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

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 [1]. 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 [2], 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[3][4] 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. [5][6]

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) @Harizotoh9: I was referring to Korean language sites such as Korean Wikipedia. Not aware of any on the English side.MrTownCar (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case you should bring up the issue there. If you have evidence of this you can have some action taken. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Agreed. If Ryu continues to refuse to tone it down, one of these days, some Admin is going to "tone it down for him" when they're tired of hearing about it. Not me, but a different admin who doesn't want to hear about it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize ANI was the place to make vague threats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's more puzzling about that comment. You taking that as a threat when I specifically stated I wouldn't do that to you? Or the fact that people threaten one another up and down ANI? (Even though I wasn't in this instance.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 24 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 [7] 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" [8]. 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 [9][10]; e.g: the user replied to me, addressing me as "Producer" [11], and then mock-"corrected" himself [12] ("Sorry Direktor, I honestly do get you and Producer confused sometimes"). He seems to think himself "clever" in avoiding a direct statement [13]. Similarly, having been trolling for a while about how Slavs are antisemitic [14] (Producer and myself being Slavic), he basically admits he was trolling, but expresses his opinion that he managed to "technically" skirt policy [15] ("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 [16] 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 [17], and this recent one [18]). -- 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 [19], 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 [20]. 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 [21]. 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 [22]. 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. [23] 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 [24]. Pls see the use of carets (^) by Atlantictire throughout the talkpage (e.g. [25]) 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)

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.

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.,[27], 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.

[28] 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.[29] Note when Atama asked for examples of promotion, they provided none.

On Jytdog’s talk page where I have never posted: [30]

And today--see end of this section and Bilby's independent reaction. [31]

— 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 [32] Psyc12 seems to be as involved in SOHP & EAOHP as their colleague, here discussing SOHP [33] 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: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] 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. [43] 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! [44] [45] [46] And here psyc12 saying there is only room in the article for links to their 'OHP’ societies!? [47] [48][49] [50] [51] 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)

Just to clarify, my suggestion at WP:COIN was that if someone was a member of a professional society that they should take care when editing articles about their organization, or when adding information about their organization to articles or linking to sites related to or hosted by their organization. For example, I myself hold some certifications provided by CompTIA, and was at one time an "IT Professional" member of the organization. As a result, I just don't edit anything related to it. I might be holding myself to a pretty strict COI standard, because I wouldn't gain any direct benefit from promoting the organization and little-to-no indirect benefit either. I assume that both Psyc12 and Iss246 have a similar relationship with SOHP. The only reason why I stated on the COI noticeboard that I had a concern was because there was a claim that they were advocates for the organization. The term "advocate" is a loaded one, but neither editor denied the claim, despite the fact that I brought it up again myself in that discussion. So I'm not comfortable with two "advocates" for an organization using references provided by the organization. At the same time, I warned Mrm7171 to "not use my determination of a COI concern in regards to SOHP as a bludgeon in content disputes, especially in regards to edit-warring and personal attacks", and to use dispute resolution to settle any disagreements at the page rather than relying on COI concerns to "win" a dispute. I also stated very clearly that I wouldn't (and couldn't) unilaterally declare a ban on the editors that would prevent them from editing about SOHP. I later asked Mrm7171 what bias or other problems were introduced to the article because of the inclusion of references to SOHP. As far as I can tell, I never received a direct answer to my question.

