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

Post RfC actions of Dr.K, Collect, Moxy and myself

I'm requesting input from the community on whether the (post-RfC) actions taken by Collect, Moxy, Dr.K. and myself were appropriate in light of the results of a recent RfC on the Justin Bieber article. Long story short, I feel that they are deleting information which during the RfC was actually supported for inclusion by a majority of the participants (if you count). I find Dr.K's behaviour in particular to be offensive because he did not participate in any of the RfC's two surveys, and only after the RfC is closed, he starts removing information which only 25% of editors supported deleting. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the long story

We have been involved in a content dispute in the Bieber article that started from late January. Essentially, I wish to add content to the article on Bieber's run-ins with the law, and Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. were all in opposition. As a result of our actions (and those of other editors as well), the article was locked from a month from February 10, and an RfC was created by Moxy, and concluded slightly over a month later. At first within the RfC, a General survey was created. All were informed, and Moxy, Collect and I voted. Dr.K. did not vote. Instead Dr.K. took to the threaded discussion section to say that we should clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP ... We should itemise the questions according to each incident. So I took Dr.K's advice, created a point-by-point survey for the RfC, and informed all who had earlier participated in the RfC, including Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. Another response section was created for the second survey. For the second survey, I myself responded with reference to individual points. However, Collect and Moxy made no attempt to address individual points. Collect in particular seemed unwilling to contribute further, saying Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here ... Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Meanwhile, Dr.K. did not participate in the point-by-point survey he originally helped to propose. Because this was my first RfC, I was unaware of the proper procedure of how RfCs were to be closed. So after one month of the open RfC with discussion having died down for a while, I attempted to round up the discussion. Still, I believe that my conclusion was valid. From the general survey, those who outright opposed addition of the content (5 including Collect and Moxy) were outnumbered by the rest (12- made of 7 who said include most and 5 who focused on including legal issues). But for those who participated in the second point-by-point survey (eight editors), out of the 15 points, only 4 points received more than 25% opposition (2/8), these being points 7, 11, 13 and 14. So after being informed that I shouldn't be closing the RfC, I learnt the proper procedure and requested for an uninvolved editor to close it, and it was closed by Gaijin42 who said that there is consensus for inclusion of the information in some form ... In regards to specific points (1-15) for most of them there is not enough feedback to determine a consensus, but I will say that there is NOT a consensus to NOT include ... #7 and #13 appear to have the closest thing to consensus for non inclusion ... there is a consensus that these incidents are forming a larger portion of Bieber's reputation and notability. With the closure of the RfC, I updated the content in the article, removing #13 and trimming #7. Pretty quickly Moxy jumped back in to remove #15 saying Was there consensus for this BS stuff here? ... this page is Turing into a kids tabloid, and I reverted. Note that in the point-by-point survey #15 was only 2/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 1/8 once reliable source found, which was found. After that Collect went on to delete #14 (4/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 3/8 once reliable source found) and #15 also saying it was trivia of ephemeral significance. So Collect and Moxy didn't bother to vote properly in the point-by-point survey, and now they're removing points as they see fit over a majority opinion? But those weren't the worst actions in my opinion. Dr.K. went on to perform some Assorted removals from the legal issues, removing or trimming points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. You can count for points 2, 3, 4 and 5, no more than 2/8 of the 8 editors who bothered to vote properly in the point-by-point survey (not Collect, Moxy nor Dr.K.) opposed points 2, 3, 4 and 5. So Dr.K. seemingly ignores the RfC and does what he sees fit, after not even voting in the RfC. Here's what Dr.K. had to say for himself. I did not participate in the RFC or the subsequent discussion trusting that a resolution could be arrived at, since so many people were discussing these points. But it appears that very little progress has happened. / I just can't believe the editorial judgement which allowed this fluff to creep into this article. Well if so maybe you should have participated in the RfC and voiced your concerns while it was still open! Gaijin42 later elaborated that Its an open issue that may be discussed further ... I do not see a policy based reason for exclusion - it received wide coverage in very reliable sources. this is the type of thing that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus and discretion.' - if so, how come Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. are all employing the "remove first" and "discuss later" policy? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note Content inclusion in a BLP which is clearly deemed contentious requires a positive consensus - at this point only one editor seems to be asserting that such incidents must be placed in the BLP. As for his insistence that editors must "vote" on his point-by-point wall of text, that is just absurd. As for me calling his posts "wall of text" I invite anyone here to look at the length and number of his contributions and argumentation on the BLP talk page. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP are clear on this, and this forumshopping excursion does not belong at AN/I at all. [1] shows the edit at issue now -- noting that it gives much space to a "White House petition" which was deemed of no value except by basically a single editor, [2] is the talk page discussion thereon. Gaijin, the closer of the RfC, specified that the material requires editorial consensus. One and only one editor says no consensus is needed for the trivia - and I suggest he may be in for a rude awakening regarding his one-man-consensus here, and the tendentious editing thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The point-by-point survey came about due to a call for clarification so that there could be progress. I think it's just lazy that you didn't bother to offer a point-by-point reply. The petition was discussed in the RfC as well, and there were other supporters, although it was certainly contested. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is confusion among some editors about policy. One would think that BLP policy would all be located at WP:BLP, but there seems to be an important BLP policy that is spelled out at WP:Consensus and not at WP:BLP: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Perhaps this quote might answer the current dispute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm, since that bit has been part of WP:CON for a long time (june '12) [3] it seems there is a decent consensus for that interpretation of consensus. I'd support adding it into BLP and seeing what happens. Regarding my close - clearly there was support for inclusion of the general topic of Bieber's scandals and how they are affecting his image, but the individual points were not widely !voted on (with the exception of 2 that had consensus to be removed). The lack of response on those other points brings up WP:SILENCE but as all of them involved contentious BLP (and some of themBLP that wasn't even about Bieber) it raises the bar for inclusion on those specific points. As far as ANI, this was a borderline close, with a lot of it coming out as no-consensus. Continued efforts to build that consensus are not a matter for ANI, but if there is edit warring or disruption, that is something for ANI. In light of the WP:CON snippet, it does appear that positive consensus for inclusion would be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although not perfectly aligned with the WP:CON snip above, BLP does already have something along these lines (although it appears to be targeted at the entire article, not individual bits of content). Perhaps the two bits should be conformed more

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that BLP quote. It seems pretty clear that material about "run-ins with the law" is contentious material that falls under these provisions of policy, so it should all be removed unless there is consensus to include or retain (assuming it's all presented in NPOV fashion, reliably sourced, etc).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint did very well here...the majority of his text has been implemented because of the RfC. But there is however points that did not have consensus at all that were not re-implemented. Leaving out a poll and info on his friends antics was the out come of the RfC from what I can see. -- Moxy (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

