and one that I already thought about before you asked it. Yes, I've had heated discussions with other editors in the past, and get along just fine with them now. But I sincerely believe that this is different. What I saw for the first time at the Monsanto dispute was a degree of nastiness and assumption of bad faith that I have never before seen on such a scale from experienced editors. I've seen it from drive-by newbies, and they don't last long, but what I saw here was nastiness returned even when I tried to be friendly. I've already given diffs here of me saying that I agreed with Viriditas about something, followed by him insulting me in return. And look at the way this ANI discussion has gone. Viriditas has had numerous opportunities over several days to say something roughly like that he doesn't entirely agree with the criticisms of him but he is going to make some sort of effort going forward to do something better, or something like that. But instead, quite the opposite. His most recent comments called my concerns about him "shit" and he accused me of being in league with Thargor to "troll the fuck out of" him. There's not much for me to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, first let me apologize for the snarky post. It was a weak attempt to remind the "boys will be boys" crowd that incivility and snarkiness are unpleasant to be on the receiving end of.

Second, this is not about agrudge. Its about the future. Those who are admins or philosophical allies of V. dont have to worry about behavior that they will not be on the recieving end of or which they have the power to sanction. But little people like myself have no recourse other than to ask the referrees to do their job. And seeing everyone here agree that the offense not only occurred, but will surely continue, and do nothing tells me never to bother bringing an issue here in the future. And it tells V. to continue or even ramp it up abit.

What can i say. If the rules arent enforced, Wikipedia is a much less attractive place to invest time and effort from my pov. Not because of a grudge, butbecause of whst i expect to hsve to put up with in the future. No tilds on my phone Formerly98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Truly, what you said was not snarky. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for responding to Mark here, hard as hell to scroll thru hundreds of lines on my phone. Just want to say no one is proposing crucifixion. I just dont want to see him get a complete pass on this as it encourages more of the same. An apology would 100% suffice. Formerly98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"[P]eople like myself have no recourse other than to ask the referees..." I truly believe everyone can referee themselves and should try. Everyone including Viriditas, but from where I come from, I already know they are capable of getting over the dispute no matter how ugly it may have gotten. Now you just have to ask your self if you really can get over the heat of the discussion and center of really moving forward. I make no suggestion how you can do that, jut that I started with..."Sorry, for my part...".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's bad enough that you won't do anything about the situation, worse that you went to V's page and encouraged his behavior, and now you're going to suggest that I apologize. We clearly have very different value systems and I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Won't do anything? I left a message to Viriditas about this...once, but other than that, I am not a administrator and I don't have a problem with them. They've always been very helpful with content even when we weren't on good terms. I think they are a net plus to the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"I think they are a net plus to ...", I think that is why you'd never support action no matter what he did, you work closely with him in some areas. You've presumably never encountered him when he tries to push his views like he did at GM related articles for example and got blocked. Most defences I've seen of Viri have been along ideological grounds or "I work with him and he's fine" type reasoning. I presume this is why you tried to derail the initial thread by continually making posts related to content issues instead of the behaviour issues. If this was any other editor behaving the way he was, they'd already be blocked. Second Quantization (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An offer

As a possible alternative to either a topic ban, a block, or further pursuit of the dispute resolution process, let me put the following on the table. Perhaps Viriditas will offer something about his intended conduct going forward from now. I expect that he won't want to follow my advice, so I'm not going to specify anything about what he might say. But I would much prefer that he be able to resume good editing without the bad conduct, instead of a block, so I'd like to hear how he responds to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, stop following me around. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on a person who seems to be on your side is one of the best ways known to man to make them less willing to proffer much o anything. "Verb. sap." applies here and I think you would be well-advised to consider that offer. Collect (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish has consistently created a false narrative that portrays me in a negative light. He's been personally promoting this negative narrative for almost a year based on information that has never been substantiated or verified and amounts to rumor and gossip. He is not on my side. This is a personal vendetta for him. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I now am convinced you have jumped the proverbial shark here, and absolutely need a Wikication of some sort. You see "enemies" around every corner and are loathe to accept that your wording choices have been "unfortunate" at best, and thus a Wikication of a year or two might even be proposed. That everyone is on a vendetta against me is not precisely the sort of attitude which is reasonable for an editor following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked a question, and Viriditas has given me his answer. For me, for now, that's that. It seems to me that any uninvolved administrator who is willing to take the time to read through all of this and think about it objectively, we are at the stage where a 6-month block is appropriate. I also recognize that a lot of administrators just won't want to touch this issue, for fear of backlash. In a perfect world, that wouldn't happen, but this is the real world, not a perfect one. Wikipedia has other avenues for resolving disputes that the community cannot resolve. I'm done responding to every bit of nonsense here, but I'll keep watching. If there's a block, I'll support it. If not, I'll continue to see what happens; perhaps, despite what he says here, Viriditas will take some lessons from this discussion, and there will be no need for any further dispute. But if Viriditas continues to conduct himself as he presents his views in his most recent comments in this discussion, then there will eventually be other avenues of dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to close

It's now been six days since this was raised. I don't see any other problematic edits from Viriditas in the meantime. I do see a consensus that Viriditas ought to tone down the rhetoric. It would be lovely if Viriditas was to acknowledge that here or somewhere else. I don't see that they are going to, and I also don't think any admin action is currently required. If there are other issues here, content issues can be addressed via article talk or RfC, and if other editors are exacerbating things that needs to be raised separately. I would propose that we now close this discussion with a firm request that Viriditas keep the rhetoric dialled down in future, and that any repetition will be considered blockworthy. Would anyone (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)object to this? --John (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree in part with John. This discussion is not approaching consensus, and clearly will not get there. I'm personally disappointed that flagrant repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, defiance in the face of attempts to address these violations, and what appears to me to be an open statement of intent to continue to engage in these violations will have no consequences, and thus will almost certainly continue if not escalate in the future. I'm further disappointed that this decision has been heavily influenced by an admin who described V's use of the phrase "fucking that chicken" as "hilarious".

As a result of these multiple violations of the Formerly_98 terms of service, including but not limited to wasting my time F98:WMFT, egregious politics (F98:BS, and generally inequitable treatment (F98:FAIR), I'm placing Wikipedia on a 30 day block.Formerly 98

Just so you know, the editor who said it was "hilarious" is not an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I came right out and stated on this thread that I am not an admin and cannot block editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This smacks very much of being the I don't like Viriditas club, hoping this would be the last round of public shaming, resulting in some punishment. Instead this will inevitably be just the latest round, and will be mined for naughty remarks to use in the next pillory effort. It would be nice if WP:Civil were enforced, but would require an appearance of doing so evenly, and the ramifications may be dire for others involved. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've pretty much summed up the way I feel in the section just above, so, while I'm not actively arguing for closing, I certainly have no objection. I think that John is correct in his advice to Viriditas to "tone down the rhetoric". I would quibble with John that the situation is not so much one of no administrative action being needed, as no administrative action going to happen, and I think that's sad. I strongly endorse John's conclusion that "any repetition will be considered blockworthy". And I think there is a clear consensus that no repetition would be the best outcome going forward, an outcome that would be welcomed by everyone, including me. Based on what has (not) happened here, I am skeptical about the actual likelihood of a future block if needed, however. Paradoxically and regrettably, if this dispute does end up moving up the dispute resolution ladder, the end result may be a site ban instead of a block, so that's a compelling reason to follow John's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support This may just be the thing to stop his preposterous Behavior of Swearing and Being Highly uncivil. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Close as no some consensus. Clearly John feels that there is enough consensus to see that the editor "ought to tone down the rhetoric". I would support a simple note to the editor in that manner but do not agree the consensus deserves a further warning.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  Consensus does not have to be unanimous. I accept that there is no consensus to block at this time, but surely there is consensus about some of John's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. I won't object if the outcome is a consensus to request the editor refrain from such behavior, but I will not accept that there is any consensus for such to be block worthy or Beeblebrox and Eric Corbet wouldn't be here. I do not like or approve of double standards. Either we block them all and let god (or the deity of your choice) sort it out...or we just don't block for this type of thing. Period. Sorry. I know that is not much help...but why should this be any different? 'll respect and support any decision John makes, but I am very concerned that we have such a differing level of Wikipedian who can resort to this type of behavior and it is acceptable and then have others who do the exact same thing and get blocked. I don't have an issue with either Beeble or Eric and I don't have an issue with Viriditas.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not at all happy (I know...nobody cares) that User:Bishonen used a secondary account to create this thread. When you request other admin to intervene on your behalf against another editor and that editor feels there is a personal vendetta against them....this does NOT make it look better. I am sure I am going to regret this...but I am requesting that User:Bishonen reply here to answer why they made this request under a secondary account I now see they have requested be blocked. I am sure there is a perfectly acceptable explanation...I would just appreciate knowing what it is. [Edit: The confusion stemmed from the page the Admin has set up for their criteria for self requested blocks that was added to the block explanation and made it look as if Bishonen was the one requesting the block. Apologies to Bishonen for not understanding that block explanation].--Mark Miller (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me.. what? That's a rather unexpected tree you're barking up. I haven't posted anything in this thread, from any account. It'll be a cold day in hell before Darwinbish posts on ANI. Did you think User:Second Quantization was mine..? But why? It's the user who used to be known as IRWolfie-, and he has changed his account name in the most proper way; it's not a secondary account. He's on break now, yes. It's not necessary to discuss self-requested blocks publicly on ANI. :-( I try to perform them discreetly, but I guess it was not to be in this case. Anything else? Bishonen | talk 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

Got it. You were the blocking admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And, lest there be further confusion, not the admin who blocked Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel Johns advice should be followed becuse 1.) consensus Concludes that this should happen, and 2.) If we say that he will be blocked if he does it again, he knows that this is his Last Chance, kind of like WP:ROPE. Except that there was no block. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see consensus for toning it down, I see no consensus to warn of a future block. Look, I like a lot of these editors, but something else that is being shown in this discussion is that there are editors gunning for Viriditas that DO hold a grudge and I don't think they are best to be forming a consensus. The discussion didn't really garner a large pool of contributors, but mostly just editors that are pissed off at them for one reason or another. I do support mentioning to Viriditas that they should tone down the aggression but don't feel a warning should be given at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, based on what you said directly above, and also a few lines above, I do understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for distinguishing between a consensus to recommend changes in behavior, which exists, and consensus to establish a formal warning about a future block, which I accept that you strongly oppose. I think that's reasonable, under the circumstances. I rather expect that, were there to be such a warning, most admins would be afraid to enforce it, for the same reasons that they have been afraid to step in and block this time. After all, there already was such a warning in the previous block rationale. This is simply something that the community will not be able to resolve. But I also want to object, in part, to your framing of "editors gunning for" him. There are probably some such editors, but it's an oversimplification to paint everyone who has expressed concerns here with such a broad brush. And as for editors who are "pissed off", I'm seeing that frame of mind on both sides of the discussion. And, after some amount of insults and assumptions of bad faith, it's not unreasonable for editors on the receiving end to be resentful, or to take note when the same behavior emerges again. And that's all the more reason why there ought to be at least a consensus that "toning it down" is recommended going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article

There has been some non-conclusive discussion over some sources on the Jung Myung Seok / Providence [Religious Movement] article. This article has been brought up here on the WP:ANI page a couple times before, but the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled. More recently, 12 third party news sources and 4 direct quotes of the organization’s founder have been removed without much discussion. You can see the removed content in this revert [54]. The article has two editors immediately removing the content and two editors arguing that the material should at least be up for discussion. The last admin to really get involved with the article, Richwales, gave some useful advice for the article and even did the work to verify some of these sources [55], but much of the content following his suggestions keeps getting removed. He has since removed himself for being too wp:involved. If we could have some more editors take a look at the material in contention perhaps we could make some progress on this article. Macauthor (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailors removal of the 12 sources and direct quotes also restored sourced content deleted/whitewash? by Macauthor here Much of the editing on the article appears to be whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute, as "the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled" could seem to indicate, or is it a follow up on your remarks here where you say I am inserting pornographic material in the article, and that you believe my editing is contentious and in supposedly violation of WP:NPOV, which I have asked you to bring up for community discussion? Either or, as I in my reply on the article talk page, in this edit, have argued the case quoting guidelines and policies, I'd apreciate if you did the same here.

Uninvolved editors trying to grasp the situation in Providence (religious movement) should be aware, that MrTownCar (t c) has disclosed that both he and Macauthor (t c) are members of this movement. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I said that it had the appearance of contentious editing and I was pointing out that you had only commented on the pornographic source without discussing the other sources. I apologize if I offended you but the real issue here is whether the content being discussed is valid, if or how much of it is white washing, or whether it is informative to keep all or some of the content in the article. I feel that it is holding the article back to keep reverting to previous versions that do not include more recent events about the subject. Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar (talk · contribs) may speak for himself but he does not speak for me. He disclosed that he is a member which is clearly Wikipedia:COI and his edits have not always been sourced very well, but his knowledge of the movement may be of some use. Do you have an opinion on the material you have removed? Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page, and would be facilitated had the two SPAs not retorted to accusations[56][57] on the second lowest level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement without substantiating them the least bit quoting guidelines and policies. Despite being asked to. [58][59]

What does belong here is a discussion of the long-term tendentious editing we have witnessed on Jung Myung Seok and now on Providence (religious movement) (the former was recently merged into the latter). Previously this has been brought up in e.g.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page, and
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Jung Myung Seok.

Yes, large amounts of contents with challenges related to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS have been added to and removed from the article for years (long before I started watching it in October 2013), and has been discussed in length on Talk:Jung Myung Seok and has been up for discussion on e.g.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?,
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive169#Jung Myung Seok, and
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Use of unverified or planted references in article about Jung Myung Seok.

To put it briefly, the hallmark of Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) is to stick in various amounts of apologetic material casting doubt about the fairness of Jung's two convictions of rape and his 10-year prison sentence, and material questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of their testimonies, while at the same time removing material critical to Jung. Prompting Drmies to say I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. ... I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics. A few examples out of hundreds: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff. Among the reverting/restoring editors I see e.g. Shii, ukexpat, Ravensfire, Lectonar, Richwales, Harizotoh9, Drmies, and myself.

When the two editors continued editing in January and February, including a SOAP edit like this deleting sourced content at the same time, and in apparently perfect English translation of a Korean source add:

Template:Sure?

then I find that Harizotoh9's revert one day later was well done and well within BRD. Harizotoh9 followed up by posting three new talk page sections with his concerns. Macauthor responded to none of them, but posted their own new section suggesting Harizotoh9 to ask before you remove content (WP:OWN), before Macauthor reverted back to their latest prefered version. And here is where I come in the following day first posting my comments on the talk page, then reverting clearly indicating WP:BRD in my edit summary to get the dialogue going and avoid warring.

Since bans have already been mentioned in previous ANI threads, I suggest other editors chime in with their opinions on the situation. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

how loquacious sam you spent most of your reply rehashing what is well known. I wish you spent a quarter of that time answering valid question put for to you.... if I may take a quote from you "So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page" Macauthor and I have repeatedly asked on the article talk page and your personal talk page for explanation of your reversions which you have yet to address two weeks after this last set of reversions. Please spare us the pontification and answer macauthors question posted on your talk page and feel free to show us what independent research you have done on the subject matter the way richwales did in the past.MrTownCar (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

seems all the diffs except one had nothing to do with me.MrTownCar (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any suggestion by Sam Sailor that he has taken the time to carefully review the material posted by Macauthor. I am sorry no neutral sysop is weighing in on this.MrTownCar (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"You can see the removed content in this revert [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Providence_%28religious_movement%29&diff=597514401&oldid=597396517]"

Part of the information in the above diff is cited to various providence related sites. I first came to the Jung page in late 2012 because I found that it was relying upon unreliable primary sources by the Providence religion and was poorly written. Myself and others have been trying to remove these sources. For instance here we see User:Shii remove the sources in December 2012. But MrTownCar and Macauthor continue to insert them. I am completely opposed to these sources on numerous grounds.

• They are not WP:RS
• Violate WP:BLP
• WP:ABOUTSELF - These sources make claims about Jung's biography which are contested and need other sources to confirm, and are not simple uncontested claims.

This is completely ridiculous that we are still arguing and debating this to this day.

Moving past that, there are some elements of a content dispute to this as well. But the best place for that is WP:BLPN and other places. Not here. I am not that familiar with the sources, the language, with the subject matter, etc. I'm going to ask Wikiproject Korea as well to see if anyone there can assist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the sites I object to are:

• gospelofprovidence.com
• providencetrial.com
• providencecentral.com

These sources have been inserted, removed, inserted and removed for years. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Given MrTownCar (t c)'s disclosure of his COI and MrTowncar's assertion of Macauthor (t c) COI, their continuous whitewashing of Providence (religious movement), unwillingness to discuss issues except on their terms, and misleading edit summaries, a topic ban would seem in order. Macauthor: are you a member of Providence and/or related groups? Macauthor: do you have a conflict of interest here per WP:COI? Jim1138 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

spare us the ad hominem attacks and kindly give a diff on my 'misleading' edit summaries. it might also help if you answer my question which you dodged on your talk page. MrTownCar (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not an ad hominem attack. Per wp:COI Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. If you have a COI, you should not be editing the Providence article or anything related to it. Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do have a WP:COI and will no longer edit the article. But much of the content being kept from the article is extremely informative about the subject, most but not all is properly sourced by third party news sources (the rest are direct quotes from Jung himself and thus allowed depending on your interpretation of WP:BLP policy), and most of it is new material about more recent events relating to Providence that have never been up for discussion before. The more experienced editors have continually removed any content that does not deal with Jung strictly as a criminal or treat the religious movement as a cult. I have not and am not proposing the removal of negative content (unlike MrTownCar), but only ask that properly sourced material that informs readers about the other aspects of the religious movement and its founder be treated fairly and given proper place in this controversial subject. Macauthor (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

TO CLARIFY I SEEK TO REMOVE FALSE NEGATIVE INFORMATION FROM THE ARTICLE NOT SIMPLY NEGATIVE INFORMATION.MrTownCar (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In a long talk page message 6 November 2013, here, MrTownCar (t c) writes about Jung Myung Seok

I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. [...] He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses.

While beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest, such opinions cast light over the NPOV challenges; a few examples:

• Unexplained removal of contents here
• Removal of material negative to Jung/adding of apologetic material here and here
• Removal of all material on Jung's rape convictions here
• Reverting of 55 intermediate revisions to a prefered version here (edit summary removed)
• Four days later the exact same thing here
• Reverts an edit by Shii, adding primary sources from Providence here, saying Shii has a "slanderous agenda" here, and repeats the same revert minutes later here. Then repeats the same revert here, calling Shii's edit "Continued vandalism" here, and repeats his revert for a fouth time here after being reverted by Ukexpat for whitewashing. This prompts Drmies to restore more acceptable version from one which promotes the subject with the use of unreliable sources and blames his victims--lest we forget, that's a BLP violation.
• Removal of material sourced form Korean National Police Agency et. al here
• Removal of socalled "planted articles" (Radio Austalia, News.com.au, and again Korean National Police Agency) here, quickly reverted by Richwales

The last entry above was in June 2013 but the pattern continues up to now, cf. contributions. Further a few examples of incivility, sock accusations here and here, and a bit of the usual WP:OWN here. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

sam you are aware it is march 2014. You concede that everything above occurred before 2013 june almost 1 year ago. all of my edits recently get a clear edit summary to explain the basis unlike your repeated reversions with no explanations.MrTownCar (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to backup what Sam Sailor has said. This article and the JMS article that was finally merged into Providence have seen a great deal of white washing from Providence supporters. Certain edits are persistently made with various edit summaries, but always the same text despite objections. Anything negative, especially about JMS, is removed if at all possible. The allegations that have been made that negative articles are "planted" is disturbing as it shows a rather extreme mindset. Complicating this are language issues as many of the sources are in Korean or Chinese. Uninvolved editors with good Korean language skills and familiarity with some of the sources being used have helped in the past and would continue to help out here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: two brief points. Firstly the article contains 65, repeat 65, negatively written sources about JMS not one single neutral let alone positive source. Not sure I understand the concept of whitewashing with that as the foundation of the article. Secondly, I wrote to News Unlimited and they confirmed via email that they never wrote an article about JMS plain and simple. I dont appreciate your casting aspersions when you are uninformed of the content of my communication with them. I still have the email response from them and will be happy to forward it to you or anyone else who cares to see it.MrTownCar (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to watch. There are at least two followers of Providence: MrTownCar (t c) and Macauthor (t c) who seem to be removing cited, negative matreial and adding propaganda 1 2 3. Most sources are in Korean, Japanese, or Chinese. While there are machine translators, the translations from these languages to English is cumbersome at best. As @Ravanes stated, having native speakers of these languages review sources and locate additional sources would be very helpful. @Macauthor has stated he is affiliated with Providence and will no longer edit the article. @MrTownCar has also stated his affiliation but continues to edit Providence despite a COI notification and request to use request edit. A topic ban for this area on Providence affiliates should be administered to reduce the constant whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made no edits since you sent the edit request notice to my talk page. Tell the story truthfully with NO PROPAGANDA or spin. My last edit was 4 hrs before you sent the notice. Please rertract your false and misleading statement Jim1138.MrTownCar (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Rationale: Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) both have a substantial history of disruptive editing in articles related to Jung Myung Seok. With frequent violations of BLP, NPOV, and RS in attempts to white-wash articles, and with declared COIs, nothing indicates that they are here to build an encyclopedia.

Given this, I propose that Macauthor and MrTownCar be topic banned from editing all topics relating to Providence (religious movement) and Jung Myung Seok (both broadly construed) indefinitely. Jim1138 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that we give a chance to the suggestion made by Jim 1138 previously that I use edit requests. Jim posted this to my talk page Monday 4 hrs AFTER my last edit. I am deeply disturbed that JIM posted a false accusation in the above section that I refuse to use edit requests...." but continues to edit Providence despite a COI notification and request to use request edit. ".... simply not true since I have made no edits since this was posted to my talkpage. Jim attempt to topic ban the most knowledge person on Wikipedia on JMS and Providence is not in spirit of Wikipedia especially when coming from a senior rollbacker who cant report objectively regarding my actions in the above ANI started by mcauthor.MrTownCar (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a WP:SPADE is a spade. We have two problematic WP:SPA who clearly have an agenda. They edit no other articles. They are strong believers in Providence. I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia.

There has no re-insertion of official providence source (eg. providencecentral.com) since February, and that's a start at least. But who's to say that they won't re-insert these sources when people stop paying attention to it?

As said above, it is a difficult article to watch and to try to sort through the claims. We need a lot more people fluent in Korean and Chinese languages. I just can't sort through any of these claims. I'm going to ask WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Korea for help. Most of the content of the article and sources are totally beyond me. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. The two users are WP:NOTHERE. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• I will support a topic ban as proposed, but I'd prefer a site-wide ban + indefinite block. They edit nothing else, so what's the point of theoretically leaving the rest of the encyclopedia open to them, really? The disadvantage of topic bans is that they tend to invite skirting, testing the waters, and encroaching, making for more waste of constructive editors' time. I'm not suggesting these two would necessarily do that, but I just don't see the advantage of stopping at a topic ban where zealot SPAs are concerned. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Firstly your statement about SPA is false. I made some edits on mustang page regarding Roush mustangs. I am prepared to add more material and pictures in due time. Considering you have never edited this article it would seem inappropriate to make a myopic suggestion as you have. May I ask how much time you spent reviewing the talk page from the October 2012 to present before making your recommendation?MrTownCar (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got the point of taking a conflict to ANI backwards; the idea is to get input from uninvolved editors and perhaps also admin action by uninvolved admins. I'm both of those. Piling-on by your old enemies/your old friends from article talk is less valuable than fresh eyes. And no, you may not interrogate me about my research. It was adequate for my needs. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

given that you are an admin with no prior involvement doesn't guarantee neutral analysis. given your recommendation of permanent site ban and your reply above you have proven my concerns about your ability to render an objective opinion.MrTownCar (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar, that goes without saying. Nobody on God's green earth would expect you to find a proposal to siteban you "objective", or to find the person who proposes it "neutral". If you reply again, could you try to do it without any bold? I can tell where the emphasis is without that. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I was intimating your extreme position. skip the temporal topic block and topic ban and lets go for the permanent site ban.... seems very extreme to my view. There undoubtedly has been an evolution in my edits from when I first started this in October 2012. Most of the above complaints posted by samsailor in his first section have to do with macauthor and not me. I recently have made very pointed and critical edits with edit notes based on Wiki policy as I understand it but by no means have removed all negative or critical material of JMS. I have posted extensively on the talk page as well in an attempt to iron out some of the issues and there was progress made amongst contributors who have historically been at odds. The December portion of the talk page illustrates this. Furthermore, I have never utilized the request edit function that jim1138 suggested on 3/17 as I was awaiting to see where the ANI would end up (and of course I have made no edits at all since last Monday). 4 days later a topic ban proposal is made that mysteriously gets escalated to a permanent site ban for no apparent reason.MrTownCar (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. While the two users are clearly unable to edit with WP:NPOV in this topic area, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they're actually WP:NOTHERE. That said, I'd like to construe the topics under the ban as broadly as we can. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. An indefinite ban in general is too harsh. But this must be combined with a real attempt to improve the article. Which means recruiting foreign language speakers, and a review of sources. Preventing them from whitewashing the article is only a first step. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to getting more outside sources but please realize that there are antiJMS paid editors out there and one must be very judicious in the use of information. Again richwales posted his findings on the talk page from an objective native speaker regarding the Civil government article. We need more sources like that but they are only going to be reached by wikipedians approaching them and asking questions.MrTownCar (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Bishonen's proposed site-wide ban + indefinite block as the preferred sanction, with the alternative support of a topic ban as initially proposed. The editors in question have made few or no other edits outside this topic, and nothing indicates that they are here to build an encyclopedia. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar"please realize that there are antiJMS paid editors out there"

This is a pretty serious claim. Do you have any evidence? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts performed on Sevastopol article without explanation

Can an admin please serve as mediator at Talk:Sevastopol#Reverts performed under claim of NPOV violation without explanation?

A user has reverted my edits twice even though they adhere to WP:NPOV. He requested that I engage him in his talk page but then when I do so he refuses to talk about the matter there and then proceeds to close the discussion on his talk page.

This article is highly controversial and his reverts seem to be a violation of WP:1RR due to WP:ARBEURO.

It seems this user is simply reverting to his personal view of the article while the discussion is ongoing rather than engage in a collaborative discussion and tag stuff by using {{NPOV}}, {{NPOV-inline}}, or {{undue}}.

I didn't revert further but right now the article is in a state that violates WP:NPOV and I'm concerned that if I revert once more that I myself may violate WP:1RR and be sanctioned under WP:ARBEURO.

Can someone please mediate this as this content is at ARBCOM level?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• The referred user is JOJ, has reminded Ahnoneemoos of the BRD cycle and has redirected to the article talk page.[60] This does not look like a conduct issue. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. He claims the edits violate NPOV but has not been able to explain how except that, "that's my opinion, period." See the problem? My edits are backed up by reliable sources and adhere to WP:NPOV but right now I'm stuck 'cuz I can't revert him back because of WP:1RR even though he reverted me twice. Isn't that the exact definition of WP:EDITWAR? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • This is about determining the weight of claims by Russia. Users are still discussing. This is not a conduct issue yet. Since the article is highly controversial, smaller edits would be more suitable. Ëzhiki likes Ahnoneemoos' version. This user may help continuing the edits, but it would be better to discuss them in the talk page first. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • That's against WP:FIVEPILLARS and against WP:OWN. Changes don't need to be discussed first before applying them to an article. See also WP:BEBOLD. This user has effectively created a blockade to a very sensible change that makes the article adhere to WP:NPOV rather than lopside it through systemic bias in favor of Ukraine's POV. We call this WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Specifically WP:STONEWALL: "Removing a large addition for a minor error. If the error is minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up)." The user didn't do any, and instead preferred to perform a full revert. Per H:REV: "[...] reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing." This is why I asked for the intervention of an admin as right now the article violates NPOV by being lopsided towards the Ukrainian POV that Sevastopol is a Ukrainian city when the truth is that its current state is disputed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
        • BRD may be an essay but that's probably more because it's easy to misapply and the policies it's based on are sufficient (remember BEBOLD may be an important guideline, WP:Consensus is policy so neither can be ignored). Generally speaking, you are unlikely to win a debate by arguing a person should not have reverted in the case of a content dispute involving a recent change and one or two reverts where 1RR does not apply. (You may be able to argue a person too readily reverts in an RFCU.) If the person is discussing the changes then your best option is to continue discussion and use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
          • And it should be noted that the "only an essay" BRD is, in fact, a reflection of WP:CONSENSUS on how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
            • This is now at DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sevastopol). BTW, WP:BRD is an essay, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT is a policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Government of Crimea article and template

I hope this is the right place to bring this up. The article Crimea is locked (thank you). A related article is Supreme Council of Crimea which is the government of the Autonomous Republic. People are making changes to this article because they think it's the government of the new Republic of Crimea. I think that a new country needs a new article for their new government. I reverted edits yesterday and stated my position on the talk page. However, this is a hotly contested region and no one cares about the talk page. Can someone please decide how to treat the government article? I think this article needs to be reverted and locked and a discussion needs to take place about renaming the article or starting a new one. What do you think? Whatever happens to the article, the template should be treated the same way. Thank you. USchick (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we are going to need separate articles for each state entity. Perhaps be WP:BOLD and move the Supreme Council article to Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and then create a separate article? RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I"m requesting an admin for assistance, because the old article needs to be reverted and locked and a new article needs to be created. Supreme Council of Crimea is the old government. State Council of Crimea is the new government. Each article needs a corresponding template. I don't know how to create a new template. This is not something I can do by myself and I don't want to be accused of an edit war. USchick (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I do know how to create those templates, but I'm reluctant to jump in when none of this seems to have been decided by anyone. However, we cannot refer to both of them as "Crimea". One has to be "Autonomous Republic of" and the other has to be "Republic of". RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid to do anything because an edit war will break out. Yesterday, a new editor was banned, which is not a good experience for a new editor. That's why an admin needs to do it and lock it down. USchick (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that blocking and banning are two different things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I made the same plea at a different thread above. Administrators need to take control of this whole thing, because it is really starting to fall apart. New random articles are being created, no one knows what anything means. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not how things work: administrators don't make content decisions and then lock things down. An administrator can, in their capacity as a regular editor, get involved in content development, including article names. But as soon as they do, they're considered involved, and no longer have the option to use the tools (issuing blocks, protecting, deleting) on that article. There's a related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Crimea where a couple of respected admins council patience and let the normal editing processes happen. Sometimes this means things are in a fluid state for a while until things settle down (our article on Chelsea Manning is a recent example). If you have an adversion to chaos I suggest you just edit in another topic area for a while, and let things play out. – Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. USchick (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, I do not want any "locking-down", though I will mention that the article (Crimea) is fully protected (for good reason). However, as far as a "fluid state" is concerned, this means that our coverage is downright wrong, and violates NPOV. In fact, there has even been media coverage by ABC News to that effect, mentioned in an above thread. I'd merely like someone to assess consensus and help manage what is currently a very discouraging situation, and there are many other editors at Talk:Crimea who agree. However, if patience is required, I guess there is nothing we can do but mislead people in the interim for the sake of the greater good. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No matter what is done in this circumstance, the article will "violate NPOV". The best thing to do in truly chaotic situations such as this is as little as possible or even nothing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I must disagree with the honourable Bushranger's approach. When the only thing we can agree on is that there are major changes happening, out in the real world, I don't think inaction is a good option on-wiki. We can change slowly, deliberately; we can discuss change; we might even reach a consensus that no change is necessary on the relevant talkpages. But change has to be on the table. (Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in Crimea, but with an interest in Ottoman history I can only raise an eyebrow at the notion that Crimea must belong absolutely and perpetually to one modern state). bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• While I don't really want to get involved in the inevitable mess surrounding the Crimea issue, I just want to stick my head in and remind everyone involved that there is no deadline on Wikipedia. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

i.p. disruption and WP:BLP violations at Dmitry Medvedev

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

---

Resolved

 – Another admin has semi-protected the page until the 26th. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

On 16 March a dynamic i.p. made this edit to the BLP of Dmitry Medvedev, adding Category:Human rights abuses. I reverted this on the grounds of WP:BLPCAT and WP:NPOV. Subsequently the i.p. continually readded it, being reverted by other editors, among them admin Mike_Rosoft. Having tried and failed to engage with the i.p. on my talk page, I took the issue to WP:BLPN, where the users who commented agreed that such a change was unacceptable. In the meantime, Mike Rosoft correctly protected the page following further edit warring from the i.p. The i.p. subsequently complained at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Complaint about Mike semi-protecting the page and was again advised that the edit was unacceptable. Despite that, they continued to make personal attacks, insisting that people that uphold BLP policy are agents of Medvedev. Both the BLPN thread and the Jimbo Wales thread seem to have fizzled out. The i.p. simply waited for the semi-protection to end then restarted adding their own unsourced criticisms, with allusions to the Gestapo and the Cheka, organisations formed long before Medvedev was born. As this editor refuses to listen to reason, I would ask admins to take appropriate action. Valenciano (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Conflict on Jessica Nigri

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

---

User:Niemti is again making inappropriate edits, and is violating WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIV.

Niemti added this uncited birth place to the article, and in the Lead, which violates WP:V/WP:NOR, and WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which states that places of birth don't go in the opening paragraph of BLPs, and which provides four examples are given in the guideline of such paragraphs that do not include this.

I cited these policies in my revert. Niemti reverted it, saying in his edit summary, "yes, it does, and WP:LEAD". He did not address the issue of sourcing at all. I reverted it yet again, and again cited WP:V/WP:NOR. I pointed out to him that WP:OPENPARAGRAPH indicates that place of birth does not go in the opening paragraph unless it's relevant to the subject's notability. I also did a search for the word "birth" on WP:LEAD, and could not find any passage supporting what Niemti was saying, so I asked him if he could point to it in the dialogue I opened on his talk page. He responded to my request by saying "Please use the magic of ctrl+F when in doubt and please don't ever ask for sourcing leads.", a condescending remark that recalls a similar refrain by him during an earlier conflict on that article, in which he told me repeatedly to "learn to read" ([61],[62]).

He reverted the article a third time, which I believe violates WP:3RR, making in his edit summary the cryptic remark "what is infobox?" Niemti later indicated on his talk page that the information in question is sourced in the Infobox, which I hadn't seen earlier, but which I confirmed subsequently.