So, unfortunately I believe that Mrm7171 did exactly was I asked the editor not to. They took my mild concern about a COI and are misusing it to bludgeon the other editors into submission, and are trying to at least paint Iss246 (and by implication Psyc12 as a colleague) as an editor using Wikipedia for financial gain based solely on a grant received 15 years earlier. Mrm7171 did link to some legitimate misbehavior from Iss246 on the COI noticeboard as examples of bias, but the links date back to 2008, which suggests that the editor has improved and moved past the problems they had starting out. More recent examples of "misbehavior" seem to be well-explained content changes and Mrm7171 seems to be objecting to any inclusion of information provided by SOHP as improper, or removal of information provided by other sources, regardless of context. It's getting into WP:NPA territory at this point, and Mrm7171 has already been blocked once for that (see here in the ANI archives). The suggestion there was that Mrm7171 should be blocked indefinitely, but Drmies only blocked Mrm7171 for two weeks. There was hope expressed in that discussion that Mrm7171 would return "with a fresh perspective" but seeing that two months later they are still at it, perhaps the suggestion at that old discussion (by multiple editors) that Mrm7171 be blocked indefinitely should be revisited. -- Atama頭 16:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that was my hope. I never saw clear consensus for something as drastic as that, and that's no surprise since wading through the contributions made by both editors, but especially Mrm, is not an attractive prospect--these discussions have suffered from lack of third-party input. Given the results of your investigation, I have no objection to an indefinite block. It is entirely possible that the other side has been disruptive one way or another, but I think any objective observer will recognize that the main thrust comes from Mrm's side. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add, too, that about a week (or so) following the expiration of their most recent block, Mrm7171 filed a sockpuppet investigation trying to link Psyc12 and Iss246 together, despite the fact that CheckUser had already been run against the two the previous year and cleared them both (with the suggestion that there was evidence of some collusion between the two, but not enough to be actionable). This was prior to the COI noticeboard complaint filed a few weeks later. Looking over Mrm7171's contributions, I'm seeing an obsessive focus on working against both of these editors, most especially after their last block expired. This includes discussing the edits of these editors on talk pages of other editors, discussing it on article talk pages, discussing it at COIN, at SPI, reverting the editors, and so on. The more I look into Mrm7171's editing behavior (which includes more than 1,000 edits since they were unblocked at the end of January) the more I see a disturbing pattern of what can only be called harassment. Unless someone gives me a reason otherwise, I'm going to block them indefinitely. I don't believe that Mrm7171 is at Wikipedia for constructive purposes. -- Atama頭 17:51, 24 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 Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 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)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 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 to spend. 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)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 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 [52][53][54], and despite being the subject of a thread at WP:BLPN, [55] to restore clear violations of WP:BLP policy in multiple articles - complete with personal attacks in the edit summaries: [56][57][58]. 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: [59], [60]. —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 [61], [62]. 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 [63], but not before changing the article to his preferred version [64] and then making two additional edits [65], [66] 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)

It is more than that. In a separate incident, the user randomly decided to search through my user page and then talk down to me. They think they are better than others and they think they can speak to people however they want. By your inaction, you are sending them a clear message that that behavior is completely OK. Well it is not OK. Suggest a token 24 hour ban so either they get the message or there can be a formal log in their journey to permanent ban which this attitude will inevitably lead to in the fullness of time. Lesion (talk) 12:19, 24 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. [67]. (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)
  • To me that looks like a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. That's definitely not acceptable behavior. -- Atama頭 17:07, 24 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)

@Bathes: I strongly suggest that you read WP:BRD which covers the kind of situation you find yourself in now. I think it will helpful for you. -- Atama頭 17:10, 24 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.

Well there you go! I complained about a nuisance. Next thing I see it's changed topic and subject area to edit-waring - totally unrelated to the nuisance edits. And then the guy's banned for edit-waring. Well, yes, in those circumstances, that's the appropriate chain-of-events. But they were/are completely independent of, and unrelated to, the nuisance edits.
My point? (Points?) (Yes, I'm a pedant.) They are two separate issues/incidents. Putting them in the same item implies they address the same issue. They don't.
Who cares? Probably only me ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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,[68] 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.[69] 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.[70]. 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."[71] 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."[72]

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)

It's the G.I.F.T.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 24 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" [73]). In response I was obliquely accused [74] (cf [75]) of sock puppetry. My polite but firm rebuttal [76] has been deliberately ignored [77]. 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 [78] 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 [79][80][81][82][83][84][85], 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. [86]) I explained my concerns to the user [87]. This was followed by the insinuation of sock puppetry [88]. 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 [89] 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) === 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)

So stop interacting -- focus on the content and policy without referring to other editor's actions, perceived motions, etc. NE Ent 02:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not important to this discussion and has been answered, we should move on now. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

disruption (continued)

Rusted AutoParts, please follow/remember WP:KETTLE. When you have been Accused, dont accuse back. It seems like this discussion is inappropriately moving onto Rusted Autoparts. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:04, 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 [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], 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 [95], [96]. 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)