These are my edits of the 19th of March, which offended Starship.paint so much that he had to drag me to ANI, albeit with a nine-day delay. I try to avoid ANI as much as I can if for nothing else than to avoid the drama. So I wasn't planning to reply to these allegations, except that I felt that I had to address his comments (personal attacks) about my "offensive behaviour". He does not seem to understand that Bieber's biography is no place for showcasing the results of what police found in his bus while he was absent. Neither is Bieber responsible for what was found on the body of his friend Lil Za. That is why I removed this stuff. I also removed ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. on the basis that "upsetting authorities" is a vague and comical allegation, unworthy of inclusion in his biography. I also removed the bit that Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood. as trivial and unworthy of inclusion in a serious biography. Residents are frequently upset with their neighbours, especially if they happen to also be leading the lifestyle of rock stars. And finally I removed: R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What does that have to do with Bieber? I did my best to improve Bieber's bio by removing this tripe from his biography. After a nine-day delay and without replying to my comment on the 20th of March on the talkpage of Bieber's article Starship.paint brings me to ANI. He could have tried to reply to my points there instead of transplanting the dispute to this forum. Finally, as I remarked on the talkpage of Bieber's article, I find that Starship.paint frequently badgers opponents with walls of text. That was one of the primary reasons that I did not take part in the RfC. I simply could not discuss this tripe while anticipating to be showered by walls of text defending the trivia. Perhaps Starship.paint can be advised to try to improve the encyclopedia in more substantive ways than trying to relentlessly defend the addition of inconsequential crap in Bieber's biography and subdue the opposition with showers of text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• So now you're blaming me for not replying to your arguments, when your last post on the Bieber talk page called for me not to reply to your arguments because you know my stand well already. Do you want my arguments or not? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't exactly tell you not to reply. I told you to wait until someone other than yourself came to defend your points, since this is a wiki. I had hoped that you would get the message that since after nine days noone came to defend your arguments, that your points were not popular. Now I see that the message you got was to bring me and two other editors to ANI. I am not going to comment on the wisdom of that action. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty simple to me; you, Collect and Moxy are "regulars" of the article. It would seem that the majority in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC aren't such "regulars" editing the article. They apparently don't monitor the talk page, therefore they don't comment. If they disagree with me they can post so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Once I disregard #7, all of this information you removed was supported to be included by a majority of participants in the RfC. General survey had 12/17 supporting the inclusion of the legal issues, point-by-point survey had 6/8. How is it that it's possible for you to ignore participating in the RfC, then coming around to remove points after the RfC ended with a majority of participants supporting these points to be included. I just don't think it's right. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC results on those points were debatable. Even the closer of the RFC commented they should be removed. These points were demonstrably irrelevant to the BLP as I have stated before. We cannot allow BLP-violating, irrelevant, nit-picky, low quality etc. etc. points into the article just because the RfC results were murky. That would be an utter failure of the collective editorial discretion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Debatable". Nice oversimplification. Imagine that you did bother to participate in the RfC's two surveys, and voted against every single point. Then 6/18 would be against the legal issues (33%) and 3/9 in the point-by-point survey (again 33%). It's a very non-murky "minority". Gaijin42 singled out points 7 and 13, not 2-5 (which you targeted). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: WP:CONSENSUSis not a vote and your use of numbers and "votes" for your "list of points" has no value whatsoever, and the fact is that WP:BLP is a very strong policy which means that policy-based arguments trump "I hate Justin Bieber" arguments every single time. At this point, moreover, you appear to have a bad case of WP:IDHT which may well be addressed at this point, as it quite appears that tendentious point-pushing may attract undesired attention to yourself. Verb. sap, applies. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Given that it is undisputed that each content point I have tried to insert has multiple reliable sources, I bring up a sub-policy of WP:BLP, which is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.
• This is exactly what happened the last time. You bring up policy, I bring up policy, we revert each other, RfC was started to gauge the wider community's stand on this issue so that we could have progress. RfC concludes with more people tilting towards include. I know RfCs don't rely on voting, but this is exactly what the community feels, and I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that.
• I've already argued before how each individual point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, so I can do it again if you want, but you'll probably call them "walls of text" again and ignore them, just like how you've done so in the past. Tell me you want me to prove how each point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, go on. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that. Please leave this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or put people in a zombie-like hypnotic trance to do your bidding. But I think I know why you have invested so much time and effort to defend adding this trivia which is unrelated to Bieber directly. The common thread between Bieber's bus inspection by the police while he was absent, Lil Za's cocaine bust and Khalil's arrest is that you want to associate Bieber with these events and imply that he is guilty by association. You want to editorialise: "Bieber's bus is bad, Khalil is bad, Lil Za is bad, everything around Bieber is bad, ergo Bieber is bad". The same goes with the rest of the events with the neighbours and "making authorities upset": "Bieber makes authorities upset, neighbours upset, ergo Bieber is bad" This is a WP:BLP-violating WP:SYNTHESIS project on a grand scale designed to attack Bieber by painting a synthetic angle using a patchwork of tabloid news fodder some of which is not attributable to Bieber directly. You want to create a feeling of malfeasance about Bieber using a collage of trivia. I suggest you abandon that BLP-violating approach or action may have to be taken so that you can stop targeting Bieber this way. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This may all be caused because Starship.paint is use to writing about wrestling were the whole topic is fake. as seen here the topic its self is fuelled by speculation put out by the community to draw interest. Writing about characters over real people may be where there is a problem. Wrestling survives on guess work and made up associations, but the rest of the world does not work that way. I think Starship.paint does a great job for the kids that are interested in wrestling articles, but needs to understand that associations and things like public polls is not what we consider valid for real bios. The RfC was pretty clear to me that the majority did want to mention the topic of legal problems overall, but they also had reservations on some points as did the closer of the RfC. Need to read what people are saying not just look at there vote. -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. Thank you Moxy. Staship.paint seems like a capable editor if only he could be guided in the right direction. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• So instead of countering WP:WELLKNOWN, Dr.K. takes a sidestep to claim that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. To counter this, let me say that all the reliable sources of these "previous incidents" that Dr.K. removed were only written when reporting Bieber's first arrest, which means that the reliable sources have made the connection between the previous and current arrests. Several reliable sources listed the multiple incidents Bieber has been involved in since 2011 or 2012, and they even listed more than 12 incidents in 2013 itself. How is it WP:SYNTHESIS if reliable sources can make this connection?
• And oh Moxy, you had to bring up my editorial background in wrestling? The notion that wrestling is based on guesswork is ridiculous. Also, you're again portraying my content as silly kids stuff again, hardly fair to me.
• I'd really like a third party opinion on Dr.K's removals and the current arguments on this topic (that said, I hope Dr.K. will reply to my arguments as well) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: When eight or more other editors do not share your position, you are unlikely to convince others by iterating your same arguments over and over and over and over in interminable walls of text. I suggest you take a step back, have a cup of tea and drop the stick -- right now it is apt to do you far more harm than good to keep this up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• What Collect said. And some more advice: Here we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a patchwork quilt of guilt by association in which we are going to try to suffocate Bieber's reputation. There is such thing as editorial discretion. Please try to exercise it more often. Also ANI may be a lot of things but it is not an editorial advisory board. Except, of course, if you consider bans or blocks some type of editorial advice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. It's really not the first time my opponents have ignored my arguments when I've brought up policy to trump them. "Walls of text", they say. Funny how Collect pulls out the number 8 now and previously dismissed all the numbers that were in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC (12). I simply stand by what many very reliable sources have said about Bieber, which counters your assertions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTHESIS. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are reaching the point which some might call tendentiousness incarnate. I suggest you note that absolutely no one here is accepting your POV, that the RfC closer did not back you up, and that your use of AN/I for Forumshopping has failed as a hint, but it appears you need a stronger hint. Will someone please oblige starship.paint? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been zero third-party comments since Dr.K. replied. Again, I request a third-party opinion on the subsequent arguments on display; I believe my opponents' have been whittled down to asking for subjective 'editorial discretion'. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Seems to me that Starship.paint is a bit obsessed with this topic and ought to step back a bit, while Collect and Dr.K are wikilawyering. There is a ridiculous amount of sourcing about that petition from every sector, including an academic journal using it to criticize the WH petition process[[4]], legal analysis from as far away as India,[5] Michelle Obama responding with parenting advice,[6] a US congressmember complaining that Bieber will get favorable treatment because of his celebrity and wanting to change US immigration policy,[7] a counterpetition supporting Bieber (opposing his deportation) and calling for equal treatment for other immigrants who get in comparable trouble (opposing deporting them too) [petitions.moveon.org/sign/treat-all-immigrants] (had to un-hotlink due to edit filter) documented by Fox News[8] copycat petitions being started as publicity stunts,[9] etc. There is more than enough sourcing to write a separate article about the petition all by itself. It seems to me ridiculous under WP:NPOV to not mention it in the Bieber article (one could reasonably debate about how much weight to allot it). Could a similar wikilawyering effort at the Bill Clinton article remove the documentation that Clinton was impeached? It undermines our credibility as an encyclopedia that publishes all the relevant info about the article topic if we have an article (as a deletionist I'd rather have far fewer such articles to start with, but Bieber is extremely notable). That all said, the RFC is kind of sprawling and if the petition is the main remaining issue of dispute, maybe it's simplest to open a new RFC focusing on just the petition. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• First you accuse me of wikilawyering then you embark on a lengthy rebuttal centred around the petition issue, even though I have not once referred to the petition. I don't call this informed criticism. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• And can you explain to me how is it wikilawyering to say that what happened to Bieber's tour buses, while he was absent, is gossip unfit to be in Bieber's bio, quote:

• Police in Detroit and Stockholm each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present. They found marijuana in Detroit, and unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in Stockholm.

• Can you also explain to me how is it wikilawyering to state that what happened to Lil Za is irrelevant to Bieber's bio, quote:

• Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for cocaine possession.

• Can you also explain to me how is it wikilawyering to state that what happened to Khalil is irrelevant to Bieber's bio, quote:

• R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber.

• In my eyes these edits are a transparent attempt to attack Bieber by implication using a web of unfair WP:WEASELWORD insinuations. Do you think this is any way to write the bio of a living person? Or do you think this is wikilawyering? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• You've got the order in reverse. A lot hinges on the Khalil point, which is not an attempt to 'attack' Bieber, but simply a fact of the case... was Bieber arrested (DUI of drugs) alone or along with other people? Then you have an NBC News report that nine days after Bieber and Khalil's arrest, Bieber and his friends/entourage were smoking a lot of marijuana on a plane.
• Under WP:WELLKNOWN we can include content by reliable sources if they are relevant and notable. Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant. Notable because Lil Za was arrested on drug charges, Bieber's tour buses raided twice on different continents, drugs found. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS here because reliable sources like Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, BBC News, CTV News and Times of India have reported these past and 'future' incidents together. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly as you mentioned above: Under WP:WELLKNOWN we can include content by reliable sources if they are relevant and notable. Yes, we can include facts if they are relevant and notable. Except in this case they are irrelevant to Bieber. Bieber has nothing to do whatsoever with Lil Za's drug possession, Khalil's arrest or with the fact that drugs were found on his bus. These were not Bieber's drugs. Or nobody alleged they were. Therefore they are irrelevant to Bieber. He was not arrested for them and no one accused him of carrying them into the bus. They are irrelevant to Bieber and have no place in his biography. And your comment: Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant., is still not true. That's still Bieber's biography and details about his friends do not belong in his biography because they are irrelevant to his biography. That's where your WP:SYNTH comes in. You want to convert Bieber's bio into the synthetic article "The sordid history of Bieber, his friends and the bus incidents". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• We are never going to agree on Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant. From WP:SYNTH, in this case the reliable sources are saying A and B in the same article. If they were so irrelevant why did many reliable sources report past history in current incidents? Let's just leave it at that.
• Also, you're neglecting to mention on the other previous incidents directly involving Bieber which you removed as well. Relevancy is definitely not an issue here. Multiple instances of neighbours accusing Bieber of dangerous driving. Bieber's graffiti upsetting authorities in Australia and Colombia. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• You wrote:

  ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities.

• Well, as it turns out I checked the references and ctv news supports the "upset authorities in Colombia" bit but not "Australia". There is no mention in any source that the Australian authorities were upset. In fact the BBC citation mentions:

  The hotel, QT Gold Coast, said in a response to a comment on its Facebook page: "We are stoked to have Justin Bieber's artwork on our wall." It added that it had given Bieber permission to paint on the wall.

• So not only your edit about "upsetting authorities" is vague, trivial and unencyclopedic, but you added things which did not exist in the citations and also you failed to mention that the hotel in Australia approved of the graffiti and had given permission to Bieber to do it. That completely invalidates any culpability on Bieber's part but your edit makes it appear as if he had run afoul of the law because of his graffiti in Australia which is simply not the case, quite the opposite, since he was encouraged to do it by the property owners of the place. Your edit fails both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Colombia bit said "upset authorities". Since Bieber wasn't charged but the Australian authorities did respond negatively, I wrote that he upset the Australian authorities too to summarise, which seems like an adequate summary when you consider that BBC wrote:

  Gold Coast City Council said it would order the graffiti's removal ... Council said that while the graffiti was on a private property, it was in public view and an eyesore ... "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti" ... Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate described Bieber's behaviour as "really silly".

• After all, everyone's been calling on me to summarise, summarise, summarise the past issues of Bieber, no need for so much detail, so that's what I did. If you feel it's an inadequate summary then fine, we can have another reliable source by Huffington Post that says in the title Justin Bieber angers Australian mayor with his graffiti.
• completely invalidates any culpability on Bieber's part - so Bieber is not to blame at all?See BBC source: "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti", so what if the hotel approves? The city's approach still stands. I didn't add the hotel approval part, but I won't stop anyone from mentioning it as long as the Australian authorities' response is included.
• Therefore, while the following sentence is clunky, it should satisfy Dr.K's intepretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV: Bieber's graffiti also upset Colombian authorities and angered an Australian mayor despite the Australian hotel approving it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I mentioned earlier, this is a trivial incident which does not deserve to be in the article. Even your present formulation is inadequate. Acording to the BBC:

  Earlier, Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate described Bieber's behaviour as "really silly". "Just come and clean it up and we'll be happy with you. Alternatively come and sing at our mayoral Christmas carols on 7 December for an hour and I'll let you go."

• The mayor was not really angry, he was just playing politics. By the time this trivial incident gets explained properly, it is way past its WP:UNDUEWEIGHT quota for the article. And in any case, since the hotel gave Bieber permission to paint the graffiti, Bieber is completely exonerated from any responsibility, so by mentioning the anger of the mayor we imply Bieber was somehow culpable although he was not. Then we go to what "making authorities upset" really means, which I analysed just above and I think it is meaningless newspeak for tabloid fodder, completely unfit to be in a serious BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• As far as your coment: "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti", so what if the hotel approves? The city's approach still stands. No, it does not. You assume Bieber knew about the Australian city bylaws but Bieber is not an expert on international municipal law. And then, how was Bieber expected to know that the "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti"? Who is he? An Australian city-hall insider? The hotel gave permission to Bieber to paint, Bieber painted. End of story. Bieber had no idea that the city council would go after him post facto. He has no responsibility whatsoever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The mayor "not really angry... just playing politics" is your interpretation. The Huffington Post reliable source says that he angered the mayor, which is the crux of it; it was definitely a negative response. Almost everybody isn't an (edit conflict) international lawyer expert on international municipal law - does that mean they are exempt from obeying municipal law in countries they are visiting? The hotel is culpable as well, but Bieber isn't exempt. Ignorance or "they told me to do it" is hardly a good answer to disobeying the authorities. If he were really that blameless, this would not have been covered beyond TMZ or Daily Mail. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay Dr.K, we probably reached the point of ultimate disagree-ability again, for the sake of completeness, how about you argue your reasons for removal of the final point: multiple previous incidents (N) of neighbours accusing Bieber of dangerous driving, given that he was arrested for dangerous driving (DUI) later on (R). WP:WELLKNOWN asks for relevance (R) and notability (N), which I believe it thus satisfies. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the stuff you attempted to add to the article and which I removed:

Bieber's neighbours in [[Calabasas]] have accused and confronted Bieber about his [[reckless driving]] and [[Speed limit#Excessive speed|speeding]] in the neighbourhood.<ref name=APImage/><ref name=BBCFirstArrest/><ref name=ABCtroubles>{{cite web|last=Fisher|first=Luchina|title=Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles - Bieber's Showdown With Keyshawn Johnson|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/justin-bieber-arrested-dui-rough-year-continues/story?id=19366534#5|publisher=[[ABC News]]|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBBwA6kO}}</ref> Police in [[Detroit]] and [[Stockholm]] each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present. They found [[marijuana]] in Detroit, and unspecified [[narcotic]]s and a [[Electroshock weapon|stun gun]] in Stockholm.<ref name=CTVtimeline/><ref name=TOIsurprised>{{cite web|last=Bandyopadhyay|first=Bohni|title=Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised?|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news-interviews/Justin-Bieber-busted-Are-you-surprised/articleshow/29310019.cms?curpg=2|publisher=The Times of India|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBC0RogB}}</ref> Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for [[cocaine]] possession.<ref name=APImage/><ref name=LAtimesCulm/><ref name=BBCdisgracefully>{{cite web|title=Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25860563|publisher=[[BBC News]]|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBC4KPXL}}</ref>

The sources may look reliable at first, but they are their entertainment sections and are sensationalist in nature, similar to tabloids. Check their sensationalist headlines:

Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised? [Times of India entertainment section]

Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles - Bieber's Showdown With Keyshawn Johnson [ABC news entertainment section]

Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully [BBC news entertainment section]

Do these headlines look sober, reliable and encyclopaedic to you? I think you are mining the sensationalist entertainment sections of online media to scrape any sensationalist tidbit of information that you can find about Bieber. This is no way to build an encyclopaedia.

Then you have problems of transcription. In your edit you make it appear as if Bieber's "reckless driving" is a fact. You wrote:

Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.

But the source qualifies the speeding by using the terms "alleged" and "allegedly":

Police were ultimately called and now the district attorney's office is investigating Bieber for a second case of alleged reckless driving... Then, at the end of May, Keyshawn Johnson confronted Bieber for allegedly speeding through the neighborhood while the former NFL star's kids were playing outside. "You got a 19-year old kid feeling entitled," Johnson told TMZ about why he later chased down the singer at his home to discuss the incident with him.

Did you see also the reference to TMZ? Now we have the sensationalist entertainment section of abc news recycling tabloid information from TMZ. So you want to add recycled gossip from tabloids about Bieber's confrontation with his neighbours over an alleged infraction while at the same time you do not edit in a careful fashion when you add these allegations into the BLP thus making it appear as if the allegations are facts. This is no way to build an encyclopedic BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So now I'm "mining the sensationalist entertainment sections of online media to scrape any sensationalist tidbit of information"... eh, nope, I just googled, saw a BBC source, a ABC source and a Times of India source so I added the information. Frankly, do you really expect Bieber to appear outside the Entertainment sections? That's exactly where he belongs, even in articles about his music.

The word "accused" is already present and it is quite similar to "alleged". If you have a problem with me not using "allegedly", by all means, include the word "allegedly" - accused and confronted Bieber about his alleged reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.

I found the TMZ source you mentioned. It has a video of Johnston accusing Bieber. It should be thus treated as a primary source, instead of an unreliable one. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "accused" is already present and it is quite similar to "alleged". Not if it includes the possessive "his": "Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.". The syntax should have been "accused him of reckless driving". If it is "alleged" it is not "his" and it is a BLP violation to express it that way. In any case spats with neighbours about alleged infractions are not serious BLP material especially if gleaned from tabloid journalism with headlines like "Bieber busted: Are you surprised?" dripping with prejudicial sarcasm, or headlines such as "Growing up disgracefully" which are full of undue and insulting negativity or sensationalism such as "Showdown" etc. Such tabloid-level references are not the objective, sober, serious sources, which are expected to be used in a serious BLP, utilising careful and objective analysis of the facts, especially if we have to include negative material about the BLP subject. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Might I add that you happened to leave out the ? at the end at "Justin Bieber: growing up disgracefully?" You can argue that the sources were kinda sensationalist, but firstly, that is to be expected from articles about Bieber, and secondly, that doesn't detract from the content that neighbours accused Bieber of dangerous driving. Neither does it detract from the fact that Bieber was later arrested for dangerous driving.

If you have a problem with my phrasing, I am very willing to discuss so that it does not violate BLP. We can work together, instead of against each other.

The key thing to note that while you have produced better arguments now than anyone who has argued against my content before, the question is... why did it take you over two months to do so, because I have been trying to implement such content since late January, and you've been present all this time. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: Might I add that you happened to leave out the ? at the end at "Justin Bieber: growing up disgracefully? I just copied it as it was found in the inline reference; it didn't have the question mark. As far as why I chose to discuss this now, rather than more extensively during the past few months, there are several reasons. One reason was that I thought the problem would resolve itself through community involvement. The other was that I just couldn't bring myself to discuss this round after round due to the amount of text being produced. But I will leave it at that. The last one is ANI, but by accident. I was never expecting this to turn into a content discussion but when it did I got caught in it. Regardless, thank you for your kind words. I also think, as I have said before, that you are a capable editor, irrespective of our disgreements. And since you are an essentially civil editor I wouldn't mind discussing these issues with you in the future. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear though, I still stand by my views, my arguments and the content I have added, where I am willing to budge is how the content is phrased. Also, it seems to me that your last two sentences doesn't really match with your support of a six-month ban for me in all BLPs. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No need for disclaimers about your views; I didn't think that you would change them. As far as my !vote, it is a rather strange conundrum. On one hand I see you as an earnest and intelligent editor, on the other, there is evidence of a problematic approach concerning Bieber's BLP and additional evidence of problems concerning opening this ANI which has proven a massive time-sink. I don't want to continue this criticism so I'll stop here. My initial comments actually supported a limited ban: I think that I would be prepared to support a ban from Bieber's bio. I think he needs to take a break from that bio. This ban could be extended if similar behaviour arises in other bios. This is why ANI is such a terrible place for discussion, as I said just above. Often times the discussion turns in the direction of blocks or bans, which is not an exact science, to say the least. If I had to take a guess I would hope that you may be less argumentative defending this material. I'll change my !vote based on that hope. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposal

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

---

For User:Starship.paint for tendentious editing of BLPs and refusal to understand the significance and need for WP:BLP This is done only after the interminable postings above wherein the problem is laid quite bare for all to see. Topic ban to encompass all biographies of living persons, broadly construed, for a period of six months or as determined by consensus below. Collect (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so apparently I should be banned from all BLPs for six months because I am adding (mostly) negative content to one BLP, discounting all my other contributions to other BLPs (the wrestlers? Natalia?) My edits for Bieber abide by WP:WELLKNOWN, a sub-policy of WP:BLP for public figures. Unable to counter my policy-based arguments and counter-arguments, you have resorted to this. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No -- but you seem to accuse anyone who points out the requirements of WP:BLP or acting in bad faith and collusion, and iterate your claims often and frequently and repeatedly at various venues, and open a clear forumshopping exercise on this noticeboard. I suggest you see how many will note your stridency here and on the talk pages of the BLPs you have been active on, and add two plus two. The aim is to make you aware of the policy and to abide by it, not to banish you, and hopefully you will find other areas to edit in constructively and without making accusations about every editor who demurs with your stated positions. Cheers and Godspeed. Collect (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

stridency here and on the talk pages of the BLPs you have been active on - have you even seen any of my contributions on any other BLP? And where exactly have I accused anyone of editing in bad faith? I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but I don't agree with your methods. You clearly want to protect BLP articles, but I think you're over-protecting by removing reliably sourced negative content. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Given staship.paint's long and multifaceted campaign to add irrelevant facts into Bieber's bio and his continuing defence of his actions which show insufficient understanding of WP:BLP and specifically WP:WELLKNOWN, a fact that could cause harm to Bieber's bio, I think that I would be prepared to support a ban from Bieber's bio. I think he needs to take a break from that bio. This ban could be extended if similar behaviour arises in other bios. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The legal issues in particular (which Dr.K. removed) were supported by a majority of RfC voters (12/17); I am merely the most outspoken. So all 12 of us don't understand WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN, which warrants a ban?. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban It's reasonable that people have trouble understanding why they can't use space-fillers and excited commentary to garnish a BLP with reports of an audience booing the subject (diff), or posting waffle about a petition (quoting the essentially self-published opinion of the petition regarding "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations youth") (diff). However, after all the explanations that have been given, the only thing left is a topic ban. I will add a brief extra explanation about BLP—controversial people attract a lot of pro/con commentary, and it is not satisfactory for editors to cherry-pick choice bits for display in an encyclopedic article about the subject of a biographical article (which should focus on the big picture). If a secondary source ever comments about how the subject's career took a nose dive because an audience booed them, then the event may have some long-term significance that warrants its insertion in the article. Until then, it's just cherry-picked gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody discussed the booing, which was not inserted into the "career" section, but the "image" section. The significance is that he was booed by his own countrymen, ironically while receiving a Fan's Choice award, which reflects on his public image. That significance has been picked up by many news sources such as BBC. Look at this commentary piece by TIME. Bieber’s superstardom has taken a hit in both the U.S. and Canada over recent months - it's clear that Justin Bieber's image and reputation in Canada and America (the petition to deport Bieber was the second-most supported ever, the poll with more than 50% negative opinion) is going down. The problem is that those in favour of protecting the article as a BLP is indirectly causing censorship because all these incidents (booing / poll / petition) are apparently too trivial, despite coverage of many reliable sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Per Collect, Johnuniq and per my comments regarding the editing methods of this editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Clarification: After discussion, I would prefer some type of restriction or even advice limited to Bieber's BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban but only to Justin Bieber articles - A BLP bans is veery extreme as his edit to wrestling articles looks fine to me - yes lots of the wrestling edits are news based gossip, but this is how wrestling is trying to survive - making its own controversies. I think I should speak up as a total BLP ban would not help the community at large and this is the way things are going. YES a Justin Bieber articles ban is ok ....after all the time spent trying to insert the negative news about third part affiliations and this new addition I am inclined to believe that there is some personal hatred of Justin Bieber. Also after thinking for a bit on the recent edits - fighting to keep mention of a poll by only 571 people over 2 days as if it represents the American point of view as a whole aslo leads me to believe the same thing. Context is every thing and this is not being represent well at all. No one should edit topics they have strong POV's for. -- Moxy (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am really rather insulted by your comments on professional wrestling. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with adding negative content to BLPs, especially when I do my absolute best to only use reliable secondary sources for the negative content. Personally, I don't hate Bieber, but I do feel that he's not a good role model.

IMO we should provide both positive and negative content in articles and let readers judge for themselves. For the poll, you can balance the negative content (that more than half of the Americans polled thought negatively of Bieber) with the countering "positive" content (only 571 people polled). Instead you want to totally remove the content, just as how you want to remove me from editing the article. You fail to recognize the significance of the content, which many reliable sources have. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your upset about - as I said you do a good job with those articles - its not your fault its a dramatized athletic spectacle that survives on made-up grudges and personalities. As for the poll there are many out there some positive some negative but we dont list them - why - because a small amount of people dont represent a total population. -- Moxy (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're upsetting CM Punk. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose topic ban Oh give me a break, this is way too drastic. Gloss • talk 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban Yep, quite ridiculous. You do not request any type of ban or block just in order to win an argument. Starship.paint definitely does not have a problem with editing BLPs and his side is also the side that had the most support during the RfC, so it is not like he is disruptively going against the result of the RfC... like some users. STATic message me! 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban I've known Starship to lend a good hand. His work on wrestling related articles, included BLPs, has always been regarded as productive. We can all lose our head at times when things get heated but this seems to be an isolated incident. A topic ban seems like a draconian action... Such measures should be taken to protect the encyclopedia and are not to be punitive. Starship's edits to BLPs are, in most cases, constructive. A topic ban wouldn't protect the encyclopedia, it would do the opposite.LM2000 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose general BLP ban. He does good work elsewhere. Support backing away from the Beeb for a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is silly. We only have one instance of having problems on one BLP, and you propose a ban on editing all BLPs? This problem is specific to one article, and it has not been demonstrated that this is a problem for the editor on all BLP articles. If you do want to propose something, keep is specific and relevant to the topic of Justin Bieber. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too harsh. If he just adds latest news/gossips, I'm sure it's in good faith. I met him at Natalia Poklonskaya article, and he questioned the reliability of sources, removed unsourced info, fought vandalism, and now we are discussing how to make the article tell everything how it really happened cause many reliable sources had everything mixed up. So I see him wanting everything to be as close to the truth as possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - quite frankly, I'm with starship through and through on this. He had a consensus and ran with it, the editors who lost in the RfC continued to edit war. Now granted, I didn't read the entire two discussions, but based on what I did read, just drop the stick and move on. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 18:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems a disproportionate response to issues pertaining to a single article. McPhail (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose broad blp ban as not enough evidence to support something that drastic. neutral for Bieber ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Disproportionate and foolish. Clearly too broad considering every other bit of BLP work he does. Sounds retaliatory for being on the loosing end of an RFC. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - anyone can go ahead and check my history of blocks and warnings. I'm afraid I haven't done much rule-breaking over here... since my first month? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please review my block of Macktheknifeau