This still leaves the issue of WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and WP:LEAD, his three reverts, and his once-again incivil refusal to specify the passage in WP:LEAD that he says supports his position. Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no conflict. Nightscream just "hadn't seen earlier" again, too. GOTTA GO FAST with seeing stuff. --Niemti (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The above comment illustrates my point. He makes a incivil remark on the topic of WP:V, which I am no longer disputing, but refuses to say where it is stated in WP:LEAD that his position is supported, or conversely, why what I have pointed out about WP:OPENPARAGRAPH fails to falsify it, much less how his three edits do not violate WP:3RR, or how his comments do not violate WP:CIV. Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Context note: Niemti has been reprimanded and blocked several times for incivility, edit warring, and general IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and he has been topic banned from the GA process in general with the threat to be blocked from video game articles as well; his latest block (by me) expired literally yesterday. He used to edit as HanzoHattori, who was also blocked several times, finally banned for sockpuppeting. I'm not going to get into this latest fracas, but it seems to fit his general pattern- any discussion or conflict that he gets into, Niemti is right and everyone else is both wrong and against him, no matter what they say. To be blunt, Niemti: you were unblocked for less than 12 hours and you were already back to telling people learn2read and shouting at people who disagreed with you removing an image, and you couldn't even make it a full day without getting taken to ANI over fighting with someone. To be honest, the only reason I never blocked you permanently over all the various disputes you've had is that you seem to literally spend 16+ hours a day editing wikipedia and I thought with the GA topic ban you might still be a net positive; I'm actively reconsidering that depending on how you respond to this latest bit of nonsense. --PresN 03:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool stalking bro, keep it on, love you too. The only real 'conflict' is about how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dokka_Umarov#I_still_don.27t_think_Wikipedia_should_be_like_.27yep.2C_totally_dead.27_without_a_real_confirmation if you're really sooo intersted in it you can go and share your enlightened opinion there now. --Niemti (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Making personal attacks, especially at ANI, does not help your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So maybe I'll say how I'm so sick of things like [63] and would be grateful if they all (and I don't recognise many/most of these guys at all, but apperently they know me so much somehow) just bugger off already and leave me alone, instead of contantly following and annoying me even when I'm not doing literally anything at all. And this 'context note' bogeyman making, this account was supposed to be a fresh start after coming clean, but nope, things that happened years ago will be always brought as still totally relevant every time anyway. You know, it would be pretty cool to at least, hey, how about to not feel harrassed. But yeah whatever, wikipedia drama. Don't respond to it, it was just me venting off my frustration. --Niemti (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• So, Niemti: what are you going to do differently? Because, in the end, the problem here is very clearly you, not everybody else. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)@Niemti: You should be happy that you even get an apology at all considering your response. I agree with you that not responding to WikiDrama is generally the wisest course of action and have been trying to minimize problems by early-closing a couple of AN/ANI reports about your attitude (because you're often part of that right-but-rude class of editors Wikipedia just loves to hate). Keep your head down and stick to what you're good at: editing, not talking to people. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Users who have been blocked in the past are often watched for future infractions more closely; in criminology, reprobates are subject to what is called specific deterrence. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti and its follow-up discussion from almost a year ago. It seems this user has been controversial for some time. It may be time for another AN discussion regarding further sanctions, something to which a premature close should not be applied. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no time to investigate, but making a revert war about this insignificant edit, whereas a reference to the birth place has been actually provided in ref [1](!), bringing this matter to user talk page, and then on the ANI was not a good idea, given the previous history between involved editors, including recent desysop by Arbcom.My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Roosh V

For the last 6 weeks this article has been under assault by the following two single-purpose accounts (obviously the same person), whose purpose is to defame the subject of the article in any way possible:

• Elmech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Egirl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After ignoring repeated requests to discuss their issues on the talk page, today they made their first talk page edit ... which was to delete the discussion about them and insert forged comments from another user to make them appear biased.[64]

I request an indefinite block of both accounts. – Smyth\^talk 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, do you think? Guy (Help!) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that Egirl90 just overwrote this section with their own comment, which I reverted. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just gave a final warning to Egirl90. No indef blocks w/o a final warning, IMHO. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued the same pattern of behavior after the warning.[65] – Smyth\^talk 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to Elmech. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued edit-warring.[66][67] Please block both accounts. Even a cursory examination of their edit history shows that they are the same person making the same edits. – Smyth\^talk 02:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has gone a talk page spamming spree it seems. Special:Contributions/Egirl90. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has been given a 48 hour block ... for harassing me!!! Bit harsh, but nevertheless the edit warring was annoying. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind that, will an admin please explain why we should not indefinitely block BOTH accounts for the following things:

• Being single-purpose accounts which exist for the sole purpose of attacking a living person.
• Persistent edit-warring over a period of weeks despite repeated warnings.
• Total failure to make even a pretense of collaboration despite repeated requests.
• Severe abuse of article and project talk pages, including deletion of discussion about them on two separate occasions, and forgery of other users' comments.

Again, I say BOTH accounts. Policy says that sanctions are imposed against individuals, not accounts. There's not even any legitimate reason for them to have two accounts; all it does is make communcation with them more difficult (not that they've ever responded to communication in any useful way). – Smyth\^talk 12:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Koi page

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

---

Under the sub section on the Koi page "Health and longevity" there is a recurring hoax / myth / lie with absoulutely no reliable sources that keeps coming back.

Everytime I try to edit it out, users with the automatic programs undo my edit and try to threaten me with a ban.

Here is a copy of the irrelevant, unsourcable information.

"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old.[13]"

It has to go as it is a complete lie with no relevant source. Please fix this and allow it to be edited out once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.142.54 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@58.7.142.54: A much more productive way forward would be to take it up on the article talk page. Reverting 5 times in 10 minutes leads nowhere. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have far exceeded the limts of WP:3RR, so regardless of whether you were right or wrong you are liable to be blocked for edit-warring. You have given no explanation in an edit summary, nor have you made any attempt to discuss this on the article talk page. If you remove referenced text without explanation you can expect to be reverted, and if you continue doing so you can expect to be blocked, so please stop edit-warring and explain your reasons on the article talk page so that other editors can consider your argument. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't say whether "Hanako" story was true or not, but it does appear to be well-known and probably merits some mention in the article. It appears to be widely discussed and I even found a book source, though this book also claims her age was likely an overestimation due to faulty scale readings. So while it's likely a myth it's a notable myth and merits some mention here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence??

I'll note that the Hanako "legend" appears on other wikipedia pages, ones that are involving world / biological records, and were it not for the story of Hanako, Koi would not even be mentioned on these pages at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals

"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.[53][54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals

"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[15][16]"

Should not be on pages unrelated to Koi, when we are talking about a one off report of a 226 year old Koi which cannot even be verified

Still cannot beleive people are buying into this, no verifyable sources, only appears as a reprinted story over and over on the internet. Like I said on another page, the supposed Hanako died in 1977, well before the advent of the internet. It seems to me like a legend that has simply stuck. There are no reports of any other Koi coming even remotely CLOSE to this age.

There are no verifyable reports of Koi living past 50 years. Why does this endure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ryulong, failing to WP:AGF and claiming WP:SOCK as a weapon.

Ryulong, has accused me of being/having a sock here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CombatWombat42

Page	Min time between edits	A50000	CombatWombat42
Soviet Union	20 hours — (timeline)	3	1

That is the entirety of his evidence. Ryulong has in the past used the reson "sock" for deleting content created by other editors. If his evidence against me is as flimsy as his evidence against those other users he should not be allowed to claim WP:SOCK as a reason for any edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence listed is a similarity in the edit summaries because they both invoke North Korea. I don't think Ryulong made a bad faith sockpuppet report, though it may be a bad report. I don't think any action is necessary based on one report. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a commonality and I was a little suspicious. If it's proven wrong then I made a mistake and I'll apologize.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just my case, in general Ryulong has been using accuszations of sockpupetry to make changes to pages that would otherwise be unaccetable, and if his claims are based on evidence as flimsy as that in my case, he needs to stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In all of the other cases you are referring to (except that Macdaddyc/Youngsevon case [I'm still not convinced they're unrelated]) the opposing party was a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are right what percentage of the time? Assuming you are wrong about me. Is wikipedia willing to accept your blatant disregard for policy 100-<that percent of the time>? Because everytime you assume someone is a sock and then are wrong, you are violating policy. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say I'm somewhere in the 90th percentile or higher. And all that is happening here is I saw a connection and I thought it was probable. And it's only "violating policy" if I suspect a banned editor is involved, I act on my suspicion, and I'm proven wrong. That hasn't happened yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit, Ryulong, that you freely use the rationale of "removing content from a blocked editor" to freely delete any content you deem falls under this category, whether it is to an article, talk page or user talk page. And when I press you for evidence that the editor is a sock account, it usually isn't diffs, but based on similarities you perceive. I think you should work through SPI rather than taking on wholesale deleting of content from editors you judge to be socks. If it is as apparent as you believe, you'll be validated at SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature. There's no need for you to write my name as "[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]]" every time. Just use "Ryulong".

Second, I have not in this case that CombatWombat42 is taking offense to done anything in regards to removing content because I suspect sockpuppetry. And you've never pressed me for evidence of sockpuppetry that I can recall. If you're going off of the Wiki-star or BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords debacles, it was their overall behavior that had to be compared. And if you look at WP:SPI you can see it is heavily backlogged. It's easier to bag and tag in the short term when it's obvious (constantly posting messages to that one user's talk page, constantly adding the same copyvio content to an episode list as they did to other episode lists in the past, etc.) than it is to let them run rampant and cause problems. No page is exempt from WP:BAN. Things were not handled properly in everything you saw, but that fact still stands.

As I said, I have done no reverting concerning sockpuppetry in this CombatWombat42/A50000 investigation. I saw similar rationales and edit warring over the course of several days and I sent it for investigation. If I'm wrong in this case, then I'll apologize and nothing has to be done. This is really making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I didn't think of it as "pinging" you...I was referring to you, as an editor, and I thought I'd use the signature you prefer. No one else has ever told me this was improper as this is how you like your name to appear. But I won't in the future since you dislike it.

I don't know the specifics of this case on AN/I but I'm referring to when you repeatedly deleted comments from my talk page that you said were being posted by a sock account even though I didn't see any hard evidence this was the case. And when I reverted your deletions (as it was my talk page) because I wanted to read their messages to me, you acted like I was providing a safe haven for blocked users, even though it hadn't been established that they were a blocked user. In fact, I don't even know how you came to view my talk page and the comments since I doubt that you have it on your Watchlist. We had quite a conversation about this incident, stretching over several pages, so I'm surprised you don't remember it. It's never happened to me before that another editor deleted someone else's content from my talk page but maybe it isn't unusual for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: would it have cost you anything to write "First of all, please stop pinging me by copying my signature" instead of "First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature"? You don't need anyone else to paint you as the bad guy, you do it all by yourself. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously, filing an SPI in good faith is not against policy. Being mistaken about the connection is not against policy. Being wrong often isn't against policy, but it will result in a user being barred from filing at SPI, via a discussion at ANI (essentially, a topic ban). Unless someone can show that this filing was bad faith, OR that Ryulong is wrong more than 10% of the time at SPI, then this is a dead subject (I'm just making up that number, but you should be right at least 90%, or there is reason to discuss at ANI). I will remind everyone that reverting someone as a sock, or calling someone a sock, if you have not filed an SPI report on them or reported them to an admin is a blockable personal attack as a clear violation of WP:NPA. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  How is it a personal attack?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Because you are labeling someone with a title that undermines their edits and can get them blocked. It is the same if I go around reverting you with the summary "reverting edits from a vandal". You are making a claim against someone without substantiating it. Trust me, it isn't my opinion, policy is clear that calling someone by a name that is a blockable offense (vandal, sockpuppet, etc.) is absolutely a personal attack. It can also be used to simply undermine their voice in a discussion, and to create a chilling effect in a discussion. Unquestionably, a blockable issue if you haven't reported them, or you do so in bad faith. Really, you don't need to call them a sock at all if they aren't blocked for it, but if you haven't reported them first, it looks very much like bad faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown is right about idle allegations of sockpuppetry, which are just as disruptive as idle allegations of vandalism. If you know Wikipedia well enough to know what WP:VANDALISM is, don't claim vandalism in a content dispute simply because you are on the side of WP:TRUTH. If you know Wikipedia well enough to know what a sockpuppet is, don't claim sockpuppetry unless you have reason beyond idle suspicion. Just because both users quack doesn't make them the same species of duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Because if you believe someone is a sock, you do a wholesale revert of all of their edits, without any proof whatsoever. You're thinking of the percentage of times you're right but consider the situation when you are wrong and an editor finds all of their edits reverted? I'm sure that if they weren't mainly IPs, they'd appear on AN/I where you'd need to present your evidence to back up your claim. Right now, you are completely unrestrained. No doubt, given your lengthy experience on Wikipedia, you have a good sense for possible socks. But you can't be right all of the time and if targeted, innocent IPs won't normally come to AN/I to complain, they will just stop editing. So, yes, it can be a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• In short, you tread lightly and don't throw around the "sock" word unless you are sure enough to file a report on them. This is also an editor retention issue, where new users don't need to be called a sockpuppet and chased off the project just because they are interested in the same subject a real sockpuppet was interested in. Connecting the dots between sockpuppets isn't as simple as "they are both interested in $x article", there is a lot of nuance to it, which is why SPI exists, and why the people that work there are specialists at it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. WP:AGF goes for IP accounts, too...at least that's where you start, not assuming an IP is a vandal or sock. Thanks, Dennis Brown. I hope your view is shared by other admins and editors. I edited for years as an IP and I know that if I had been treated as a sock, I wouldn't be editing now. I assume that goes for many other IP editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is more a more of policy than opinion, although it is more difficult to enforce than some policies. It all boils down to not calling someone as sock, vandal, troll or other negative name unless you are very confident that they fit the definition at Wikipedia for that label. Anyway, this can probably be closed and hopefully we won't have to visit this issue again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Again - These Reports Are Too Common

At least once every two weeks there is another report at this board involving User:Ryulong. Often it has to do with anime and manga. Sometimes it has to do with other areas. What I have observed in, among other things, Soviet Union, is that I agree with Ryulong on the specific content issues, but he can be extremely uncivil, and being right doesn't justify incivility and personal attacks. My advice to Ryulong, which will almost certainly be ignored, is to dial it down, and don't always have to be right, and also that there is no harm done in discussing edits with a sockpuppet. It isn't always necessary to win the edit war, even if it is winnable under the special exceptions for blocked users. At the same time, my advice to those who keep bringing Ryulong to the noticeboards is that they are just wasting electrons here. If they really want Ryulong to change his behavior or to have him blocked, go with the more structured approach of a user conduct request for comments. Ryulong: Dial the rhetoric down. Critics of Ryulong: Either dial the rhetoric down, or follow established procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or try something really stupid like.....attempting to assume good faith and engaging the editor in a civil manner to counter the perception of incivility. I am getting really tired of the gang up myself to be honest but it happens so often I wonder if I should just seek a gang myself. Nah....I can be enough of an asshole not to drag others into my ignorance...which is what I suggest of others think about as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this advice really applies here. I thought I saw suspicious activity and made a request to investigate. I've not even engaged in discussion with either parties prior to CombatWombat42's creation of this thread in response to the SPI. I don't even see myself being incivil in any of the discussions I'm currently embroiled in, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I make some suggestions?

Here are some common-sense suggestions I think that can help Ryulong operate in the area that he operates in (where sockpuppetry is unfortunately not uncommon) without coming into conflict. Ryulong, if you think any of this is unreasonable, feel free to say what is unreasonable and why. If someone else thinks that any of this advice is incorrect, again, feel free to correct me.

• Suspecting someone of sockpuppetry, if you have a good reason to feel that way, is fine.
• Opening an SPI case for someone who you suspect is a sockpuppet is also fine, and not a big deal. If someone is mentioned in an SPI case and is cleared it won't hurt their reputation at the project. It happens to lots of people, even I was accused once of being a sockpuppet (by someone who turned out to be a sockpuppet themselves).
• Alerting the person that an SPI was opened is fine. Asking someone questions that might help you decide whether or not to open an SPI (without being overly accusatory in the process) is fine.
• What is not fine... Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without simultaneously presenting evidence of it, as this is a personal attack and clearly defined as one by our policy. Administrators sometimes make WP:DUCK blocks and tags of editors who are sockpuppets, and there is a bit of leeway given for that (to not let an excess of bureaucracy get in the way of stopping disruption) but any admin should be able to justify any block with some evidence (though maybe not too much per WP:BEANS).
• What is also not fine... Tagging an editor's page with a sockpuppet template when the editor has not been identified as a sock and/or blocked by an administrator. Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet; wait until the editor has been tagged and/or blocked by an admin before doing that. Taking any action at all with the assumption that the editor you're reverting is a sockpuppet, before an administrator has taken action against the editor for sockpuppetry.