The mistake was yours, not mine. Your attempts to sound innocent are increasingly unconvincing and tiresome. Paul B (talk) 01:32, 24 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)

Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't mean creating still more crap is justified. And yes, it does make an article non-neutral: "horrifying", "terrifying" and "horrific" are all value judgements, not objective descriptions. (And if those other articles, which I notice are not named, are so bad, fix them.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 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, 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)

Except your contributions are not useful, and you're refusing to listen to everyone telling you this, instead making personal attacks at those who are trying to tell you that your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect and listen to your advices. I even apologised for my mistakes. Im a remorseful person and unlike you, i dont call other editors trolls or insult them. You pretend to be a moralizer, but you dont dont even accept apologies or respect newbies, who did some mistakes. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In your post I just see an argument that what you are doing is fine, not acknowledgement of the need to change and commitment for taking steps to do so. Is that your stance? North8000 (talk) 11:30, 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)

I dont know how good or bad the quality of your education level is, but it is not democratic to ban a whole topic or to demand that. You shouldnt call me (or indicate that im) stupid, as you dont even understand the principles of democracy. You should rather read the definition of democracy and stop threatening me permanently with bans. I respect your opinion and advices, but one cannot simply ban a whole topic and insult other editors. I would be ashamed of such a horrible behaviour. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Have i ever called you (or indicated) that you're "stupid"? Suggesting that without proof is a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We have a set of rules you agreed to, and you keep breaking them. A topic ban would allow you to continue to editing the project, but NOT in areas that are causing you problems - indeed, you're about 2 steps away from an indefinite block. A topic ban is your best friend at this moment. DP 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont hide the truth, you said some rude things in my own talk page. But as a democratic and honest person, i even tolerate this. Why dont you unleash the gentleman in you by blocking a new editor who did some mistakes but apologised for that and whose contributions and articles are undeservedly denounced as trolling ? --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please provide a WP:DIFF of anything "rude" that I have ever said on your talkpage - otherwise, one of my colleague admins will unfortunately be quite likely be forced to block you for personal attacks - see this clarifying information on unfounded statements. DP 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"...bizarre failure to read about...", i consider that to be rude. This phrase should have been "...bizarre reluctance to read about...", because the first phrase indicates that im illiterate. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to block me, than do it. As i said before: Unleash the gentleman who is lurking deep in your heart. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Misbehavior and goading people into blocking them? This seems like someone who is not here to be constructive. Empty apologies given above with no actual acknowledgement of what they did wrong are insufficient and to me they just reinforce the suggestions given earlier that this editor is playing everyone else here for entertainment value. I'm going to take this editor's most recent suggestion, and block them. -- Atama頭 17:58, 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)

Ew, that one again. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 24 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)

• Let It Be (2004 film) also has a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

unsourced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue here. Two experienced editors worked with WP:NCF and moved the page as needed. If the title of the 2004 film is in doubt, then that can be addressed and the 1970 film moved back, if appropriate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:24, 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)

I've intervened, making my non-admin status clear, and tried to make both parties aware that their flagrant disregard for WP:Civility is inappropriate. The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits -- neither of them has the least clue about how to form a policy argument and the discussion has devolved into constant and voluminous mud-slinging and arguments without traction. Add to that the fact that neither seems inclined to apply indentation or other talk page style convention or organizational feature that might keep the discussion focused and on-track and you have a real mess. It's not exactly an article of high interest for me, but I'll try to stick around and oversee some adjustments to the page to improve its tone and verifiability a bit, though I'm dubious I'll be able to get the two of them to work constructively to improve the page between them. Snow (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me preface my next remark by saying that, as a fully-certified admin, I am fully aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NONASTYWORDSPLEASE, but still: HOLY SHIT, that's the worst-looking talk page I've seen in a while. Can we burn it, via MfD or IAR? Drmies (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I removed the last rant and left a note on Uncle Karl's talk page. Who is the "other" editor? The 213 IP? I find it very difficult to find specific civility infractions in those walls of words, though IP 71.33.155.41's shouting etc is uncivil enough--their very layout is offensive. Anyway, y'all's efforts are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Short Precis by 213.66.81.80

I hope this helps:

• I really dont want to answer towards TRPoD because his antipathy toward the page goes back some months back and he represents a particularly estreme view of what the entire "promotional debate". Let's just say this is not the first time he has tried to strip the article. Nor is he immune from being warned regarding his aggressive edits to others' works. Just go to his talk page. I note he "watches the page", and stalks my talk page. For ex, I was tidying my talk page and he sent me a very "odd" message on my talk page a couple of evenings back (as if I was a naughty schoolboy "Your will be deemed to be wilfull" language.). And he posted this here, and raised the assertion that it is me with COI ---- at a time it was clear the ANGRY user was losing control.