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

---

Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is unhappy that the consensus went against him here. The outcome has been that editors have decided to use "soccer" to describe the sport in an Australian context. Rather than challenge the consensus in a collegial way or try to establish a new consensus or a compromise of some kind (any of which I would be open to), he made a series of edits which changed "soccer" to "football", the opposite of what was agreed. This is a sample. I have blocked him for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT. Please review this block. --John (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen these edits on my watchlist and read the other discussions around naming conventions in australian sport. I agree that the series of edits Mack made recently are quite pointy, but I note he is not actually changing from "Soccer" to "Football", but from "Soccer" to "Association Football". As "Association Football" is the correct formal title for the game. My understanding from the previous discussions was that consensus was reached to use "Soccer" over "football" to avoid confusion with Aussie Rules. As the edits here do not do that, though they are pointy, they do seem to put the articles in a position where there can be no confusion and there is no issue over whether a "correct" term is being used. Fenix down (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It varies. This edit changes soccer to football. This is the opposite of what the discussion agreed. --John (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ENGVAR applies. It's also called "soccer" in Canada, even though we have the "Toronto Football Club" that plays Association Football. DP 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The entire discussion, in which Macktheknife participated, was to stave off discussion for a while to let cooler tempers prevail and work on other things than the name. The block for pointiness is thus warranted. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Macktheknifeau's attitude was clear even before a consensus was reached. Their vote said: "Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet." When Mack then defied the consensus, a block was justified. The post-block discussion between John and Mack is progressing somewhat. Mack claims that the anti-consensus changes they made were "inadvertent", although at the same time calling the consensus "illegal" (whatever that means). The last comment in the discussion is from John attempting to get Mack to have some insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've had my own run-ins with this editor over football/soccer-related articles (believe it came to ANI then as well), they are disruptive and do not abide by consensus or policies/guidelines. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not commenting on this specific case, but in general, I think it's a good idea not to do a block and then ask for a review. Instead, please discuss before blocking. If the threat is so imminent that there's no time to discuss, then obviously the block is necessary and there's no need to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's up to the admin which way to do it. There's a spectrum between "imminent" and the length of time a discussion may take such that if one waits for a conclusion, the block may not be timely. It's not easy to forecast how long a discussion will take.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't it our goal to avoid blocks? If a problem becomes stale without a block, but isn't repeated, that's a good thing. If the admin isn't certain a block is needed then and there, don't do it. Discuss the problem with the user or at AN/I and see if a resolution is possible. If the user goes and does the problematic thing again while the discussion is ongoing, then block. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am absolutely certain a block was needed there and then. This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy. That block was reviewed at this board here. The general issues surrounding my enforcement of this area were discussed there and also here, here and here. I committed at the start of this process to having any admin actions taken in this area reviewed here at AN/I as a form of transparency and accountability. So far the community has been kind enough to endorse my actions in this area. If you have any serious qualms after reading these links I would like to hear them; if not I will continue to work to try to solve the problem. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. This editor has engaged in exactly this sort of behavior before; hopefully the block will result in an improved editing process for them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not really a fan of this idea of block review and as such agree with Jehochman, but in cases of disruptive editing (rather than simple vandalism etc.) a block is often a signal, a word to the wise, and a review, if editors and admins agree of course, can strengthen that message: this was not just a block by a single grumpy admin, and the behavior for which a user was blocked is indeed deemed disruptive by a group of editors and admins. Stronger signal, fewer claims of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• I participated in the soccer vs. football discussion, and I don't think it would be desirable for me to express an opinion on the block. However, I support the unusual mentoring that John has undertaken to resolve the long-term bickering, and I support the idea of bringing blocks to ANI for review as an exception to what is normally done. The benefit of discussions like this is that the participants will learn whether John's actions have the backing of the community, and whether future claims of INVOLVED are likely to be successful in derailing the process. There should not be many blocks, and the time spent reviewing them would be much less than the time required to deal with the soccer/football war if John's mentoring fails. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very wrong to block an editor and then a tart a discussion about them in a venue where they can't respond. While it may not be John's intention, he has engaged in public humiliation as a form of punishment. Blocks aren't to "send a signal," they are to prevent harm. If you want to send a signal you talk with the editor and if that doesn't work, go to this board and ask for additional feedback. Blocking and then denouncing the editor while they are blocked is not fair. Jehochman ^Talk 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read John's post at 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC), especially the bit that said "This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy"? This is hardly a first offence by an otherwise perfect citizen. I have been routinely abused by this editor for being a member of and posting as part of some sort of evil group of supporters of another sport. He has been doing it for years. It is only John's incredibly thorough approach that is finally highlighting to administrators where the real problems lie in those discussions, and how bad they really are. Those of us who have been posting in good faith for years, and occasionally becoming frustrated at the absolute nonsense being repeatedly presented by a small number of editors, are finally seeing some justice. Anyone who bothers to have a proper look at what has been going on there, as John now has, will see the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Your concept is flawed. An editor who does not respond to comments left on their talk page may indeed respond to a short block -- that's just (unfortunately) human nature. That makes the "sending of a signal" a legitimate part of the overriding concept that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Not everyone is predisposed to talk about what they're doing, some have to be persuaded to do so with a bit of force. The choices to be made differ from editor to editor, and espousing a blanket policy regardless of circumstances isn't particularly helpful. You might think about that the next time this kind of situation comes up. BMK (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Macktheknifeau returned from the block and went straight back to edits which I regard as disruptive. Here they announced their intention to 'replac[e] obsolete terminology', and here they said 'I believe this consensus is invalid and will always work to correct it'. Here the user adds "football" in violation of the consensus and here in a particularly POINTy edit changes 18 instances of 'soccer' to 'football', in violation of the agreement. This edit to their user page is also illustrative. I have blocked one week with the intention that the next block would be an indef. I have also raised the possibility of a topic ban which would allow the user to contribute in areas where they can do so without disruption. --John (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good block, bad thread. That is, fine to do the block, no benefit to starting an ANI discussion after the fact. NE Ent 21:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I take your point. Per this I will no longer post admin actions in the area for review here automatically. I will ask an uninvolved admin to scrutinise them instead. Thanks for your patience and support as I tease this issue apart. I think it is almost there now. If anyone felt like reviewing User:Macktheknifeau's latest unblock request in light of the above, that'd be great. Otherwise we are maybe done here, except to ask one last time for any other admin eyes on the area, to preserve admin accountability and transparency in this rather unusual exercise I am attempting. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting a block for User:Thesunshinesate

This user has been busy constituting nuisance and fighting everyone on wikipedia. he/She seems to be here for his/her own personal agenda and he/she has been making articles to be biased. As I see it, he/she is always removing anything 'Anti-Ghana' and it doesn't matter to him/her whether they are sourced or not. Here are the following reasons I think this user should be blocked.

• Personal attacks - he/She is always against people who reverts her propaganda posts and she results to personal attacks, name calling. etc on the user talkpages. You can see an example of that at the bottom of my talk page in this revision. That was just because I placed a warning on her talk page concerning his/her disruptive edits.

• Gross Incivility - he/She reverts edits with flimsy excuses and never discusses with other users, an example can be found with his/her various reverts on Ghana article history. he/She reverts anything antiGhana in the article even if they are appropriately sourced. he/she seems to be the only one against the contents. Various warnings has been placed on his/her talkpage, but he/she is never ready to discuss the concerned article/content. Instead he/she removes such warnings instantly and instigates a fight on the users' talkpages. You can see the various warnings placed on her talkpage (including mine) by clicking on the history of the talkpage.

• Edit Warring: he/she has been reverting a particular content like since forever on the Ghana article. Other users keep readding the content but he/she keeps removing it. This is the Content. Please note that the other IP addresses reverting the same content belongs to him/her as the edit summaries are similar to the one he/she gives. He/she considers it "An anti government rant". I don't think this content should be removed as well as it is well sourced and I believed both the 'good' and 'bad' should be included on Wikipedia to achieve NPOV. Another example is the one she just started on the article Cinema of Nigeria. Note that this user has also broken the WP:3RR.

Thanks--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This user and his friend (Versace1608|talk) are fishing around to block me (He wrote to someone to have me blocked) They have tagged teamed on me for no reason. Jamie Tubers has made himself the authority on many articles and no one can dare to make an edit with him reverting. He has filled the Cinema of Nigeria with bias claims and invalid sourced from gossip and entertainment mags as his source of reference. He also game on the Ghana page

and reverted a claim has been disputed since 2013 me and several others have worked very hard on the article to make it neutral If you look at my edits I have not removed anything anti- Ghana like he claim ..claiming international accounts of corruption with no proof and adding references from entertainment sites in an anti government rant is not something that is suppose to be in an wiki article.