I know that administrators don't have special "authority", but this is one of those areas where admins have traditionally been expected to enforce policy and non-administrators are discouraged. There's a reason why WP:SPI/AI is called "administrator instructions". -- Atama頭 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet"

This is where I got hung up with Ryulong in the past, when he edited my talk page to revert another editor he thought was a sock (whether he was or not, I don't know). He stated that WP:DENY took precedence over other policy. Nice to see this issue clarified. Sometimes you have to say these points out loud (so to speak) as reminders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It has good advice (when used responsibly) but doesn't take precedence over anything. -- Atama頭 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement is policy though. And you are both censuring me for my actions regarding the Wiki-star and BuickCenturyDriver sockpuppets who were pretty blatant about who they were. All I've done in this situation is mistakenly believe that CombatWombat42 and A50000 are somehow related and he took everything way too personally, as can be seen in his WP:POINTy and retaliatory opening of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryulong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: If your last point is true, then why does Template:Sockpuppet specifically state that you may tag an account when you think it is a sock, but are not sure?--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Atama is correct, and details what I said better than I did. For the most part, you leave SPI to the clerks at SPI, who are picked by CUs and are more accountable for their actions. If you think someone is a sock, right or wrong, calling them a sock isn't solving anything. Admins and clerks are selected by the community to deal with exactly these problems, let them. As long as you are right much more than you are wrong when reporting them, there are no issues. And....regardless of what a template page says, editors tagging other editors is a bad idea 99% of the time, it only causes drama. And if someone does it several times and is wrong many times, they WILL get blocked for disruption, or topic banned from SPI or using any sock related templates. I have seen that before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyone can compare and/or contrast Ryulong 8 years ago to whatever he is today, and he or she thinks the user experiences between him and others was okay back then but now look bleak. Betacommand in 2005 before he changed his name to "Δ" (Delta) was not as harmful as during the time when he got criticism from WP:ARBCOM and was banned in 2012. History repeats. Ryulong will probably go to ArbCom and might be banned if the mayhem and misunderstandings he's creating continues. I guarantee he would fail to keep up with his past success because he accused an innocent user for sockpuppetry. He is not Cirt. IX|(C"<) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What is this even supposed to mean other than being a huge failure to assume good faith? This is one mistake I've made that the other person took way too personally. In the other cases I dealt with obvious sockpuppets and directly with a CU in trying to get them shut down because they were obvious sockpuppets. The only reason I ended up blocked in regards to those situations was because I engaged the sockpuppets and someone got mad when I tried to remove the messages he received from those sockpuppets. This is all being blown out of proportion, again, and should have ended without having the new subsections.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the nugget of wisdom to take from this "Gonna" guy's comment is that eventually, they will probably ban you just so they won't have to read about you anymore; it'd have nothing to do with being right or wrong. On numerous occasions I have compared Arbcom's dealings cases to a basketball game where two players get into a bit of a row. The refs rarely take the time to look at who started it, i.e. who was truly at fault; the refs just T up both parties just to get the decks cleared and for the game to resume. Everything looks like a nail to the Hammer Corps, bro. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

General disruption, personal attacks, and sockpuppet accusations

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

---

Atlantictire (talk · contribs), having been recently blocked [68] for a period of 24h by Drmies for referring to Producer as an "antisemtic crank", proceeded to further refer to him as a "bigot" not long after his block: "the people who advocate this are bigots and they should not be welcome here. If PRODUCER created that page then he is a bigot. No one should be punished for saying that" [69]. He doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and states so openly.

His block having expired, the user currently appears to be trolling on the talkpage of the aforementioned new article. Atlantictire has posted repeated accusations of sockpuppetry against Producer and myself [70][71]; e.g: the user replied to me, addressing me as "Producer" [72], and then mock-"corrected" himself [73] ("Sorry Direktor, I honestly do get you and Producer confused sometimes"). He seems to think himself "clever" in avoiding a direct statement [74]. Similarly, having been trolling for a while about how Slavs are antisemitic [75] (Producer and myself being Slavic), he basically admits he was trolling, but expresses his opinion that he managed to "technically" skirt policy [76] ("I just succeeded in provoking some belly-aching about slandering an ethnic group"). The user seems prone to attempts at gaming the system, such as false apologies.

I can only speculate as to the motivation of course, but since he's actively arguing for the article's deletion on DELREV, its entirely possible this is deliberate flaming and disruption of the article's talkpage functionality. Or maybe he's just having some fun with "bigots".

For context pls note this recent thread [77] concerning repeated accusations of sockpuppetry being used as a personal attack on the talkpage in question (and even here on ANI). The accusations are, of course, entirely baseless (see the old SPI thread [78], and this recent one [79]). -- Director (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. User Director teamed up with his buddy to trap Atlantictire in an attempt to distract him from productive editing at Jews and Communism. Director and his tag team buddy both reverted 3 times each in a tag team effort against Atlantictire. Director continued to delete sourced information and was successful in getting the article blocked by an admin. After blanking sourced information [80], Director refuses to discuss it on the talk page. However, he has time to waste time here. Director is being disruptive and seems to have very few interests outside this article [81]. He should be permanently blocked form editing Jews and Communism. USchick (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Practically not a single word in the post is accurate, nor supported by diffs.

I reverted twice, producer reverted once. It was not a "tag team", we're both actively discussing and editing the same article. I reverted a massive undiscussed edit to a controversial article to discuss the problematic aspects, and started a thread about the subject - which was in turn disrupted by repeated accusations of sockpuppeteering [82]. Hence this thread. I have more than 51,000 edits on enWikipedia, and have more interests here than I can recall at this time (in fact, I just recently finished adding a new section here, happy to share :)). -- Director (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent (massive, undiscussed) addition by IZAK. USchick (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said. Not supported by diffs. -- Director (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Director continued to delete sourced information and was successful in getting the article blocked by an admin."

I think you meant that the article was protected. Users get blocks, pages get protected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I only "reverted sourced information" once. As I explain on the talkpage and in the edit summary, it was a massive edit, and I wanted to discuss several problematic aspects before agreeing on a consensus version. -- Director (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And then something prevented you from discussing the content? But here you are, discussing something completely irrelevant to the content. USchick (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I started a thread on the topic, and then unfortunately Atlantictire arrived and posted sockpuppet accusations; the thread immediately devolved to his sockpuppetry PAs and my warning him to stop with the sockpuppetry PAs. I actually said so [83]. Its offensive, esp. considering this stuff and the recent SPI. That's all I currently have to say to you, USchick. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So since then, you didn't discuss content, but you wasted people's time arguing there, and then you proceeded to come here and waste more time arguing here. I see. USchick (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Direktor I'm sorry I offended you. When I said I didn't want to report you to admins for exceeding the 3RR and discouraged others from doing it I was trying to make a show of good faith towards you. Since you are often sarcastic in your interactions with other editors, I'm frankly surprised that you would construe a bit of sarcasm from me as "personal attacks." My sarcasm towards you started after enduring days of your reverts of other editors' work. Full disclosure: I did call him a bigot upon first encountering the article and was blocked for it. But I haven't since although he has brought it up to threaten me numerous times. By making the Slavic analogy I was trying to get you to have more empathy for the Jewish editors who found the article offensive. I said numerous time Slavophobia was unacceptable, as is ant-Semitism. Considering how often he reverts and how conciliatory I've been and reluctant to make changes of any sort without discussion, this feels very disrespectful and hypocritical. It also feels like an attempt to maybe intimidate someone whose perspective he dislikes.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not much of a show of good faith if the "3RR violation" is fake, and is really just another provocation. -- Director (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right...you're complaining about personal attacks...by making personal attacks? Well...OK then. I'll note that the first diffs appear to be stale, but perhaps Drmies just didn't see them, or perhaps he just didn't see an issue there. That would be for them to say. However, much of the diffs and discussion I am reading do not show accusations of sock puppetry. What I see is that they feel the two are tag teaming and working together to work their content and exclude others (not saying this to be accurate, but what it appears the editor is saying). I think if I were having a hard time with two editors, one named "Director" and one named "Producer" I might have become suspicious as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note he refers to Producer and Myself as "definitely not sockpuppets PRODUCER & DIREKTOR". I certainly hope Atlanictire isn't right in believing such comments are perfectly fine? If someone says, "the definitely not handsome rogue DIREKTOR", would you assume I am not complimenting myself? Because I said "definitely not"? (If so, you would be wrong, I am a handsome rogue ofc :))

• Further, the sentence "My sockpuppet USchick and I are very bad at coordinating in such a way that preserves any of IZAK's edits. You and PRODUCER, on the other hand, are like a couple of trapzee artists with those 'undo' and 'rollback' functions" also implies sockpuppeteering on the part of the "trapzee" artists, consideriing the context.

• Finally, I can't see how referring to myself by the username of a claimed suckpuppet does not consititute a transparent accusation of sockpuppetry.

Then again, I'm not an admin. So should I henceforward prefix any unpleasant terms with "definitely not"? :) As regards the similarity of the names, please see the context: it has come up before in the discussions, and the situation was made clear. Though I must say I dislike the implication that I should accept slander of this sort simply because my username can be interpreted as similar in theme with someone else's. -- Director (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time you refuse to discuss content and throw around accusations instead. If someone feels like wasting even more time, it's all here Talk:Jews and Communism USchick (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Refuse to discuss content" ? What I see at this thread is an request by Direktor to discuss large-scale changes beforehand, only to see it be met with snide and dismissive comments by Atlantictire ("Would the definitely not sockpuppets PRODUCER & DIREKTOR..."), with a side order of your nastiness in the previous thread ("Are you ganging up on my sock puppet again?"). The atmosphere in that article talk page is beyond toxic. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jews and Communism#Edits by IZAK The toxic environment is created by Director when he lists sources and then tells me that I'm not allowed to discuss the sources he listed because he only wants to use the sources for his own benefit, and not for what the sources actually say. Like he does here Talk:Jews and Communism#Who is a Jew?. He lists a source, and then when it doesn't suit him anymore, he threatens me and wants me to stop discussing it. USchick (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Atlantictire for 72 hours. I largely agree with Tarc's concise analysis. The user is repeating his earlier behavior but with a twist of obliqueness and pushing the envelope. He seems to be here mostly to carry the banner of protecting the world from anti-semitism rather than building an encyclopedia and editing collaboratively. He makes personal value judgments and then imposes them on other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure who created the toxic environment but after reading what Tarc wrote I see exactly what they are saying. While I would not have blocked over just that, but Bbb23 is much more specific. While I think the block could be seen as insensitive...at what point do we have a warrior and not a contributing editor. I still believe this was the wrong way to complain and suggest that the filing editor may deserve a 24 hr block for personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're simply encouraging Director to continue to terrorize other editors. USchick (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Associating yourself with someone in "full troll mode" isn't helping you, USchick. Stay calm, maybe seek a 3O. (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not associating. There was consensus on the talk page not to report Director. Obviously that was a mistake. USchick (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, not assotiating. But you shouldn't take the admin-action as an endorsement for Direktor. Atlantictire's approch was not ok, and I just wanted to encourage you to keep going in a professional way. 80.132.77.41 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand and thank you for your encouragement. Director spends a lot of time getting editors banned from articles that he thinks he owns. There went another one. USchick (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about five seconds. I would have used WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale, because it's quite clear that is the problem; baiting other editors is the least of it. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually did use WP:NOTHERE as one of the rationales although I didn't link to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've got one-up on me; I've never been asked/told to eat my fuck before. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be a one upon just about everyone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of ProducerIsASockPuppetAntiSemite (talk · contribs) may be of interest. They're blocked, of course. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You might ask a CU if those dots connect, and I wouldn't want to assume without CU. If they do, it would justify extending the block on Atlantictire to an indef. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be all too easy to set up Atlantictire this way. Hello CUs, anyone want to do a check? Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

USChick, Wikipedia is not a battleground. This backpattery for fighting a "battle" that's "noble" is highly inappropriate. [84] Especially after that particular user tells admins to: "Eat my fuck. You enable Anti-Semites." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And the other half of the tag team shows up. Please present your Gestapo badge before you attempt to tell me with whom I am allowed to joke around on their own personal talk page. Did you notice where I started a new discussion called "Life Lessons?" Do you think that's relevant? Would you like to go back into the edit history to see how many editors the tag team Producer/Director have successfully blocked? USchick (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's completely uncalled for. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part? The review of your and Director's edit history? Let the admins decide. USchick (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say USchick's heading very quickly for a block of their own ... extremely quickly indeed DP 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Agreed. A confrontational attitude, especially from a person that states that "fighting battles is a very noble cause" at a project based on collaboration and consensus is not going to last long. USchick, you desperately need a new tack in the way you approach Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment is about life in general, not Wikipedia. There is a life lesson for Atlantictire here that's much bigger than Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Life itself is much bigger than Wikipedia (which is why I'm prone to occasional Wikibreaks) but if life and Wikipedia conflict, or if the approach you take to life (and use at the project) is antithetical to Wikipedia, then you'll have a problem here. -- Atama頭 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly, and that's why he's blocked. USchick (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Atlantictire has (rather ironically) created a sockpuppet, 2602:30a:2c0d:c9a0:9577:a271:88ee:bab1 (talk · contribs), to evade his block and continue with the personal attacks [85]. Pls see the use of carets (^) by Atlantictire throughout the talkpage (e.g. [86]) and their appearance in the sock post. -- Director (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, a Checkuser needs to take a look. This is exactly the type of situation that requires those tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that eliminates the possibility of this being a false flag that is intended to make the editor appear even more guilty. -- Atama頭 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh its him alright, I'll post an SPI. -- Director (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I occasionally confuse Direktor with Producer. Also, Atlantictire was righteously blocked, twice in a row, and had I seen those edits I would have made the same block for disruption, personal attacks, passive-aggressive commentary, baiting, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Insisting to include large direct quotes

Copied by me from the section of the same name at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk)

In here user:Johnleeds1 is insisting on copying a huge part of the book to the article despite my reminder. Also, I am not clear why he is resisting the removal of primary sources in a historical article. I am writing here to avoid an edit war. Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the sources, but such a large quote of nonfree copyrighted material is going far beyond fair use. I quote Folsom v. Marsh, upon which fair use is based:

If he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

John's edits have the effect of adopting the text as part of what we're saying, rather than using Kennedy's words so that we can comment on what Kennedy says. I've removed the text in question and will be giving John a stern warning. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

At almost 700 words, it is clearly copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And I see Nyttend warned him about it, thanks. I also just noticed that I warned him in the past about copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The same long quote has been pasted on the article's talkpage. It's not allowed there either, surely? The non-free content criteria policy concentrates on articles, but it does say "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" etc. My italics. So I've removed it from talk as well. Some copyright otaku had better please revert me if that wasn't right. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

You were right to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind you removing the text from the book The Great Arab Conquests By Hugh Kennedy. We all need to work together to improve the articles on Wikipedia. The article is being used to push views on if Ali should have been the first caliph or the third caliph 1400 years ago. The article needs to be neutral and objective. The reason why I included the extract from Hugh Kennedy's book was because it provided a neutral and objective commentary and was not from a Muslim source. This whole article needs to be looked at and needs to be scholarly. May be it needs to be rewritten. The article argues about events that occurred 1400 years ago. The books written about those events were written 300 years after the events. The reason I included some text from the primary sources was because these were the earliest books that I could find talking about these events. There is more common ground in the early Sunni and Shia books on these events and they are more neutral. The positions of both the Sunnis and the Shias has diverged over the last 1400 years and that has resulted in arguments on this article. The article is being used as a forum to push their modern views. The article is being used to push divergent views to create conflict, where as the reality is most likely more in the middle. That is why both the Sunnis and the Shias respect Ali and according to both the early Sunni and Shia books Ali appears to have adopted and raised Abu Bakr's son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, when Abu Bakr passed away. According to both early Sunni and Shia books their children and grand children inter married. 1400 years later, this article is being used to push views that have diverged considerably, from the views held in the early books. The article needs to be neutral and objective. There is a lot of common text in both early Sunni and Shia books that is not being included on this article because it does not benefit the people pushing their views on this article.

Kazemita1 removed a lot of other text, much of which was already on the page and retained Wilfred Madelung text even though that also falls into the same category, just because it pushes his views and he could use it to create conflict. He objected to me using primary sources to show the common ground, when the whole article is already full of primary sources. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan

• Typhoon Haiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help needed--the article has been vandalized and rewritten, presumably with a short copyright violation. The site won't allow me to revert to the previous version, even with a manual cut and paste, because it contains a link to a disallowed archive. Assistance in restoring a last good version would be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it without the archive links - this has the unfortunate side effect that about 15 of the refs are now dead links. Alternative archives for these sources need to be added. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What a mess, but at least the substance is restored. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now we need a revdel, to hide to copyvio. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this issue has been solved, shall we leave it be? All Refs seem to be restored, and the activity has cooled down. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:Happy Attack Dog, I urge you to read WP:COLOR. I can't read a single letter in that signature of yours. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sushi article

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

---

The article for sushi appears to have been vandalized. The entire page has been reduced to one line: "Chinese food is yummy. I like honey chicken and mexican guacamole. CHineseseseses"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushi

I don't frequently encounter vandalism (this is my first time reporting it) so I'm not sure how to track who did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voltarios (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Voltarios. The vandalism was quickly reverted, and I have now blocked the vandal indefinitely, since it was a vandalism-only account. If you'd like to see what has happened on an article and who did what to it, you can click on its "history" tab at the top. (P.S. Chinese food is yummy, but so is sushi. :-)) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

Voltarios, you were right to bring this matter to this board. Everyone who suggests combining honey with chicken ought to be blocked, and bringing in mustard for a disgusting menage a trois only makes it worse. I'm going to have to have a word with their parents. Thank you, and thank you Bishonen for the judicious block. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Washington Diamonds legal threat

The following was left on the page for Washington Diamonds by the user Washdia

"You have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the use of the name "Washington Diamond"

It has come to our attention that this page describing a company producing synthetic diamonds is using our registered trademark "Washington Diamond" (Registration #4399260 -- See link: http://www.trademarkia.com/washington-diamond-85824716.html) without permission. This is infringing on our intellectual property and causing confusion with consumers by using a similar sounding name promoting a similar product online.

The USPTO has given the WASHINGTON DIAMOND trademark serial number of 85824716. The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED. The correspondent listed for WASHINGTON DIAMOND is ANDREA H. EVANS, ESQ. of THE LAW FIRM OF ANDREA HENCE EVANS, LLC, 14625 BALTIMORE AVE # 853, LAUREL, MD 20707-4902 ."

The text has been removed from the page and the user notified of this message. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If he's talking about the words "Washington Diamonds", his complaints are groundless as that's the name of the company. If he's talking about the illustration, it's worthpointing out that the uploaded image also appears on this page, but it's not clear who stole from whom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be with the name "Washington Diamonds" - in which case they should be taking their concerns to the company using that name, not us - we're simply reflecting what is stated in third-party sources. If a lawsuit results and it gains press coverage, we can update the article accordingly. As to the image, I believe it actually originates from washingtondiamondscorp.com/about-us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears from the talk page this issue has arisen before. Fraggle81 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The comment on the talk page from Oct 2013 is by the same user that tagged the article today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the fact that the user issuing the legal threat is so damn wrong about the laws at issue here. How can a Wikipedia page about the company itself (in any way, shape or form) be construed as "causing confusion with consumers" when Wikipedia clearly doesn't intend to get into the same business? Sounds to me like a stupid troll or a lawyer who got his bar licence from a box of Wheaties. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You can only get your license from a box of Wheaties in California.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often this comes up, especially in OTRS. LFaraone 01:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I knew this sounded familiar. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you seem to be saying that you believe the person posting the legal threat is representing the company which is the subject of the article - am I reading your post correctly?