• I have 35 years material science. I live in Stockholm. Swedish is my first language. On the page, I wrote the section (you'll maybe never heard of it), tribochemisry and the section dealing with pozzolanic concrete chemistry. So, there is at least a flavor of my knowledge base. I have no connection to EMC. As I understand from the AfDs, no one from LTU or Ronin wanted this page, because they have low opinion of Wikipedia.

• This said no one of real material science knowledge has ever questioned the page. Most of the comments have been novices who needed a greater explanation, which because of my love of the material sciences subject, I have willingly given.

• I hope this page is giving greater "exposure" to EMCs. Both in terms sf novice reader and expert readers. I also hope it is aiding to a much deeper resource on material sciences, which Wikipedia is very poor.

• The page already has a "B" rating. I wanted to improve it to a "GA" and even contacted an editor who I really trust called FeydHuxtable. See my talk page.

• This "incident" started about a week ago when a user called KARL attacked MY work stating I was, among others, lying, fake, and that I have no knowledge of the subject. As time went on he made a number of demonstrably bogus comments. When asked to state his sources, all he would do is respond with what you call "wall of Texts". I did not respond to them as they were TLDR.

• But, just as the Snows comments above show, if one throws a little mud, a little might stick. Throw lots, many times and it WILL stick. To the point now where Snow is proving the point by stating

"The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits"

• Snow: I will not be bullied by a poster posting TLDRs to be disruptive. Do you see how many times that user uses the word "ANGER" and "ANGRY"? LIAR, STUPID, FAKE (ALL in CAPS, so the casual visitor cannot help see it)?

• EVERY TIME I have chosen just one of the many wild assertions made, ANGRY user has then deflected (with more walls of texts / TLDRs). The very last post I made before Snow posted his comments, proved it. But now it has been collapsed. So let me show you how "bananas" it has been, AFTER an ENTIRE week of this ANGRY user SHOUTING AT ME. This is what I wrote:

Look, I do not know how much of your gobbledygook you actually read back to yourself. But it just goes on and on. You say:

"I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete."

"This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same."

This is completely contradictory. How can it possibly be (sic) "sleight of hand"? Since when does one burn coal expressly to make a waste product? It is just utter gobbledygook. And yet I have then had to endure days upon day of this endless personal attacks by you because I CANNOT understand your logic. You have accused me of lying, or not being a scientist, and basically of being stupid. I ask you to post me one decent question - and all I get is TLDRs again.

This is the "classic" case of a Portland cement "spook" that peddles this nonsense and won't stop. This has gone on for nearly a week. And you won't stop. I said it before, I say it again: it is all too odd and persistent.

• Snow: you do realize that several days ago, he got an immediate LEVEL 4 warning for his personal attacks against me and yet still persisted? Nothing stops him. It is relentless.

• I refute any suggestion what I have written is "promotional". Indeed, please tell me where the section on EMC Activation and Pozzolanic concrete chemistry is promotional.

• There are only two possibilities: The ANGRY user, does not have any knowledge. But then why so persistent and why make such obviously odd points? Or the said ANGRY user does have knowledge and is playing "divisive" and being highly provocative and manipulative. Which, if so, all the more underscores it is Portland Cement industry "spook".