Those sources are not even approved based on wikis standards, this editor and his friend can not bully people for making edits just because they don't like it. He is calling my edits propaganda yet he has done nothing but glorify the pages he edit. I am not from west Africa and many of the other editors that I have worked on the Ghana page with are not either. I have nothing to gain. Yet the articles he has worked on for Nigeria is filled nothing but claims from unverifiable sources their edits need to be looked into. he edit that I reverted in the Cinema of Nigeria has sources from an online African gossip entertainment magazine. He and his friend Versace1608|talk are coming after me because I told them to get true sources Thesunshinesate (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

People should not gang up to stop others from contributing..wikipedia is an open forum I am not going to be bullied and threaten by these two editors and I don't think their propaganda based edits should be allowedThesunshinesate (talk)

Irrelevant discussions: containing personal attacks from the accused as well

:::*LOL, you need to calm down. No one is out to get you. You are infact still displaying a reason why you should be blocked. I just checked the content you have been removing from Ghana to see if I was mistaking. lol, I never knew Business Guide Newspaper, Ghana web, Vibe Ghana et al are gossip and entertainment websites (excuse the pun). And the topic you were removing from Cinema of Nigeria is an entertainment related topic, it's appropriate to get sources from reliable entertainment websites. Besides, don't transfer aggression on me, people have been readding the contents before I noticed it myself and I warned you. Checking your talkpage history, I saw various other wikipedians have warned you about the same edit warring and some other disruptive edits. That is the major reason I had to report you.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC) No wikipedians have "warned" me about the edit. there have been disputes over it since it was added to the article. This is not some game. if you were not out to "get me" you and your friend (Versace1608|talk) wouldn't be fishing around to try to get me blocked all because I told you to get true sources. Wikipedia is not a blog its an encyclopedia so NO those sources mentioned there not valid sources for an encyclopedic article especially since it evolved claims of impeaching the current president. Ghanaweb is a user based online site any member can write an article and post it there. Also maybe you do not understand but Wiki articles are suppose to be neutral. That is why I removed those unwarranted bias claims. Also it is an article about the Country not a political party. What was you reason for reverting the edit in the first place. If anyone needs to be blocked I think it's you. I have looked through all the articles you work on and it's the same sources from online blogs and gossip magazine. You comment up there just proves my point you have an ethnocentric agenda for Nigerian articles and you think I am Ghanaian so just because I told you to get true sources to back your claims you are trying to get me blocked. Based on how you used this [[10]] source for your article on the Cinema of Nigeria as well as all the articles you have created on I do not think you understand what is valid source is.Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I do not have anything to say to you or your friend (Versace1608|talk) the admin he went to to try to get me blocked told him that. that is not how wikipedia work. You can try to paint me as the bad guy all you want but the truth about your edits and how you two are trying to get me blocked is right there. I have said all I have to say the admins will look into it. Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC) @Thesunshinesate: Lol. Davidwr is not an administrator. I was only asking him to contact an administrator he knows to speed up your block. Just so you know, this page is the administrator noticeboard, so everything you say here will be read by administrators. You can't be reason with, and your attitude towards others needs an overhaul. Maybe when you get block, you will change your attitude and approach. versace1608 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC) When did you ever try to "reason" with me or even try to discuss something with me. All you ever did was threaten me. What part do you play in all of this anyway. It's all because I told your friend there to provide valid sources and yes I am very well admins can see everything I say here. Thank you for coming here to confess that you did go around to look for someone to block me. If this was really about my edits why go about it in such a shady way? you two are going around making propaganda based edits and articles concerning Nigeria and the only reason you have tag teamed on me is because when I called out the bias claims in the Cinema on Nigeria article you saw that I had contributed on the Ghana page and you decided to launch this attack on me. Again thank you for coming here to confess. I am glad you proved my point. like I said I've stated my claims and I have stated the explanation for my edits, I will leave it to the adminsThesunshinesate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC) ::* @Thesunshinesate: Just like you said, Wikipedia isn't anybody's father's parlour. If you are looking for a place where your opinion rules, feel free to start ThesunshineSate Encyclopedia. You need to learn how to relate with other editors. Everybody readding your alerged 'antigovernment ranting' can't be wronged at the same time. And the sources are valid enough for the article. BTW, I don't care if you are Ghanaian or Somalian. I am part of WikiProject Africa; I am to ensure Neutral point of view on African articles and watch out for people like you editing to suit their tastes. I have also contributed extensively to articles and people add negative Content everytime, I don't remove them. Once they are well sourced, I'm fine.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC) :::*When people warn you, you are suppose to explain the reason you did what you are being warned for, not start personal attacks. You really can't be reasoned with. I've known you just for the past 24 hours and really......I don't know! I give up on you, for administrators to investigate your account and see your edits. Do you know I've had intense issues with the User you are calling 'my friend'? You eed to stop these sentiments and focus on what is.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) What is my opinion? The fact that those sources you use do not meet Wikipedia standards or the fact that section added to the Ghana page was not from a credible sources? you mention it was well sourced? Yet the sources you mention Ghanaweb and the others do not meet the criteria. Have you seen Wikipedia's policy on references and sources? If you have then tell me what I have done wrong. Also you say want neutrality on articles but you are reverting edits to a claims that is specifically an attack against that country's ruling political party and talks of impeaching the presidents without any proof yet and you are trying to get me blocked because I said it shouldn't be there because the claims are unwarranted. And you turn around to mention you want neutrality in articles. If any of you truly wanted to talk to me or discus with me you could have. The frist thing you did was sent me a warning and a treat. You never asked to engage in a dialogue with me. Stop making this about the Ghana page when its not. You and your friend there are trying to get be blocked because I called you out on those propaganda based edits on the Nigerian articles that you make Thesunshinesate (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I am not going to argue with you, you brought me here to try to get me blocked for no apparent reason other than the fact that I said get true sorces for your claimsThesunshinesate (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC) :*Ghanweb is a reliable news source. You are the one who needs to check wikipedia's policy. And let's even assume to agree Ghana Web is not reliable. Is Ghana web the only reference cited? For crying out loud there is a newspaper source that published the claim. And I wasn't the one who added any of the content you are exhibiting propaganda on.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) @Jamie Tubers: Thesunshinesate can't be reason with. I don't have time to go back and forth with him/her. Thesunshinesate won't stop at nothing to justify his/her wrong doings. To make things worse, he/she has the nerve to insult you on your talk page, and then say that we are "ganging" up on him/her. smh. I personally feel that Thesunshinesate shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. For your information Thesunshinesate, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. If you love censored information, I suggest you go elsewhere. versace1608 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Can you all stop arguing long enough to let some other folks comment on your dispute? This is just a continuation of the bickering I see on your user talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Also while I only very quickly skimmed through the discussion, this is not a good place to debate whether something is a RS. Try WP:RSN if discussion on the article talk page fails or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution as appropriate like an WP:RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple edit warring complaints belong at WP:AN/EW not here and don't need anywhere near the level of discussion you're involved in here. BTW while there may be enough edit warring for a block I didn't see any clear cut 3rr violation. They are at the limit now but their previous revert before now to ths Ghana article was well outside the 24 hour window. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about his/her edits or want to prove anything concerning their reliability, he/She can discuss that with the other contributors on the articles (If he/she will). I only noticed he/she is busy edit warring and always attacking anybody who warns him/her about it. That's the reason I reported the user. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was Thesunshinesate that raised useless and irrelevant issues claiming someone is out to get him/her or something. Good, you also noticed the edit warring was evidently very much. And what about the personal attacks he/she is always giving anyone who notifies or even tries to advise her on the edits?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR was evidently broken too. this edit, this and this were all made within 24 hours--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that's three reverts. Where is the fourth revert that constitutes a 3RR violation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And the personal attacks and abuses?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor can raise whatever they want, there's no need to respond to them if they are irrelevant to the discussion particularly when your comments are further irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, saying 'the other editor started it' is never a winning argument. And they are indeed irrelevant to this discussion, the reliability of the sources is no excuse for edit warring and should be established somewhere besides ANI (note that my message was directed at all primary participants of this discussion). As for the personal attacks, I had a brief look and their comments do seem problematic but it's not something I can be bothered looking in to. Consider this an example of the problems when you engage in long, irrelevant, argumentation on ANI before anyone gets a look in. Even if there are some legitimate complaints, by the time anyone knows what they are many are not going to bother to look in to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie Tubers, Nil Einne gives you very good advice about ANI posting, but you did right to take the problem here. I agree with you that Thesunshinesate is confrontational and very sure they're right at all times (for instance here, where they clearly don't know what the policy says). As is illustrated by their talkpage and even by their input in this thread, which shows much assumption of bad faith. (I must say, when people talk about their opponents being a "tag team", it rings a warning bell for me.) Admins and others are watching now, and Thesunshinesate has been warned on their page. I can only see two outcomes of that: either they change their approach to editing and their attitude to other contributors, or they get blocked pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC). <Addition: Plus I've just noticed that their comments on User talk:Jamie Tubers have been even worse, with some classic template abuse (a 4th-level "harassment" template, which is ridiculous). Bishonen | talk 12:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC).>