From what I can see, that's not the case. Based on the address in the trademark, they appear to be representing washingtondiamond.com ... while the article is about a different company whose webpage is at washingtondiamondscorp.com. But, that's still an issue for them to address with the other company. For now, the reliable sources support our current article naming, and if a lawsuit comes from their complaint and itself becomes notable, we would document that as well as any name changes resulting from it. But, that's an issue for the two companies to resolve while we just document coverage from reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 189.159.231.124

I don't know if it's maliciousness or ignorance that causes whomever is behind IP 189.159.231.124 to continuously manipulate Ilion Animation Studios and United Plankton Pictures negatively, because they've not yet responded verbally. There could be a language issue (IP geolocates to Mexico) but the user continues to remove, with no explanation or rationale, the valid "format=dmy" template parameter here. (The template instructions are at Template:Dts.) User has continuously ignored comments and warnings to stop across multiple IPs. User also continues to format article sections per their whim, rather than per MOS, consensus, or logic, often adding useless and empty sections like here where "Specials" is added for no reason. In the above referenced edit here, user contributes an alleged future movie event without a reference, which contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. User has also edited from 189.159.224.77, 189.237.186.87, 189.159.251.234, etc. So it's a persistent bother that has yet to be remedied through discussion. I submitted this IP to AIV before, but predictably the edits were not deemed vandalism enough so the IP returned again to restore their unhelpful POV. Other examples from different IPs: "Television TV shows" and "Filmography" to "Studios", and again, and again, and again with bad formatting and the addition of "prenset". And they appear to be all over this article where Carniolus is working hard to maintain order. Requesting admin intervention and if possible, some consideration for a range block, as they do hop around, and I also think it prudent to apply some form of protection from IPs on Ilion Animation Studios, United Plankton Pictures, Dr. D Studios and Kennedy Miller Mitchell. Maybe for 30 days or so? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:NE2 insulting a user using WP:AWB

Please see the edit summaries [87], [88], and several others from his AWB run. AWB is not a tool to insult other editors in edit summaries. While he claims that he is done with his task, I do not think that he should retain access to AWB if this is how he will be using it. --Rschen7754 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 ignored my request to fix his error. If anyone should lose access to automated tools, it's him, but I'm not going to ask for that. --NE2 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether a user listens or does not, does not give you the right to 'name and shame' people. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to lose AWB access here. Sure the edit summary was slightly inflammatory, but NE2 says they are done with the run. Barring some sort of pattern of abuse being presented, I don't see a need for further action. NE2, in the future, there is really no reason to call out another editor in your summary. -- John Reaves 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw these edit summaries in my watchlist this morning. Weather it's inflammatory or not, it's in poor taste. Petty was the word that first came to my mind. Dave (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would echo John Reaves here. Unless this is part of some long term thing, I would say just NE2 should stop adding other editor's names in the summary and call it done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering past interactions NE2 has had with Imzadi1979, I think that this was more than just bad judgment ([89] and [90] for example). And considering that NE2 barely missed being admonished in 2008 for similar behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#NE2 admonished, I don't think this is a one-off incident. With that being said, if the decision here is to monitor things more closely, I am fine with that as well. --Rschen7754 00:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • For a very active editor, his block log and such isn't that bad, so I'm guessing he is smart enough to get the message here and just stop the snippy summaries. If it is a habit, he can consider himself on notice to stop it now. We will see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I added an expanded note on his talk page, so there would be no misunderstanding over the idea that the summaries are not acceptable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move screwup

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

---

Bluebearknuckle (talk · contribs) moved the page Roger Lebel to D. Nguyen. Apparently, recognizing the mistake, but unsure how to fix it, he recreated the Roger Lebel article. Unfortunately, it now looks like he was the only contributor to Roger Lebel, while the D. Nguyen article (no redirected to Dèmetrice Jackson), falsely appears to have a long history of many different editors.

I think it's going to take an admin to straighten this out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

All cleaned up. -- John Reaves 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

disruption, BLP violations, POV and soapboxing by User:Need1521 at Dmitry Medvedev

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

---

I raised this issue earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#i.p._disruption_and_WP:BLP_violations_at_Dmitry_Medvedev. On 2 March User:Need1521 made this pointy edit basically saying that because Medvedev *didn't* do something, they were responsible for glorifying crimes created during the Stalinist era and earlier, even though Medvedev wasn't even born until 1965. When that was reverted, they used an ip to reinsert it. Then, on 16 March, they added the clearly inappropriate Category:Human rights abuses. When editors removed this, they used several ips to readd it. They ignored advice of other editors at Wikipedia:Blpn#Dmitry_Medvedev that the material was unacceptable, insisting that anyone upholding WP:BLP was simply an employee of Medvedev. After unsuccessfully reverting the ips addition User:Mike_Rosoft protected the page for a couple of days. The ip complained about this at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_159#Complaint, where they were again told that their soapboxing was unacceptable. They continued arguing on regardless, their last comment there basically arguing that because Russia had recently blacklisted several US officials, "patriots of Wikipedia (from USA)" should take revenge against Russia by supporting their soapboxing on the article. They also simply waited out the 2 days and resumed readding the material, being again reverted by User:Materialscientist, who was forced to semi-protect the page again. Despite that, they've reverted to their Need1521 account to edit war to get their POV back in. Valenciano (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hair-raising. One might add extremely poor English (Google Translate?). I've indeffed Need1521, for all the good it may do, considering their access to such a variety of IPs. I suppose we may have to keep the article semiprotected for a good long time. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

That does seem to resolve the issue for now, though sadly I have a hunch that it may not be the last we hear from that person. They refuse to get the point, see this all as a big conspiracy against them and while incompetent at following our rules or advice, are competent enough at finding ways round our rules, for example, they made exactly ten edits to their user page a few days ago, making them autoconfirmed. On the plus side, a couple of admins now have their eyes on the article, so that should nip any further disruption in the bud. Valenciano (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

IP-hoppers who disrupt all over the site are a problem, but this person, who's only interested in one article, can be managed easily enough with semiprotection. And if they've currently got other accounts waiting to be autoconfirmed, those should be easy to identify and indef as they turn up. Thanks for reporting, Valenciano, and feel free, if you like, to just drop a line on my talk if you see further problems. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

<removed irrelevance from block-evading IP, Bishonen | talk 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC).>

Need1521, I'm going to explain the situation, because I realize you may not understand it. Your account has been indefinitely blocked for edit warring as well as violations of WP:BLP and refusal to pay any attention to Wikipedia's rules and policies or to advice from experienced editors. The block on your account means that you're not allowed to post from IPs either (nor to create a new account and post from that). Your only recourse if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia is to request unblock of your account; for how to do that, see the instructions in my block message on your page. All right, this is the first and last time I reply to you. From now on, I and everybody else here will simply revert any block-evading IP edits you may make. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

I have no relation to the user "Need1521". But I am agree with his words on this page. I also think: there’s no need to create the dangerous precedent vs this rule of Wikipedia (living persons). What’s the reason to consider that the interests of Medvedev are better than the interests of all those people, whose rights are violated (relatives of victims - they are living people too). Any citizen of Russia has right to live in the country, where his moral rights are respected (there are 150 of millions of them). Many of these people know nothing about Lenin and December 20 of 1917 year, but such fact has no great importance. Putin isn’t better than Medvedev in this situation. Boris is the separate case (a large number of reasons). - 178.66.191.199 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Content issues should be discussed on the article's talkpage, 178, provided they're relevant to improvement of the article; the talkpage isn't a soapbox. Here, on this page, you're completely in the wrong place, and so was Need1528 (=95.29.78.212) above. This is a noticeboard for conduct issues that need administrator attention, not a forum. As for the policy regarding living persons, it isn't some novelty here. We've had it since 2005, and it's one of our core policies. If you disapprove of Wikipedia's core policies, the solution is to edit somewhere else, somewhere with different policies. There are plenty of message boards and chatrooms on the internet. Wikipedia is not a guarantor of your free speech; it's an encyclopedia, and a private website. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

• I've removed several soapbox edits from IPs used by the indeffed Need1521, whose style is unmistakable. Unless somebody who isn't that person has something to add here, the thread should be closed. I'll do it tomorrow unless somebody else gets in there first. Bishonen | talk 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

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

Politician removing negative facts from their own Wikipedia article

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

---

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a large number of revisions performed by Lukeming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in its history. In the last week the user has removed a section referencing a notable controversy surrounding the subject of the article. The latest edit he made shows the specific section he tends to remove.

Earlier today, this politician announced their intention to run in the European elections. Following the recent removal of the unflattering information, they made a request to have the page protected claiming that there was a large amount of IP vandalism. However, as can be seen by the edit history, the edits are predominantly established users cleaning up the conflict of interest issues caused by Lukeming's removal of unflattering information.

It is likely that "LukeMing" is either the subject of this page or a dedicated fan of theirs working to ensure that the page is positive for his upcoming election. In addition, it appears they attempted to abuse the Wikipedia page protection system for personal gain. I would request that "LukeMing" and any non-established users be prohibited of making changes to this page until after the election on 25th of may of this year to ensure the content of the article remains neutral.

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

Constant personal attacks by Mrm7171

Mrm7171 keeps attacking me and accusing me of using Wikipedia to promote the academic Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This has been going on since last summer, and I just want it to stop. For the record, I am a member of SOHP, but I have no financial or family/friend interest in this society. It is a typical academic society with hundreds of members. I am not an officer or have any particular personal stake in it. The occupational health psychology article they keep accusing me of using as promotion for SOHP has a mention of SOHP in one place (history of the field), and I am not the one who wrote it. I just want them to stop accusing me every time I disagree on some content issue. They have done it on the occupational health psychology talk page and other place. They keep inserting personal opinion, unreferenced statement, and mis-citing sources into the article, e.g.,[92], and when other editors point it out, they are attacked. They have been blocked three times for bad behavior, the last time in February for personal attacks. Here's some examples of the accusations on the OHP talk page and other places.

[93] One quote: “Iss246&psyc12, it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP').

After Atama just cautioned me to be careful in talking about SOHP in articles, they kept on with the attacks. “Iss246’s & now psyc12’s ridiculously strong and blatant promotion and Wikipedia:Advocacy (since 2008) is definitely continuing to create disruption to editing.[94] Note when Atama asked for examples of promotion, they provided none.

On Jytdog’s talk page where I have never posted: [95]

And today--see end of this section and Bilby's independent reaction. [96]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) Psyc12 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is right here, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard under header Occupational Health Psychology that you are actually talking about above, psyc12. I had a right to report you there. That is the appropriate forum for COI reports. However can you please provide any evidence, at all, through diffs psyc12, where I have personally attacked you?? Not once, not any! I have made sure I have remained civil, courteous and respectful for over 75 days with both you and iss246. I feel this report here is vexatious and frivolous, without any cause, or based on any objective evidence.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 and iss246 have admitted themselves as friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia; psyc12 joining Wikipedia on iss246’s direct invitation. They are also active members and advocates for the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the ‘goals’ of that professional society. They edit in unison, ‘appearing’ at the same time, on the same articles, presenting the same POV, and often even answering questions that were directed to the other editor.

See [97] Psyc12 seems to be as involved in SOHP & EAOHP as their colleague, here discussing SOHP [98] Psyc12 could be the chair of the 'OHP' committee for all I know!

In fact, these COI issues with iss246 & now psyc12 and the society of 'OHP' have been ongoing since 2008 between many psychology editors. See here. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. It is also seen here, in these series of diffs, from 2008, between iss246 and another experienced editor. These diffs show difficulties iss246 is presenting over the same topic of ‘OHP’ and including ‘external links’ to their society for ‘OHP’ in the OHP article. See: [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] The point is, I have tried to add edits, or sources to bring some NPOV but have been prevented from doing so by both psyc12 & iss246. See this diff showing 3 consecutive reverts made by psyc12 within minutes of each other and me trying to find a civil resolution. [108] On Talk:Occupational health psychology It is filled to the brim with at least 20 PDF links back to their SOHP newsletters as reliable sources. Also adding external links back to their SOHP society, and then other editors being told (in no uncertain terms) by iss246 & psyc12 to leave the external links alone! [109] [110] [111] And here psyc12 saying there is only room in the article for links to their 'OHP’ societies!? [112] [113][114] [115] [116] I have tried not to bring up the COI assessment made by Atama and was not aware that COI could not be mentioned again? In fact, as soon as I dared to remind these editors of the COI issues, I am immediately reported here by psyc12!? I even said to Bilby before psyc12 decided to post here, okay, well I won't mention Atama's COI assessment again. However this article remains very biased and I feel like no other editor can possibly add any reliably sourced, neutral edits to the article, without psyc12 & iss246 quickly blanking them in tandem, under the guise that the edits were "not appropriate" (or some other similar excuse), and without providing any diffs, or Wikipedia policy explaining on what basis they are deleting my edits? see Talk:Occupational health psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If any editor believes there is 'any' uncivil, or 'any' disrespectful editing or any personal attacks I have made, over the past 65 days please post the evidence right here. I stand by my objective edit history over the past few months, and don't appreciate 'frivolous blanking' of my good faith edits or baseless claims of personal attack, here by psyc12. As I've said, I won't bring up Atama's assessment of COI again, and did not realise that I could not even mention, that this assessment had actually been established at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard when psyc12 & iss246 have completely ignored that assessment and this article Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide I found quite useful in dealing with COI issues.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems at The Zeitgeist Movement

User:Flowersforparis, a WP:SPA with a history of promotional editing at The Zeitgeist Movement and related articles, has chosen to edit-war over inclusion of material concerning a book published by TZM, and an event hosted by the Movement, sourced solely to a press release on prnewswire.com [117] I have repeatedly tried to explain the issue - see edit summaries on history [118], the thread on the article talk page [119], and my posting on Flowersforparis's talk page. [120]. None of which seems to have made the slightest difference, as Flowersforparis has responded with a nonsensical (and insulting) claim that "It isn't a Press release. It is a book/text. Where is the 'source' for the ' TZM DVDs', moron?" I note that Flowersforparis has already been warned for incivility regarding TZM-related matters, and has already been blocked once (for two weeks) for sockpuppetry, [121] and frankly, I think that we would do well to show this 'contributor' the door, on the grounds of WP:COMPETENCE (how many times does one need to point out that citing a press release is citing a press release?), and as clearly not here for any reason but to promote TZM, with no regard whatsoever for Wikipedia policies. While I doubt that this will be the last pro-TZM single-purpose account we see, we might at least get one with a bit more of a clue and a little more manners next time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As an editor that watches that page I would agree with Andy T.G. that this editor is not going to be anything other than what they have been, a single purpose problematic type, for what ever his tenure is here, so maybe better to make that tenure 'over'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Block review

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

---

I have blocked AkiraKinomoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Fairyspit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis of behavioural evidence: first edits clearly indicate someone who is not a new user, area of interest is identical (especially the obsession with Cumberbatch) , the account has no edits prior to the blocking of the last lot of socks, and one of the user's early actions is to request unprotection of a title with which Fairyspit is also obsessed. As usual with this kind of thing, the evidence is purely circumstantial and I invite review. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Good block. AkiraKinomoto, Largetrope (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and AngGandaNiVice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed sockpuppets. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 09:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

@JzG: @DoRD: @Dennis Brown: FYI - now socking as 107.161.159.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 17:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I sprinkled a little semi-protection around, which might discourage continued socking, although I won't hold my breath. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Wikipedia article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Wikipedia and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Wikipedia admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Wikipedia, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Solarlive

User:Solarlive a WP:SPA who's entire contribution history seems to consist of POV-pushing, WP:BLP violations and personal attacks, has now chosen, despite repeated requests by multiple contributors [122][123][124], and despite being the subject of a thread at WP:BLPN, [125] to restore clear violations of WP:BLP policy in multiple articles - complete with personal attacks in the edit summaries: [126][127][128]. Since it seems self-evident that someone who describes other contributors as 'scumbags' and who is incapable of understanding elementary BLP policy isn't here for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, I suggest we block indefinitely. 15:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit - I see that User:NawlinWiki has blocked Solarlive for 72 hours. I'll contact NawlinWiki, as, per my above comments, I think an indefinite block would be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I think he did that in the spirit of escalating blocks. Looking at his contribs, I'm guessing it will be moot in a week anyway. Not only does he keep shooting himself in the foot, but he's reloaded a couple of times. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the insults in edit summaries began on Day 1: [129], [130]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved Admin issued a block for edit warring without warning based on 2 edits 10 hours apart

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This admin, who has been involved in discussions in which he has gone on record of something in support of that I have gone on record as opposing issued a 24 hour block for edit warring on the article Sevastopol based on 2 edits that I made that were 10 hours apart from one another [131], [132]. He also cited edit warring at "other Crimea related pages". I can only assume that he meant this edit at Ukraine which restored the original map that includes Crimea from one added that did not include Crimea. The map issue is currently under discussion on the talk page and the issues being discussed is whether or not the area of Crimea should be shaded light green or not, but the map added by Messir completely removed the Crimea from the map. Now considering that the Crimea-less map was again reverted by another user after it was re-added and the map currently includes Crimea, my edit could hardly considered contentious in nature especially considering that removing Crimea from the map is the national equivalent to a BLP violation right now. Now I say that I was not given a warning, but the blocking admin cited this message on my talk page as evidence of being warned of edit warring. Thats not really a warning, but even if it was, my only edits to main space after this message were the three that I previously linked and none of which is beyond reasonable or contentious. In addition, I went on record as attempting to have this block reviewed and overturned. the reviewing admin cited several edits I made to the article dating back three days, now four days in which I was reverting NPOV violations to the article Ukraine. I will point out that there were quite a few problems with POV edits and POV pushers at that time that needed some immediate attention. But my question to this is that if those edits were problematic, why wasn't it brought up at that time? The time to address those edits was three days, now four days ago.