213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:03, 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. [97] A block seems like the only way to get this user to take policy seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a SPA. I think that she really just doesn't understand policy. While she has ignored you I think she is expcting more of a hierarchical structure. Pretty much she exibits the behavoir of new users. Before any kind of a topic ban I'd really like to see an univolved party just peek in. Maybe this situation can be fixed without penalty. And even if it is address with penalty an attempt to amek it very clear why should be made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps mentorship might aid, if she truly does not know policy and doesn't really know that she's going against it as you say. KonveyorBelt 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if she doesn't understand policy she needs to be willing to defer to people who do. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I could be absolutely wrong. But I think she is expecting some type of hierarchical structure here. Maybe she might defer to someone uninvolved. They can try to help address her concerns in a way she can understand. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. But I think if you topic ban her then that will do nothing. I'm not sure she will really understand why she got banned. That's an invitation to do the same thing elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She's irritating but she's not disruptive. She's trying hard after her manner. I, for one, hope that that's the worst that can be said of me. I don't see any grounds for sanctions against her and I don't see that it'd help anything either. She's not a SPA, she's just interested in Islamic extremism right now. A couple years ago she was interested in fish and had the same kind of issues. No harm, no foul, says I.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You just made some pretty bold accusations against me, Roscelese. FYI - I'm a she. About your warning - I did respond to you, and asked what you were talking about, and I also asked who you were. Here is the page for all to see.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=598929217 You never responded, so I removed it from my Talk page. I have not posted any BLP violations. What you're doing now is making groundless allegations against me, and I happen to be a living person. I probably should have brought your warning to ANI the minute I received it, but I didn't want to bother admins with something so petty. I have not once defamed any users, or subjects, or repeatedly posted conspiracy theories. As for WP:TAGTEAM, don't you think maybe the prior warning you posted on my Talk page and then ignored my questions, and now your groundless accusations here might explain some of my concerns? Are you doing this to me because I opposed the Islamophobia template on IPT, and you support it? I've had little to no prior dealings with you, yet here you are making all these groundless accusations against me. Unbelievable. You aren't even one of the editors I've worked with, so why are you even involving yourself with me? The editors I've worked with, and consider my mentors are User:SerialJoepsycho and User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. They've been pretty demanding of my edits, and it sometimes felt like they were teaming up on me, but we always managed to work through it. They've taught me a lot, and I admire what they've done as editors, so don't think for one minute I don't appreciate their patience and understanding. I can even understand why Alf would think I'm irritating, and I'm sure he can understand why I might get that way at times. Serialjoepsycho has also been very patient, understanding, and helpful. He even gave me advice on how to file for mediation, and even arbitration. Now that's pretty special in my book. I don't think I filed for mediation properly, but it doesn't matter. We're working through the article, and they've both been quite helpful, although still very demanding. I have no ill-will toward anyone, and I am certainly not a SPA, and I would never intentionally violate WP policy, so please stop trying to get me blocked because of groundless allegations. Shame on you. Atsme ☯ talk 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhhhh this "you are violating BLP by disagreeing with my editing and you're lucky I didn't report you for warning me" is not the sort of thing we hear from a constructive user. I hope the adoption goes well, but like I said, you can only claim ignorance for so long. You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Perhaps this can just be attributed to a miscommunication. However it would be a stretch to call this completely groundless. There is a question of your behavoir. Consider not being offended about that for a moment. I think me and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: feel you are really trying here and putting forth alot of effort. I don't wish to put words in her mouth but I think @Roscelese: is kind of just looking for that effort. I'm not your mentor. Maybe Alf wouldn't mind that but you should talk to him first. If not however I do have to suggest that you consider @Konveyor Belt:s suggestion in that you do seek mentorship. Unless I'm mistaken you can find out more here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:Thank you. I just visited the Adopt-a-user/ page, and requested adoption. Atsme ☯ talk 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another bold statement from Roscelese: You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. Hopefully, an admin can explain what I have done to deserve such language, and treatment? Will someone please provide a link to the purported "BLP violation"? My understanding of BLP is that if a statement is true, and properly sourced it can be included. Do indictments and a plea of guilty that is directly related to the quote not fall under that category? Is it not clear right here on ANI that Roscelese is threatening me? My behavior may be "persistent in learning" which some may classify as "irritable", but it has never been to the degree that I've used profanity in a threat to anyone, and yet I am the one under the looking glass being threatened now. How could an editor who is consistently being attacked and disrupted in such a way not be concerned? Atsme ☯ talk 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese failed to present a single diff in support of her accusations that Atsme is engaging in BLP violations. I've seen Atsme in dispute before and there were no cases of BLP violations visible. So I'd suggest Roscelese retracts her accusation or backs it up. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea (country) merger RfC closure

Please see the thread at WP:AN#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country. Need third party administrators for a review of the closure. I thought I'd post here as it seems people pay more attention to this part of the board. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Willful ignorance of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen, etc.

Among the issues here are possible attempted bullying, possible disruptive editing, including "tag bombing", refusal to use article talk pages, deletion of comments and images, et cetera. The situation apparently started at the Paul Chaat Smith article, and prompted the other editor, User:randykitty, to seek out all the articles which I created during the past year and repeatedly place numerous vague maintenance tags on them. The quickness with which he reverts my edits leads me to believe that he has my "user contributions" page on his watch list. By his investing large amounts of time into edit-warring, he has effectively shut down any contribution on my part. The first issue is the question of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen. Repeated taggings (Edits #18, #19, #22, #26, & #36) have been made without even a word on the talk page of the article. Assertion of notability was provided through comments in the article source (Edits #21, #23, & #34). User:randykitty has repeatedly removed this assertion of notability from the article source when replacing his tags, which indicates that he has definitely read it, and is either unable or unwilling to deal with the facts. The record clearly shows that this ignorance of the notability of Professor Johansen is quite intentional, much like all the other complaints that he has made. I was even nice enough to try to attempt a compromise in which the tags would be placed at the bottom of the article in order to allow work on the article to proceed, but he rejected that arrangement. I consider that my actions are proper in deleting the maintenance tags on the basis of this statment found in the wikipedia documentation:

Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.

—  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

Now I am being threatened with being blocked from editing, which would seem to fit the description of a "no-edit order" found at Wikipedia:WikiBullying. See threats at User talk:E.N.Stanway.

Also in dispute are images which User:randykitty arranged to have deleted from the system after vague banners were placed at User talk:E.N.Stanway. I consider that this is yet another instance of intentional harassment. Further discussion of this issue can be found at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen and User talk:randykitty.

Despite a complete lack of discussion on the article talk pages, User:randykitty has repeatedly placed banners on my editor's talk page, again without explanation. Now I myself have been accused of "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". Threats of being blocked include two "final warnings" on my user talk page an one "final warning" in an edit log. More details about the issues may be found at Talk:Bruce_E._Johansen, User_talk:E.N.Stanway and User talk:randykitty. There are many other issues of dispute, but this should suffice to start the discussion. E.N.Stanway (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any editors who feel like jumping in here are cordially invited to check E.N.Stanway's talk page, the edit histories of the articles he is referring to, the diffs that he shows, and the huge wall of text that I found on my talk page just now. Please ping me if any further clarifications are needed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The tags at Donald A. Grinde, Jr., Bruce E. Johansen & The Great Sioux Nation are clearly justified and the issues are clearly linked to policy/guideline pages that explain the problems. Continued reverting and casting aspersions/personal attacks by E.N.Stanway appears to be disruptive. regards 94.195.46.224 (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• At first glance, the tags on the article do appear justified. I'm not sure what E.N.Stanway is doing trying to both remove them OR move them to the bottom and calling them "graffiti" - there are clearly wholesale concerns about the article that need to be addressed. We do not move maintenance tags to the bottom of the page, and continually doing that is inappropriate. I also cannot fathom the use of inline comments - the discussion and proof of supposed notability takes place on the article talkpage, and NOT by saying "because I said so" and embedding it in the article. Is there some type of WP:COI in play? There seems to be bull-in-a-china-shop type editing to this page, and full-scale declining to actually discuss anything - they seem quite intending to just lay blame rather than learn Wikipedia's policies, style, and requirements. The "banners' (aka warnings) appear quite valid. I'm concerned that newishness is causing major WP:IDHT and WP:OWN issues here, and it's become quite disruptive DP 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