Also I would like to point out that the blocking admin fully protected the article Crimea on March 19th [133], but not before changing the article to his preferred version [134] and then making two additional edits [135], [136] after the article was fully protected. Now on the surface, those edits seem fine, but involved admins should not be "fully protecting" articles in which they have been editing and then continue to make edits after the protection is in place.

As far as the article at Sevastopol in concerned, I believe that instead of issuing a block to a well established user who is obviously just trying to keep these articles from getting out of hand with tons of POV edits and NPOV violations, a more competent admin would have fully protected the article(s) and allow the dispute resolution process continue naturally, especially considering the admins obvious involvement in the article(s) main page and talk page. A more competent admin would have asked for help or a review of the block. I've seen very good admins coming to this page and asking for reviews of their blocks. Its not hard, an the admin knew that I planned to bring this here when the block was lifted. It surpasses me that he did not come here first to ask for assistance before I had the chance to do it myself. Like a said, a more competent admin would have made many different choices over the past four days. I truly believe that the blocking admin believes that what he was doing was fro the good of the project, but considering the admins "involved" status, the motives are questionable.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Jojhutton's presentation of the facts is seriously misleading as far as the extent of his own edit-warring is concerned. As was outlined on his talkpage, the block wasn't based on "2 edits that were 10 hours apart", but 11(!) reverts in less than three days, of which 7(!) had been within the first 24 hours of that period. As for my "uninvolved" status, I never edited anything directly related to the Sevastopol article on which Jojhutton was edit-warring. I did file opinions on two Crimea-related move or merge requests. These, however, were motivated by considerations that were quite orthogonal to the political divisions that have been fuelling the revert-wars on Crimea topics these days, so I continue to consider myself uninvolved and neutral with respect to the general area, and I am certainly not in any kind of dispute with Jojhutton in particular. The edits I made to the Crimea article itself in the context of my protection of it were technical cleanup and fully in the spirit of WP:PREFER ("administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists"), and are also very far from constituting any administrative conflict of interest with respect to Jojhutton. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The seven you point out I assume were from the article Ukraine, in which I was hardly in the minority opinion about. There was, and still is an ongoing discussion about that map. Unfortunately we get users who do not want to participate in that discussion nor are unaware of the discussion and blindly change the maps. Thats fine because its being Bold and we encourage that, but you will notice that in my edit summaries I usually politely ask the user to participate in the discussion. The last edit I made to Ukraine is probably the least contentious edit anyone could have ever made, and in fact I would have expected anyone to revert that map that was added by Messir. You expressly cited edit warring at the article at Sevastopol which you referenced in your block message. Yes you never edited that article, but I only made two edits to that article several hours apart that had little do to with one another. One was to remove a Russian infobox that had been removed by other users before. Again that is hardly contentious in nature and again its only two edits. As far as being warned, I made three main space edits in that time after being reminded not to go over 3RR to two separate articles, none of which can be considered contentious or highly controversial. Why you simply decided to issue a block instead of fully protecting Sevastopol, I would would like to hear explained.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your memory must be remarkably short. The 11 reverts in three days and 7 in a single day were all on Sevastopol, and they were directed against several other editors, including good-faith experienced contributors, and in defence of a highly contentious POV analysis of the situation that you were upholding. Those latest 2 reverts on that article may have come more slowly, but they were clearly still part of the same edit-war you had been engaging in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had a concern with those edits then this should have been addressed at the time, instead of randomly blocking without warning over day old edits. It seems a bit unfair to bring those up without being issued a warning about them. And again that was the day that there were quite a few of serious POV edits being made across several articles on this crisis. Many editors, especially experienced one were being bombarded with serious violations of NPOV. And again if there were problems with those edits, you should have addressed them at that time. Instead of waiting two days.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For starters, WP:INVOLVED isn't an absolute bar from action and in this case I don't see how it applies anyway. Fut. Perf's participation in the overall topic seems more technical than emotional.

That said, a final warning wasn't given and should have been used in this case, as the problem with this editor wasn't urgent, but was instead a pattern over a period of days. I see several arguably problematic edits over a week, but I don't see rapid edit warring that REQUIRED an instant block to stop any immediate damage to the encyclopedia. Most IP vandals get a warning before we block them, established editors should get no less, particularly when the pace of the editing is less than "furious". In the 24 hour period before his block, I counted 13 total article edits on Wikipedia, and half of those are unrelated to Crimea in any way. That is not furious editing. Without question, a discussion should have been started instead of a block without warning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fut. Perf is one of our best admins, but concur that this particular block was unnecessary. For the record, Jojhutton has been at the forefront of containment on conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 and other similar areas, so it wasn't fun watching him getting blocked for his efforts on Crimea related pages, especially after reviewing the edits and seeing that the block could be seen as punitive rather than preventative.--MONGO 16:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fut Perf handles some of the hardest stuff at enwp, and I respect that (although he might be miffed at me right now). I don't think he abused anyone or broke any policy, I just think his choice was hasty here. Doesn't make him a bad guy, but it was a bad choice. I would rather chew an established editor out a bit on their talk page first, than block them. Blocks are funny....once you block someone a few times, they no longer care if they get blocked, they just get bitter. Then you no longer have the power of a potential block to influence them. That is why I try to NOT block someone unless it is really the only or obvious choice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Especially the part about hasty being bad. NE Ent 18:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that a DRN case has been filed concerning this page. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sevastopol. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• WARNING:User:Dennis Brown and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise made an alliance on the page Talk:Republic of Crimea. THE CREATED COMPLETE MESS. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WARNING: Do not accuse others of meatpuppetry unless you provide solid proof. We get you don't like Dennis' close. You've been told how you can address that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod attacking everyone at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans

Per WP:BOOMERANG, I'll take the hit on this and I'm totally cool with that, but an admin needs to jump in at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans, where Johnbod's been ad hominem attacking any user (a 3O volunteer as well as 2 longterm editors aside from me) who have dared to tried to fix his article. I bit back as hard as I can, myself, but the other editors have been overly patient with these constant snipes. I don't personally mind that Johnbod has now taken to wikistalking my talkpage, kind of a badge of honor for me, but he's gotten so bad another longterm editor now wants his userpage deleted. That's too far, and as I say I am willing to take my own hit just to have an admin look at this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice if an admin could remove the gross personal attack (with no content relevant to the article) on me by another editor (diff), which Kintetsubuffalo has twice reverted the removal of (once and twice). He is I think no stranger on this page (ANI I mean). He started this off by removing two quoted words, referenced at the end of the sentence, which it became clear he had not noticed, from a DYK then on the main page. When I saw this some 12 hours later, I reverted with an explanatory edit summary. He then added two cite tags (for what was already cited) with an abusive edit summary, and continue to edit war and rant on the talk page despite being told many times on the article's and his talk pages that they were referenced at the end of the sentence, and always had been. User:Andy Dingley then joined in, also repeatedly demanding the refs that were already there, and soon joining the matter to his long-standing crusade against Wikimedia UK with a purely personal attack. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think people bringing up the WMUK stuff helped anything but where did Andy Dingley demand refs? I only see comments that the location of the refs and the wording was confusing. Nil Einne (talk)`

• es: tag cn - if this is so obvious, it will be easy for the most knowledgeable editor to add a citation to the appropriate existing ref and resolve this issue amicably
• re-adds cite tags, with es: rm peacock tag. Sourced statements further down indicate that these terms aren't unexpected or unreasonable, merely that we still need to cite their provenance)
• reverts to restore citation needed tags
• Lengthy response on his talk page, in response to my pleas that he actually look at the article; "Now I think they're probably fine to be there, but they should have cites close enough to them to support those specific terms, if they're being used as direct quotes like this, contra to PEACOCK. I believe that you are able to add such cites. I am not. The source ref is apparently an hour-long YouTube video, which I simply don't have time to watch, but I believe that you already have..." - he is confusing the next ref (to the lecture on You Tube), at the end of the next sentence, because he just hasn't looked with any degree of attention, but continues to revert, and at the end of this diff begins his personal attacks.

Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins, why is there no action against this editor? They think they are better than others and think it is acceptable to talk down to everyone. Lesion (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not resolved. This editor seems to have a nice habit of searching peoples' user pages for any information which they can then try and use to push others down. It is actually disgraceful behavior since this editor is supposedly representing WMUK. Lesion (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's been no administrative action because there have been so few specifics offered. The opening post by Kintetsubuffalo provides zero diffs. The only link is to the talk page generally. They don't even provide a link to their alleged misconduct. Other admins may be willing to dig deeper, but, me, I got distracted by the pretty pictures in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not really involved in that issue above. I was taken aback by the user's tone on WT:MED, which to my understanding was entirely unprovoked. About a day later I decided to look through the user's contribs to get a better idea of their behavior, and the pottery talk page pasted above was the first thing there. I suggested, in good faith that they might be having a bad week and are snapping at people, however from the responses to this suggestion, I conclude that this is normal behavior for them. The incident left me a bit disillusioned that editors are apparently happy to search through user pages just so they can try and talk down to others, for no good reason. Lesion (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just glancing at the article talk page and user talk page (I'm not an expert in Chinese ceramics) this looks like a content dispute that accelerated due to incivility. We have very, very experienced editors here and perhaps they do not like their edits to be challenged. The only bad behavior I see here is impatience which doesn't exactly violate WP guidelines. Maybe a reminder is in order that WP is a collaboration involving editors with different knowledges and experiences and we should try to cooperate rather than ridicule those who challenge us? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint regarding User:KageTora

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

---

I have a complaint about User:KageTora. It regards a request for a Chinese translation as my Chinese is only at a lower-intermeidate level here, however User:KageTora responded with a deliberate wrong translation full of swear words and rude connotations. Proof can be seen in a google translation here. I am not an admin, but is this a blockade offence or a worth a warning at least? --Holbrook West Parish (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My Chinese is zero, so I'd really like somebody who can read it to comment here. (Heimstern, where are you?) I don't trust Google Translate very much, but still, it surely couldn't have pulled that lot out of thin air. If Google's translation is even remotely accurate, I believe the user needs a shot across the bow of some kind: a block or at the very least (considering they're a contributor of many years with a clean block log) a sharp nursery word and perhaps a time-off from the Reference Desk. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Bish, I think the likelihood of an editor or admin who is fluent in Chinese wandering through AN/I in the next 24 hours is pretty low (unless Heimstern responds to your shout-out). If you have doubts, I'm sure you can offer a fair warning based on what you've seen. If it is truly a dire situation, that response can serve as a follow-up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit. The cow isn't on the ice, as the more colourful of my countrymen have it, and we're far from completely lacking in Chinese-proficient editors and admins. Heim isn't editing currently, but I've e-mailed him. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

@Anna Frodesiak: might be a good candidate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Philg88 is your best choice. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, in picking up the ping. The boxed text in the next section is a reasonably accurate translation of what the Chinese at the help desk page says. I would class it more as a rant than a personal attack on anyone. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there do seem to be some rather rude words there, as well as some general sarcasm. But I wasn't aware that it was appropriate to use the reference desk as a general translation board, anyway, especially not for something that looks pretty thoroughly commercial, so I'm having a hard time thinking this would be very actionable. (To be fair, my Chinese isn't at the level I can distinguish very well just how bad the language is.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Heim, thanks for commenting, but as long as we have a Reference Desk of course people are going to use it for all sorts of things. They may deserve to be told they're in the wrong place, but not to be trolled like that, as long as they themselves aren't merely trolling. I'll write a somewhat sharp comment to KageTora to that effect tomorrow. I'm just dropping off to sleep here. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

Just read through that rant and it is certainly not the most civil comment. Translates to

Is your baby 3-5 years old? a fat fucking asshole (the words are somewhat open to translation, but this is fairly commonly used) who wears extra large diapers? If so, please send me a friend request and receive plenty of spam. Share with your friends and have them forever hate you for sharing their email details so they can receive even more junk mail.

Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a place to come to get free, commercial (!) translations from people who do this for a living. I did give a warning to the OP, with words to that effect. And you admin people need to get out a bit more often. You remind me of Californian schoolgirls in their little clique. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be fair to warn an OP, but it's not fair to pull a Hungarian Phrasebook-style prank on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did make sure the OP knew that the translation offered may not be to his/her satisfaction, and the person in question appears to have done the necessary checking up, which I assumed everyone with common sense would have done, hence this little conversation we are having here. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization of volunteer editors. We don't give out freebies, when we would normally get paid in real life. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Plain speaking is required—if a "go away" reply is needed for a ref-desk question, give the reply in a manner that is civil and understandable. You do not have to agree with what has been said here, but you do need to agree to not repeat anything like that at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We give away a free encyclopedia -- Amazon currently lists the 2010 Britannica for $7,599.99. [137]. (Reverting close by Medeis.) If an editor does not wish to reply to a reference desk request, they should simply not reply to a reference desk request. NE Ent 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't do what i did, somebody else would come along and offer a faithful translation, and then we get people thinking it's fine to ask us for translations for whatever for their own commercial/financial gain, while there are people in this world who do this sort of stuff for a living (myself included). I do not agree that I have done anything wrong. Sure, maybe I could have just put a post up saying "We do not offer translations for commercial/financial gain, being a free encyclopaedia, and not a translation service." But I didn't. I did leave a message which should, by anyone who can speak English, be understandable as a reference to the fact that the translation was not entirely faithful to the original, and just as I hoped, the OP decided to check - I was perfectly hoping the OP would do that, before posting the 'translation' online. This is a case of AGF, which I guess we could change to APHCS - 'Assume People Have Common Sense'. Issue dropped, or are we going to continue with this nonsense? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What you should have done is say "this is not suitable for Wikipedia" and directed them to Google Translate or similar, instead of basically WP:BITEing in such a rude manner. Despite you and your chum Medeis trying to dodge this issue, you need to realize that your behavior has not been acceptable. GiantSnowman 11:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

On Sundays, I run a fruit & vegetable stall in the market. How about popping by one day and having a bag of free apples, or something, while you watch my children starve? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Absurd attack on wonderful contributor. μηδείς (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Medeis. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The question has been asked elsewhere, anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Nyttend Are you saying KageTora's behavior is acceptable? NE Ent 13:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. No administrative intervention is going to occur. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC

Not what I asked. Not all issues raised at this community discussion board will necessarily be resolved by use of admin tools; in fact, it's frequently better if they aren't. That does not mean it's appropriate to prematurely close a discussion prior to consensus being reached. So I'll repeate the question: is KageTora's behavior acceptable: not following the WP:SPEAKENGLISH guideline and engaging in personal attacks contrary to WP:NPA? NE Ent 14:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How, in Heaven's name, can this have been considered a personal attack? Anyone with any common sense would know that what I wrote was a warning - albeit cryptic and all but incomprehensible to the likes of yourself - a warning saying, "When you are running a business, don't try to get a free translation for advertising, from a website that uses volounteer contributors to make an encyclopaedia. I have no idea who you are, who you think you are, or who you want to be, but what I did was well within the realms of common sense. Close this discussion, because I am really sick to death of people who just type to make themselves feel superior. This is bordering on trolling. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the standard isn't "common sense" but civility. If editors at the Reference Desks give jokey or misleading answers to questions, their usefulness to readers is nil. This was a case where you clearly should have just not responded instead of posting a snarky, bad translation to make some kind of point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the ref desks are saturated with jokes and ownership issues. That's why so many editors have been driven from them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I brought up problems I saw at the Reference Desks here once but it got no response. I think every editor has their editing niche and no one was interested in ousting troublesome editors who comment on every question (whether they know what they are talking about or not) or who provide opinions instead of factual answers, based on Wikipedia articles. I agree it's a mess that needs an overhaul. But that requires interested editors willing to give their time and attention to making that happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. GiantSnowman 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Report tendentious editing of Doug Ose

The article for Doug Ose is being edited with partial bias by users User:50.173.12.209, User:2602:304:B2D0:BEC9:1C82:EF6B:627E:8037 and User: Fern On Dirt in previous edits of the article. Entries made by them under "2008 Election" and "2014 Election" and "Congressional Career" contain information without adequate evidence as well as partial bias. There may be more editors involved, so I highly recommend looking through the edit history as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierra223 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sierra223, can you provide evidence of specific edits (diffs) that you believe are colored by bias? Some examples would help busy editors who don't have time to analyze page edit histories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Liz, here is a quote from a previous edit: "During his work in Congress, Ose was named a “Hero of the Taxpayers” by Americans for Tax Reform, a “Guardian of Small Business” by the National Federation of Independent Business and earned a “Tax Fighter” award from the National Tax Limitation Committee. Ose voted for a $1.35 trillion tax reform package that ended the marriage penalty tax, lowered the estate tax and increased child tax credits for American families. He served as Chairman of a House Government Reform Committee, where former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady Hillary Clinton were exposed for failing to properly report over $190,000 in jewelry, furniture and other personal gifts. This act led to legislation expanding presidential disclosure requirements. In addition, to combat illegal immigration, Ose voted to use new technology and additional agents to secure America’s borders, and fought efforts to block construction of a border fence. Ose also authored a resolution in keeping the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and he supported legislation against defiling the American flag [1].