He posted to Randykitty attacking him thus: "the notion that you have promoted that maintenance tags are "necessary" is another of your frauds and lies." and calls his username " more than a little creepy."[98](where he also says he wants discussion of his possible copyvio images to take place not on his talk page but at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen The response to his complaints about his images being deleted is at User talk:TLSuda - if he recreates them he should certainly be blocked. He thinks that maintenance tags aren't needed on one-line BLPs[99] [100] I think the continued insistence on removing maintenance tags from one line articles is blockworthy but am willing to wait to see if he continues to remove them. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that the image side of this issue will be resolved. I think that he was owed an explanation, but I also think he should have followed the instructions on the template that was placed on the images prior to deletion. Had there been a note contesting the deletion, I would've given an explanation on his talk page. We can see how he responds. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: please note that when I nominated those files for deletion for a second time, I posted a warning template and added a manual comment to that, trying to point the editor to a place where he could get help with this issue. I agree that that is perhaps not the most visible thing and will make such notices clearer in the future. Also, I have used quite long edit summaries trying to explaining the issues to E.N.Stanway. This is a user with several hundreds of edits over more than a year, so I did not consider them a newbie (where I most probably would have explained issues in much more detail). Frankly, I must admit that I also was a bit put off by the hostile attitude of this editor. I didn't read the long rant on my talk page, but see that Dougweller did: for non-US English speakers, my username is explained on my user page. At the time I chose it, our cat had just died and I never intended any carnal allusions... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you for not reaching out; I could have when I deleted them the first time, or again the second time. My hope is that now he has come to my talkpage he has gotten the information he needed to understand the situation with the images. TLSuda (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought this was a newbie, befuddled by templated warnings. But he's been around for over a year, and although he's now blanked them he had received several patient explanations on his talk page about various issues he's been having here since March 2012. [101]. I collapsed his lengthy comment at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen because it inappropriately concentrated largely on personally attacking another editor and his motives. When other editors point out a problem with an article, and Bruce E. Johansen definitely had one, the appropriate response by its creator is to fix it or leave the tags to alert someone else to fix it instead of immediately opening hostilities and firing away with both barrels. I added sufficient refs to it to establish notability in literally half the time E.N.Stanway spent on edit-warring and writing multiple lengthy diatribes and personal attacks on other editors. Having said that, when maintenance tags are removed, the person restoring them ought to explain why they have on the talk page, if nothing else to retain the moral high ground. I hope E.N.Stanway takes the various comments here and on his talk page on board. Otherwise, he is apt to have a short career here.Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive talk page editing by User:Lampstand49

The following is copied from the 3RR noticeboard. It was archived before any action or discussion by an Admin. Following find additional diffs to support disruptive talk page editing.

User:Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: )

Page

Talk:Ken Ham (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lampstand49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
   2. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
   2. 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
3. 12:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
4. 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600295976 by Gaba p (talk)"
   2. 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
6. 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
7. 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ken Ham. (TW)"

added previous warnings-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. [102]
   2. [103]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old */ q"

Comments:

Editor has posted two walls of text to the article's talk page rambling about creationism and how the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Both comments were collapsed several times by a number of editors to which he proceeded to un-collapse. He was warned to stop un-collapsing but refuses to stop. Gaba ^(talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing of talk pages

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. I think this shows a continued pattern of disruptive editing. I apologize for reposting from another noticeboard particularly if this is not in keeping with PAG (post to my talk page with suggestions for handling this better if needed). This editor continues to soapbox and is impeding progress through reasonable consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say that as an involved party it might help if an administrator officially notified Lampstand49 about discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience topics and urged them to discontinue their relentless wall-o-text attempts to whitewash the fringe claims being made and IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior of repetitions of the same content when the consensus has recently been repeatedly made against their preferred version. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gregory445

Someone block this account and quick. See this and their wonderful userpage. I'm not going to waste my time telling them of this discussion, per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:Gregory445 has been blocked (not by me). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed visibility of the edit summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rampant sock 23.240.42.216

While I think I'd be entitled to squash this one myself, it would be better if someone less involved in the area does it. Its edits consist entirely of reverts with offensive edit summaries. The edit summaries indicate a well-known large sock family, but my memory isn't working properly today. Zero^talk 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked and removed talk page vandalism, needs everything rolled back though. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Found out how to do it, but I need to install a script and Wikipedia isn't allowing me to create User:Dougweller/common.js. The edit field flashes and vanishes, leaving no field to edit in. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted but not by me. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC to allow role accounts

An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)