Ose was one of the few Members of Congress to honor his pledge of serving no more than three terms. Therefore, in 2004, he did not stand for re-election and was instead briefly a candidate in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. However, in spite of his pledge, he did seek a seat in Congress again in 2008 when he lost the Republican primary to Tom McClintock in California's Fourth Congressional District, and is currently trying to return to Congress again."

The citation was from a nonexistent link (cited as www.dougose.com/about.asp). When I browsed through actual campaign website there was information in the bio page, but it did not contain the information that was cited in the edit.

Here is another biased edit: "After Congressman John Doolittle, who represents California's 4th congressional district, announced on January 10, 2008 his intent to retire from the U.S. House of Representatives after completing his 9th term, Ose weighed in on possibly running for Doolittle's seat during the 2008 elections. On February 1, 2008, Ose formally announced that he would run for California's 4th congressional district seat. He picked up endorsements from Congressmen Dan Lungren, Duncan Hunter, and Wally Herger, as well as State Senator Dave Cox, and Assemblyman Roger Niello and Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. Additionally, Ose was endorsed by Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner (who appeared in at least one local TV ad for Ose and did other events for him).[1]" The citation here contains another web page on www.dougose.com that does not exist. The editor listed it as a "endorsements page" (claimed to be http://www.dougose.com/endorsements.asp), but under the offical "Supporters Page" on the website, none of those alleged endorsements are available at http://www.dougose.com/supporters where they are listed.

Somebody also included a quote that seemed irrelevant under the 2014 election history category. "On March 18th, Doug Ose said to the Sacramento Bee; "When I was there [in Congress] before, I figured out how to get stuff done. When I go there again, I'll figure out how to get stuff done again.""

Perhaps I could be mistaken, but this did not seem appropriate or objective to include a campaign statement from the candidate advertising his qualifications. There are several other edits that have been added and deleted by users that were equally biased, but I do think that the page deserves some oversight from admins.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierra223 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully, this report will draw some attention to the article and it will have more eyes on it. Has this issue been discussed on the article talk page? By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR and other issues from a non-English editor

Lindodawki (talk · contribs) has been adding material to two articles: Gospel music and contemporary Christian music. The problems are that 1) it's not supported with references and 2) it's not really related to either subject as the discussion is about contemporary worship music and not the subjects. While Gospel music associations distribute awards, there are distinct sub-genres and the discussion is not appropriate at either of these articles. I have tried to explain this here and here and possibly other locations. I'm not sure if the subject is fluent in English since the edits to the contemporary Christian music article show signs of common activity on non-English Wikipedia projects (notice the use of flags) and so rather than continue to edit war with the subject I would like some intervention, preferably from an admin, but if admins agree that it should be taken to a dispute resolution board instead, I can do that. I'm not seeking a block, simply some oversight and discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor now appears to have gone anon for three edits as 177.189.59.51, which are non-controversial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User refuses to respond

On the article Odesza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which I created, I had a bit of information has to how the duo got their name. The user RuhiAndre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted it. I undid his edit, explaining that I had listed a source for the information, and unless he had a counter-source the info should stay. He has ignored me and gone on to delete the info 3 times. I also have my suspicions that he is close to the subject, as his only contributions to this site were trying to get the article "Odesza" created for nearly a year at this point. His requests had been denied repeatedly, but he kept trying religiously. Now, after the article has been created (by me), he claims to know things only someone close to the subject would know, as he made the claim that the info was wrong, but could not prove it.

On the edit history page I specifically outlined why the bit of information could not be removed, as the information had a source and he had no counter-source except for his own word. I also posted on his talk page days ago my suspicions of him being close to subject, but I have apparently been ignored. He has been extremely unresponsive.

I think he should be banned from editing that article, as it has become a nuisance. --Bathes (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt by you to engage at the article talk page, and your one-sentence note at their talk page didn't have much in the way of good faith. How about asking, politely, for them to explain why they're making that edit and if they have any reliable sources that you might not be aware of? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than constantly reverting RuhiAndre (which is edit warring, regardless of which of you has the more 'correct' position), you ought to begin by engaging them on their talk page or the article's. Although you did explain yourself in the edit summary not all editors read edit summaries, and a proper discussion can only really be had on a talk page. If they don't respond to that, it might make sense to seek outside help again. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How we should deal with users with this type of behavior?

This user started a non-stop battle on many pages. Involved in edit warring, nationalistic POVs, using multiple IPs (and maybe multiple accounts), and anti-ethnic slur in his edit summaries (very bad edit summaries). Currently, he is blocked for 48 hours. See his contributions. If he continues, report him to incidents board or 3rr/edit warring board? Zyma (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't his first language. As much as I scold my dad whenever he tries to say "if you want to come to America, you need to speak English," I do think a lack of proficiency in English isn't an excuse for behavior that's disruptive in any language.

After his block, if he once again edit wars, pushes a nationalist POV, socks, or uses an anti-ethnic slur -- and he expresses no desire to improve -- I see no reason to not indef him. If he expresses a desire to change at that point, and explains how he's learned to behave better, maybe unblock him but re-indef if he's disruptive up again.

If he's going to be more trouble than use to this site, and if he's not interested in changing his behavior, there's no reason to keep him. All the admins can do is minimize his damage. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of going to 3rrNB or where ever, probably just come here and point to this thread (may be in the archives). A reasonable admin will block him. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and unresponsive behaviour by User:Merlin the 2nd and User:50.98.103.127

The above two users, the former likely being the signed in version of the latter, has repeatedly been moving images on List of cities in Alberta against consensus throughout the last four weeks. It started as a good faith move of images to be the right of the list table. However, 117Avenue and I have had to repeatedly revert these moves as, on most screens, the attempts push the table down creating unnecessary white space.

Diff set #1 (February 24-27):

• existing photos removed by IP
• revert by me regarding unexplained removal of content
• warning placed with IP
• new photos added by IP
• existing photos removed by IP
• revert by 117 noting "pushes table down on small browsers"
• second warning placed by me regarding unexplained removal of content elsewhere

Diff set #2 (March 9):

• photos moved by IP
• revert by 117, again noting "moves the table down on small browsers"

Diff set #3 (March 13):

• photos moved by IP, this time with the edit summary "I have moved these pictures from the #Administration section to the #List section because it makes more sense to be in that section"
• revert by 117, replying "a large section of white space makes no sense"

Diff set #4 (March 15):

• photos moved by IP
• revert by me noting "per 117Avenue's numerous recent edit summaries"
• third warning by me with explanation why the edits are being reverted as the editor appears to not be reviewing our edit summaries

Diff set #5 (March 22):

• existing photos removed by IP
• revert by me for of unexplained removal of content
• new photos added by IP
• revert by me noting "Revert move of images against consensus"
• fourth warning by me
• new photos added again by Merlin the 2nd
• reverted by 117

Fairly obvious that these two are the same editor by reviewing their contributions - Merlin and IP. A check user may not necessarily confirm however as it appears all of Merlin's edits are mobile edits whereas the IP's are not.

Anyway, this(these) editor(s) are: not leaving edit summaries (with the exception of one); not reading edit summaries left by those reverting the edits; and not heeding warnings on either of their talk pages (Merlin has received two warnings from me regarding edits elsewhere). Further, the IP did not heed the explanation I provided on the IP's talk page with my third warning, while Merlin has been blocked once before for similar disruptive behaviour.

I'd revert the latest edit by Merlin, but because I reverted the IP earlier in the day with two separate reverts, I'm at risk of 3RR. Hwy43 (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I've reverted List of cities in Alberta once more. Merlin the 2nd has also been editing Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada and various provinces without explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully Merlin/the IP will see the ANI notices on their talk pages, review this and see how troublesome the edits have been. Hwy43 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Merlin has made controversial edits to Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (see history), which has resulted in mass reverts of edits at provincial articles by myself and Moxy as well. The reverters there have not yet placed any warnings on Merlin's talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by Llinkster

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

---

Llinkster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest account to appear out of thin air and attempt to hack away at Brenda Dickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been a source of disruption and legal threats here and via OTRS in the past. This is the latest: Monday morning I will be contacting my attorney, Eugene Moore is you should continue to put up things that are untrue that have nothing to do with my career or my accomplishments of work. The owner is probably the subject since they can't make up their mind as to whether they should refer to her in the first or third person. That said, the article does need updating with some of the information they added in today's ~50 revisions, and the new image they uploaded should probably stay - I'll be fixing it up in the next couple of days. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Gave editor a COI warning and an NLT block. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Newbie running riot with twinkle

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

---

Newbie running riot with twinkle generating dozens of inappropriate and/or irrelevant tags. Warned & asked to stop, but is powering on at more than 1 edit per minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AvNiElNi-nA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AvNiElNi-nA

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had stop doing that. AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear sock of User:Smauritius! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had stop doing that. - Thank you. Now please go back and undo all of your edits that have placed Notability and BLP sources tags. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Krimuk90 please present sock puppetry evidence at WP:SPI…i had been watching the above account since creation which is closely after the last checkuser sweep. User:Hell in a Bucket — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.240.237 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the contribution history and reverted a few. Although some might barely be justified, many of those are accompanied by tags that aren't, and he has messed up a lot of articles. Anyone want to do a mass revert? Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, too many articles were messed up – someone should do a mass revert. Mojoworker (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What a mess. Let me go and spend some time taking care of this too. I have some free time, so lets make use of it. → Call me Hahc21 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass revert done. → Call me Hahc21 07:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Heritoctavus, tendentious editing, and now a legal threat

Background: on 21 March, I blocked Heritoctavus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours for edit warring at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. His/her edits there included striking the results and replacing them with "disputed" and other edits that suggested advancing a particular point of view. Three hours later, 137.122.64.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made similar edits to the same article. Since the IP had been warned, and given the similarity of the edits, I blocked the IP for 31 hours as well. I noted in my block message the similarity of the edits,[138] but the similarity was weak enough, in my opinion, that I did not do anything to directly sanction Heritoctavus for sockpuppeteering.

Heritoctavus got the notification of that message, since I linked to his/her username, and demanded that I apologize for the comments.[139] I left a lengthy response explaining my position and that I had noted the similarity but not to the level of requiring any action against him.[140]. Subsequently, I was called "hopeless" in a reply by Heritoctavus, who also said "I sincerely, honestly hope that you live in a big city where, for example, for example only, there is a psychiatrist."[141] I chose to not respond to that remark.

Subsequently, his block has expired. He's returned to the same editing conduct at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and other ladies' skating articles.

Most problematically, he's left another demand for an apology at my talk page, stating "IF YOU DON'T TAKE PROPER ACTION, IT AMOUNTS TO THE SELF-VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA'S [TERMS OF SERVICE] AND WILLFUL FRAUDULENT ANNOUNCE OF IT TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH MAY CAUSE LITIGATION."[142]

Since it's now risen to the level of an implied legal threat, I'm requesting an independent administrator to come in and address this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Implied it may be, but the wording of his statement on your talk page is a clear legal threat. Blocked. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see this every week. Why do people think this over-the-top, all caps approach will get them the result they want? I can only assume it is immaturity and an inability to control one's impulses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate respect for gf IP contributors and their work

I politely requested an experienced editor to show due respect to fellow gf contributors, including anonymous IPs, some of whom may actually be new editors (see "Flanno" [143]). In response I was obliquely accused [144] (cf [145]) of sock puppetry. My polite but firm rebuttal [146] has been deliberately ignored [147]. This passive-aggressive approach to anonymous IP contribution seems seriously wrong to me.
86.169.210.196 (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have my own suspicions, which I can not prove that you have edited previously as you are too experienced for a 10 day old IP editor. Also, it's my choice whether I wish to interact with you on my Talk page and I don't. So end of story. Goodbye. JMHamo (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you weren't altogether clear about what sock puppetry is and is not, I provided a link [148] to WP:SOCK. Please note: To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on wiki. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Especially if your account has blocked from editing. When I have enough evidence I will consider filing a SPI about you, but at the moment I respectfully request you make no more contact with me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have never been blocked. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we AGF? Of course. Is it extremely hard to AGF when an editor edits from an IP, while clearly having detailed knowledge about the ins-and-outs of how Wikipedia works? Of course. If you've edited from an account or different IP address(es) before then simply say that, you don't need to reveal any more information, and the first assumption won't be (or shouldn't be) that you're merely block evading. GiantSnowman 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GiantSnowman for the simple and helpful suggestion, which I will certainly bear in mind in the future (and I sometimes do indeed explain that I prefer to edit as an IP). In the present case, given a) the constructive character of the edits I made to the page in question, with the inclusion of descriptive/explanatory edit summaries [149][150][151][152][153][154][155], and b) my constructive engagement on talk pages both of the article and of the user I cannot identify any conceivable reason why it should have been hard simply to AGF, irrespective of my editing history, IP or otherwise.

Moreover, I was not the only IP being inappropriately reverted. Since I believe it can be potentially harmful to revert constructive contributions from IPs who may be new editors without even providing an explanation in the edit summary (e.g. [156]) I explained my concerns to the user [157]. This was followed by the insinuation of sock puppetry [158]. I find this sort of sequence of events disturbing not just for myself but for Wikipedia's broad contributorship. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:IP addresses are not people might be worth a read. We try to treat IPs as equal, but it is often human nature to not. Policy can limit people's actions, but not their hearts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I don't think the sort of arguments outlined in that essay should be considered a justification for the sort of approach under consideration in this thread. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not justifying, I'm just saying that human nature is what it is, and we can't change that. No matter what policy is in place, or what an admin says to someone, there will always exist a degree of prejudice due to the nature of the beast. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Then do you think this sort of an approach from an experienced editor is somehow inevitable? I don't (cf this interaction). Which is why I've raised the matter in this thread. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Uncooperative editing by Locke Cole

Continuously defiant edit warring at Scarlett Johansson, despite warnings. Editors have asked him to respect the talk page, but he simplyignores out of spite. edit history of Johansson. Rusted AutoParts 04:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be a content disupte. Locke Cole is adding in referenced information about Scarlett Johansson's pregnancy, Hulabaloo Wolfowitz and Rusted Auto Parts are removing it, and replacing it with the hidden text <!-- Please do not add pregnancy until there's confirmation. These sources are going by reports, not from anything the actress or her rep said. --> .The two sources in question http://collider.com/avengers-2-scarlett-johansson-pregnant/ and http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/scarlett-johansson-pregnancy-delay-filming-avengers-sequel-report-article-1.1710262 are used to support Locke Cole's entry. I can't see collider.com, but nydailynews.com is reporting that she is indeed pregnant, however, the wording is carefully written and it looks to be tabloidish. Perhaps the article should be locked while this is sorted out.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) has been talked to, repeatedly, about imposing his own higher standards on article sources that policy does NOT support (currently we're arguing over at the talk page for Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). He was blocked for six months, and only after insisting his behavior would change was he finally unblocked after a month. We've been around and around on the issue of article sources and while I admit to being frustrated, I find myself wondering if he's simply not able to understand, and if his recent unblock was a good idea given the unwillingness to accept that he alone does not get to decide what is an acceptable source, especially when the community here already has WP:RS which goes into detail on what is and is not a reliable source.

A few months back we had a similar issue over at Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which ultimately ended up with the debated statement (complete with sources) going in. But not until weeks of disruption, revert warring, and so forth. Now he's engaging in personal attacks, saying "It's evident Locke is still burned up by the Age of Ultron spat [...]". Truthfully I'm stunned at the amount of resistance being made over something so well-sourced. Seriously, if it were something more contentious with only one weak source, I'd understand this level of resistance. But we have dozens of sources, and just in the past week an additional source which would (in my view) seem to cement the issue into the realm of indisputable fact. Despite this he insists on "confirmation" (whatever that even means) beyond what our sources provide (which is not what we do here).

Given the rise in personal attacks, the attempt to bully me by threatening to bring me to AN/I (which upon arriving here, I see he's already posted a notice about me further above, without informing me on my talk page as required), and the apparent inability to learn and follow our policies and guidelines as it relates to verifiability, no original research and sourcing, I felt the need to bring it here for a wider discussion and hopefully some kind of long-term solution. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources appear to be tabloids. Let's think outside the box for a minute here: I'm going to assume that you follow Scarlet Johansson's career, etc. What is your sense of the veracity of the rumors? I saw one source photo which alleged to show a "baby bump", but there wasn't one. So is this on the level or is just a false rumor like it was 2 or 3 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to bring the debate about the sources here so much as the behavioral issues Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) is displaying. But suffice it to say, WP:NOTTRUTH (an extension of WP:V) covers this: if we can verify that our sources say what our article is saying, that's all we really care about. You'll note that in the edit I tried to make (which has been subsequently reverted by RAP) that I used the language "[...] reported [...]", which is us using our voice to say that this is simply what our sources are saying (not that we're claiming it to be true). The scrutiny of pictures of actresses for "baby bumps" is original research, and not allowed here. Again, verifiability, NOT truth. We have a dozen sources all saying this, it's not for us to decide whether or not it's true, our sources have already done that. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a legitimate discussion as to whether reports of the pregnancy should go in to the article, but the issue really isn't behavior it's a lack of consensus and low participation in the discussion. Both editors would do better to focus on the topic at hand and perhaps get additional input rather making personal comments about each other and rehashing old disputes. If raising the issue here doesn't bring sufficient attention, then a rfc might be useful. NE Ent 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like WP:BLPN should be tried. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced by E!, which is owned by NBCUniversal, so I don't think there's much of case it's not a reliable source for Entertainment news. NE Ent 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP still requires a consensus on the sourcing and how it is presented. So, get the consensus, if there is a "legitimate discussion" to be had. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC) As a side issue, pregnancy is entertainment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP doesn't require a consensus prior to editing, only if there's a dispute, but then that's not much different from a non-BLP issue. The problem here is, does consensus consider views of people who aren't applying policy correctly (competence is required)? I mean, you have a few editors on the talk page there insisting on "confirmation" which is above and beyond what the community has put down at WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR (and to a lesser extent, WP:NPOV). I'm beginning to lean towards ignoring objections that are based on personal requirements instead of site-wide policy, as they're both unhelpful (no effort to compromise exists) and set a terrible precedent for other articles ("if I don't like the site-wide policy, I can enact my own personal views on the article talk page!").

Our sources say she is pregnant (the initial sources said "reportedly", but more recently we've seen interviews with folks involved in productions she's acting in saying things like the pregnancy hasn't affected production in any major way, etc), it's a BLP issue without sources to be sure, but irrelevant since we do have sources and a lot of them... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue because it is a BLP and there is an editing dispute about the quality and presentation of sourcing -- BLP thus requires DR to sort that out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedia practice requires consensus, and Talk:Scarlett Johansson exists to provide the forum to achieve that. The special provisions of BLP for "contentious" material surely do not apply to whether a 29 year old woman is pregnant or not? The E! report [159] is just shy of three weeks old, and there's been no retraction, or denial, so there's not particularly wrong with adding it per the special BLP provisions. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is, of course, a matter for discussion. NE Ent 17:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's far from a mechanical yes/no or a black/white issue. BLP for good or ill gives a wider play to editorial discretion, privacy, dignity. It raises issues like 'what if this rumor is wrong' 'how will it look, if tomorrow it is disproven' or 'because of the privacy issue, this may remain forever, unconfirmed.' Pregnancy, its occurrence, and its termination is not a matter of privacy? Not a matter of dignity? Not a matter of contention? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Above comment edited to remove leading space that messed up display on mobile devices. --NellieBly (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC))

I consider it relevant for individuals notable in part because of their appearance (e.g. Actors, dancers). I'd be much more inclined to not include for women prominent for other reasons (e.g. Mary Barra). Taken the to extreme, we could argue that there should be no "Personal life" section in any biography, but longstanding practice is Wikipedia does include that stuff. Additionally, we routinely include reliably sourced predictions about the future that may turn out to be incorrect (e.g. Climate change). NE Ent 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it might be "relevant" sometimes not. And saying we cannot have personal life sections, if we do not report this matter is far from reasonable. In the end, under policy, "the routine" is no replacement individualized, considered judgment in such things. A discussion, which this board is ill-suited for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems fairly self-contradictory to continue to discuss something on a board while claiming the board is not suited for it. NE Ent 18:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in the least, since I am not the one who raised the particulars of the sourcing here, but kept to what the policy considerations and issues are, and the appropriate forums to pursue them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is a fine place to discuss whether BLP applies to a BLP. It does in the many ways I outlined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Table this discussion for a few months. If nature holds true to form, I suspect there will be more sources speaking about a "bump". If they don't, well.....Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that the above used "table" as used in US English (to delay discussion) as apposed to UK English (to discuss immediately). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting -- so what would go in the uk portion of {{engvar|en-uk=???|en-us=table}}? NE Ent 17:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You'd use "shelve", and you'd do that by appointing a Royal Commission. Thincat (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• This makes me smile. Can't say I've done that a lot lately when I come here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems eerily familiar to a [discussion] that got really heated seven months ago over what daily newspapers and magazines can be used for reliable sources. There were some editors who didn't want to accept any magazine focused on entertainment news as a reliable source and so this might be comparable to wanting a "higher standard". The link included is to a WP:RSN conversation but I believe there was also an RfC on the subject but I can't locate it now. From what I remember, entertainment or popular magazines can be used as sources if they include a named source (and not "friends say" type of attribution) but I would read through the discussion carefully because this ground has been covered at least once before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But surely the only daily newspapers that would cover Scarlett Johansson's personal life would be tabloids. Let's face it, she does not do anything notable enough to have her personal life covered in major international newspapers such as the Financial Times.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To add perspective, hopefully: It's not a matter of questioning whether entertainment-news outlets are reliable sources, but of what they're basing their reporting on this in this case. Let's not forget, WP:RS isn't about the outlets themselves but about those outlets' reporting on specific things. In this case, the pregnancy story is all based on anonymous claims, i.e. RUMORS. Let's remember, this is not the first time anonymous sources claimed she was pregnant? Here, read this from People: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". Until there's confirmation, an encyclopedia — which has higher standards than daily / weekly journalism — does not claim something as definitive, inarguable fact. There is no deadline. Our job is to be right, not first. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH. Your assessment of the sources' sources is original research. It's one thing to look at, for example, a grocery store tabloid and say it's not reliable for use here. It's another thing entirely to look at something like Time magazine and say "well it's not telling us who their sources are" (which we don't, and shouldn't, care about in the first place). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely should care about sourcing, especially BLP's. While sourcing is a requirement, it is not a guaranteed admission ticket. Regardless of sourcing, if your gut feeling is that the fact may be shaky, you should not include it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is my recollection from the conversation I linked to (which spread over several additional talk pages and noticeboards), Wikipedia doesn't condemn "tabloids" but "tabloid journalism". Some people participating in the discussion wanted to have a set list of newspapers and magazines that would be considered "tabloid" and would be unacceptable but a) it proved impossible to come up with an agreed-upon list of what a tabloid is and isn't and b) as I said, WP condemns a style of reporting, not specific sources of news. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If we took the word of entertainment news (even that published by branches of supposedly reliable sources lmike NBC), we'd have to add a recent pregnancy section to the article of virtually every woman of note, up to and including Queen Elizabeth II. What passes for a baby bump these days could be anything from a good meal to perimenstrual bloating. Until the woman herself announces her pregnancy, we should not mention anything about it. And we should never, and I mean NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, allude to pregnancy termination without a direct quote from the woman in question as reported in a fully reliable source and not a tab. Good God: imagine the shitstorm that would follow even the slightest hint that a notable woman had an abortion - now imagine the real emotional harm we would be causing to her if she had been trying to conceive and miscarried. Imagine if some Eric Rudolph type decided she had to die for her "sin". --NellieBly (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you post an example of a claim confirmed by E! (or People) that a woman was pregnant that turned out not to be true? NE Ent 18:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruption

Okay, the back and forth continues, but the editor in question still refuses to acknowledge policy or guideline on the topic (and is effectively encouraging others to join him in ignoring policy/guideline). Is there some point where wasting other editors' time because you simply don't like something is considered disruptive? Because I think we're quickly approaching that point. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's not required an editor explicitly acknowledge policy. Sometimes editors have to accept they're just never going to agree on something and stop going back and forth about it. At that point, it's best to disengage and seek additional help. NE Ent 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, Locke, you have alot of nerve saying I'm being disruptive. You, who when someone reverts you, you revert back. What were really hitting on the nail is: you don't like it when people disagree with you. And as a result started a massive problem all with the aim to jab at me.

• at least you're not pushing your own personal requirements like RAP is (and I'd strongly encourage you to re-think the "[RAP] is absolutely correct"
• Please stop trying to change site-wide policy and guideline on JUST the pages YOU edit. This is not RAP-opedia, it's Wikipedia
• RAP is under the mistaken delusion that any source MUST be from the mouth of "ScarJo", her publicist, or her doctor; e.g. a primary source, exactly the kind we avoid here

Constantly stating WP:CIR is you implying people are stupid, so that's just being a jerk, when were all trying to civilly discuss the issue. It seems you desperately want people to agree with you, when they don't. Pregnancy is a WP:BLP issue, so it needs more than People reporting on it. Your mean spirited approach to this, with your "competence is required" rants and your filibuster tactics, is what's more disruptive. It doesn't benefit the discussion in the slightest and makes you come off as an arrogant person. It's unfair to me and the other editors when you insinuate we're incompetent simply because we have a different view, and it means you're acting on bad faith. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants and WP:COMPETENCE

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

Blocked some weeks ago for disrupting an AfD, much time and energy has been expended in an effort to rehabilitate this editor, but it has not stuck. Editor continues to upload unlicensed images even after having file permissions and copyright issues explained to them multiple times by multiple editors. Now they are inserting "horrific" and "abominable" into random articles [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], and at one point, "sexadactyl". A number of editors have gone out of their way not to bite this newbie, but at this point I think sheer WP:COMPETENCE comes into play, this editor will likely not become a productive one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Though I'm not sure how much is a competence issue, and how much is just plain trolling - these latest edits look more like the latter to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that the recent edits are trolling, or that they're to 'random articles'. They're all about mythical or legendary aliens or monsters, and to be honest from the existing descriptions they do sound kind of horrific. Saying so may well be original research or unencyclopedic, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily deliberate disruption. And sexdactly, although not a standard word, means 'six fingered'(er, not sex fingered as I originally wrote). I don't know if the beings in that article were supposed to have six fingers, but it seems plausible.

Have you discussed these particular edits with SpongebobLawyerPants? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

They were advised of the preference for encyclopedic language although it was not done formally since they seem to read and respond to edit summaries. Their inability to comprehend policy is frustrating. After advisories regarding WP:FRINGE sources and reliability, they persist in adding problematic sourcing [165], [166]. And after having image upload policy patiently explained to them again and again, they just don't or won't get it. Is the appearance of ignorance unintentional or willful? I honestly don't know, but it shows no signs of abating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie, isnt "sexadactyl" another word for "6-fingered" ? I didnt use "6-fingered" because it sounds too colloquial and of course i didnt know that "sexadactyl" is actually a "dirty" word. Yes, i inserted "horrifying" , "terrifying" and "horrific" into articles, but not random ones. They include bizarre creatures and extraterrestrial beings. I use such words to dramatize the style of the article. It wasnt my intention to violate the neutrality of these articles by using such words. Regarding the image thing: I still dont know what requirements to meet to successfully upload a picture. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the complete history, including a number of inconsistencies in how they discuss from day to day, and other things I won't get into via WP:BEANS, I would conclude this is not only a troll, but a troll who has been here before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed (incidentally, someone with six fingers is, unsurprisingly, a hexadactyl). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I mixed it up with other languages where "sex" means six (Spanish "sexto / sexta" means sixth e.g.). Thats an contretemps, because in the same article a man claims to have been sexually harassed by an 6-fingered extraterrestrial being and in THIS article i said "sexadactly", thinking that this means "6-fingered". But the right expression seems to be "hexadactyl". LuckyLouie probably thought that "sexadactyl" was a kinky innuendo, but didnt intend this. I dont know whether this will change LuckyLouie´s opinion, but i apologize for this awkward mistake. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

SO why didn't you write "six fingered"? Not as horrifically abominable-sounding as ""sexadactyl"? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it sounds too colloquial, i have already mentioned this above. But i would be more interested in LuckyLouie´s opinion. Im still thankful for your contributions in the Voronezh UFO article, but dont you think it is exaggeratedn to call someone "troll" because he did a linguistic mistake ? Im an honest person and i guarantee "sexadactyl" was a MISTAKE. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I made useful contributions to the Voronezh UFO article. Unfortunately an alien probe seems to have deleted all memory of it from my mind, and from the article's edit history. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. "Six fingered" is not in any sense "colloquial". It's plain English. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is keeping someone around just because their user name amuses you a valid support? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? If so, this section is becoming very confusing indeed. What on earth are you talking about? Paul B (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@SpongebobLawyerPants: you asked my opinion re your "mistakes". I'm sorry, but someone whose response is "I dont have enough time to read Wikipedia´s enormous guidelines" when told they need to familiarize themselves with the basics of how Wikipedia works will likely always be creating "mistakes" that others will have to clean up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As i said before: Im thankful for your contributions in the Voronezh article Louie (because Paul B. mistakenly thought this thank was addressed to himself). But you dont have to clean up my mistakes. The "sexadactyl" thing was a random mistake and has nothing to do Wikipedia´s guidelines. Regarding the word "eyewitness": I have seen this word in many other articles. Thats why i mentioned it in the Voronezh article. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• ""horrifying" , "terrifying" and "horrific" into articles, but not random ones. They include bizarre creatures and extraterrestrial beings. I use such words to dramatize the style of the article." - This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not have "dramatic" articles; it has ENCYCLOPEDIC ones. This language fails WP:NPOV. Also, "I didnt use "6-fingered" because it sounds too colloquial" - it's, as noted, plain English, even were it correct, "sexadactyl", were it a valid word, would be the technical term and, thus, unpreferred. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There are even articles which have a racist tone or "invented" information. You should rather use your competency to improve those articles than complaining about innocuous words like "horrifying" or "terrifying". Using such words doesnt destroy an article´s neutrality. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• • So has this discussion cleared up any concerns about trolling for anyone? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be extremely careful about insulting people publicly and calling them "troll". I know i did some mistakes, but you have no right to call me troll. I dont know how high your level of education is, but such insults are considered to be disrespectful. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Lawyerpants you should probably read (yes another policy) WP:NLT before you start skating any further on that thin ice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You cant accuse me of legal threat. Unlike many other editors who want me to be deleted, i highly respect the freedom of expression. Dennis Brown may insult me whenever he wants, i dont care, but he embarrasses himself by permanently accusing other editors of trolling. Thats why i said "You should be extremely careful about" "--SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Spongebob's response to Dennis was uncivil but I don't see how you could possibly see a legal threat in what he said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps an uninvolved admin can now take a look and close this. My opinion, that we are having our collective chains yanked, has not changed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did a quick scan of their work. Nearly or all of their work is, at best, it's unencyclopedic non-RS'd work writing about hoaxes. At worst their overall work might be just pulling Wikipedia's leg. Also seems to not have expressed any desire and even expressed disdain for trying to do it right. If, very quickly there is a sincere recognition of the problem, the commitment and (shortly later) effort to learn how to do it better and do so, suggest one more chance. If no, not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not an anarchist ignoring any guidelines. I just said i cant read the whole guidelines but become familiar with them gradually by publishing articles or doing useful contributions. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a bunch of people are telling you what you are doing is not useful, quite the opposite. So, right now do your darndest to try to understand why they are telling you that before you edit further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• How about a topic-ban against anything paranormal, UFO, or whatever ... see if we can actually get encyclopedic work out of him for 6 months DP 00:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading album pages/Possible sock

Resolved

 – Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like User:GagsGagsGags is back with a new sock User:VasteKlantBijSportpaleis and is continuing to create fictional albums which by-pass new page patrol because they seem legit. Could the The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (album) and The Beyoncé World Tour pages be deleted and this account blocked? The report I filed in August 2013 about this user might be useful to admins unfamiliar with their backstory. —JennKR | ☎ 16:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and dealt with this -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:69.249.66.126

Vandalism-only account, disrupting editing.--Darius (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:AIV is the right place to report vandalism after they have had 3 or 4 warnings in a short period of time. That said, that is a dynamic IP and they only have one edit in the last year, so a warning is all that is needed at this point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wheel/move warring by Betty Logan

Earlier, Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) moved the page Let It Be (film) to Let It Be (1970 film) without discussion. Seeing this, I requested it be moved back as a undiscussed controversial move at WP:RM. After I made the request Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moved the page back to its original title and BB properly requested the page be moved by opening a discussion.

After that, however, Betty Logan (talk · contribs) moved the page back to the contested title. Her action is in violation of WP:WHEEL, which prohibits the reversion of another admin's reversion of an administrative action (in this case her reversion of Anthony's reversal of an undiscussed move).

I raised the issue on Betty's talk page but it seems she has no intent to reconsider her wheel warring. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Betty is not an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the move considered uncontroversial when it contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)? A move against guidelines is, by definition, controversial, and it should not have originally been requested as such. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment In my defence I moved the article as a formality in good faith as you can see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Requested_move_3. Per WP:NCF the film project fully disambiguates all non-primary topic film titles i.e. Titanic gets disambiguated to Titanic (1997 film) since the boat is the primary topic and there are other Titanic films. A similar case exists here, since the album is the primary topic and there is more than one film. As a rule film editors just perform these moves as a matter of course since they are not particularly controversial. In this instance another editor moved the article to Let It Be (film) and labelled it as "uncontroversial". Neither Bovine Boy—who raised the issue at the Film project—nor the editor who moved it back indicated the initial move had been challenged. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience here, but we generally just carry out these moves automatically unless they are formally challenged since it saves a lot of time, and there was no visible objection to the move either from Anthony or Hot Stop. If Hot Stop had also registered his "oppose" at the move discussion instead of ignoring it obviously I would not have closed the discussion as a formality. Bovine Boy provided me with a diff at the Film project of Hot Stop lodging a complaint about the move after I had undertaken it but that complaint must been cleared from Requested Moves page when I checked it before the move, since only Bovine Boy's original request to move the page remained. Obviously there has been a breakdown in communication along the way but regardless the end result is that the article is now compliant with WP:NCF, and nobody has provided a reason either at the article talk page or my talk page as to what exactly the problem is with the new title. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement

I havent been following closely or participating in the discussion with the involved IPs for a while, but its on my watchlist and the situation appears to be spiraling out of appropriate scope. At least one of the IPs appears to have a COI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Rusted AutoParts and Locke Cole

There's no way we can converse without someone accusing of something. It's best for the site if we just didn't interact with each other. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scarlett Johansson for proof. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme and BLP violations

User:Atsme appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to defaming users and subjects she or he disagrees with and promoting those with which he does agree, specifically on the subject of Islam. He or she has repeatedly posted BLP violations and conspiracy theories, the latter exemplified by his or her recent claim to have filed for mediation on the grounds of TAGTEAMING (the evidence for this being that more than one user disagrees with him or her, so clearly it's a TAGTEAM). I warned him/her about this behavior, but the user waved it off and today posted another such BLP violation with regard to the alleged affiliations of a living person, which I will not repeat the substance of here because, you know, BLP. [167] A block seems like the only way to get this user to take policy seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)