• I just went through the contributions of the user and considering the claims of 'many' contributions, I had to conclude the user must have been editing anonymously as well. I went through the Ghana page and I saw that the previous disruptive reversions were made by anonymous IP addresses, then this user comes up to continue the reversions when the page got protected. This is really suspicious and a clear sign of bad faith. I'm very sure the following IP Addresses were used by this user (there may be more): 216.165.95.64, 69.120.255.161, 216.165.95.66, 24.190.23.37 and 69.120.215.121. I came to this conclusion because they have things in common with this User: the IPs made that same revert on the pages this user is involved in, the other contributions on those IPs (mostly disruptive) are similar/same with the topics this user edits and there are lists of warnings on the talk pages of those IPs (especially the first one) regarding the edits. I have reasons to believe this user infact only uses this account for protected pages, but regularly edits anonymously. I may be wrong though, as I'm aware IP addresses may be shared.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You make good points, Jamie, though it's an exaggeration to say that the name account is only used when articles are semiprotected; it has edited several non-protected articles in the last couple of days. However, 216.165.95.64, the one with all the talkpage complaints going back to 2008 without a break, and several blocks, certainly quacks like a duck, especially if we consider the edit summaries. 216.165.95.64 writes "remove npov political attack attacks against current rpresident does not belong in encyclopedic article; and when the article has been semiprotected, Thesunshinesate echoes "revert NPOV anti govment rant with has no place in article". (Note especially the use of "NPOV" when presumably "POV" is meant, a signature for this user.) I was just going to block that IP for three months, when I noticed that Alison, a checkuser blocked the same IP in 2008 as part of a sockfarm. Alison, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now, in relation to Thesunshinesate and the other IPs. Their brother 216.165.95.66 doesn't have any similar bad history, and the other IPs you mention, Jamie, have IMO likely enough also been used by the same individual — they revert similar information, and geolocate to the same area — but they're dynamic, and haven't been used much, nor very recently (they're probably being used by someone else by now). Anyway, I hope we hear from Alison. If she's not editing, I will block the duck in a day or so. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Mass removals of content similar to what is being discussed here have been happening since last December. There have also been multiple registered users that have removed content that portrays the government of Ghana in a negative light, including, in chronological order, Citizen gh (talk · contribs), Exdogbaste (talk · contribs), and Medicineman84 (talk · contribs). However, Medicineman84 registered way back in 2007, and has made many constructive contributions. It is possible that there is both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry taking place. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 18:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you asked me, I think the four accounts belong to the same person.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your research, Jamie and Sam. I'm feeling a little out of my depth with this possible sockfarm. I've contacted another checkuser as well as Alison, who doesn't seem to be online right now, but if the worst comes to the worst, I suppose one of us will have to file an SPI report (groan). Bishonen | talk 11:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

• Interim report: a checkuser is looking at it. Watch this space. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Oh, I'm watching! this is SO exciting! Drmies (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's like a TV show isn't it?Thesunshinesate (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm looking into this right now, but need a bit of time. It's the wee hours of the morning here. I'll report back within about 12 hours ... - Alison ^❤ 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, it looks like Thesunshinesate (talk · contribs) is not using multiple accounts at this time. They are doing a small amount of logging out while editing but it looks like it could be attributed to simply forgetting to log in, then subsequently doing so. I'm AGFing on that one. There are shared IPs involved, and I don't think the abuse here, such that it is, warrants linking accounts to IPs, per policy. Citizen gh (talk · contribs) and Exdogbaste (talk · contribs) are both  Stale and Medicineman84 (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to anyone else - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It amazes me how Jamie Tuber has created this witch hunt against me all because I called him out on his ethnocentric edits and has even crossed out the things he wrote and cataloged the conversations "Irrelevant discussions: containing personal attacks from the accused as well". I guess it is easy to divert attention to someone else and conjure up a conspiracy against a bunch of other unrelated people all to deflect attention and make him not look like the "bad guy". It's funny he and his supporters say I am assuming "bad faith" yet that's all they have done to me. One false accusation after the other. It's a pity Wikipedia has turned into this, thank you for doing investigation without any bias or preconceived notions Alison. That is all I have to say here.Thesunshinesate (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thesunshinesate, the fact that a checkuser has found you not to be using multiple accounts (at this time, as she puts it) doesn't mean that the criticism of your edit warring, incivility and aggressive editing is miraculously no longer valid. Jamie Tubers did right to bring those issues to ANI, compare my comment above. Since you have just removed all the pertinent advice and warnings on your page with the comment "clearing junk from my talk page", I'll repeat myself to make sure the situation is clear: you need to change your approach to editing and your attitude to other contributors, or you'll be blocked soon. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

• I guess those remarks weren't treats. Thesunshinestate, Bishonen is absolutely correct. Please play by the rules, and edit and comment in a civil manner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Genre Warrior Andrewbf

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

---

Andrewbf (t·c)
The user Andrewbf is long-time genre warrior who has been warned repeatedly about WP:GWAR and has ignored all warnings and input from other editors. Never once has explained genre changes or tried to gain consensus. Does not provide sources to support changes. All attempts to communicate with this user have been completely disregarded, and this can't keep going on. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)/04:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, you need to provide the differences or links to show the user has been GWARing and that attempts to ask for an explanation have turned to deaf ears. Give the admins something to work on. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are samples: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. User has received notices on talk page from myself [19] [20] [21], @STATicVapor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewbf&oldid=600561062] [22] [23], @Jim1138: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], @Lightsout: [30] [31] [32], @Etheldavis: [33], @Flat Out: [34], and IP 183.171.179.131 [35] regarding these unexplained/unsourced changes. Every single attempt so far has gotten no response and user has not stopped even a 31-hour block from admin @Elockid:. As a matter of fact, Andrew quickly resumed genre warring after the block expired. Admin @Diannaa: has left a notice [36] on the user's page, though I'm not sure how effective it will be given the user's dismissal of warnings. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I put one more "final warning" on his talk page and will monitor. Editing has stopped for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that, and thank you. It wouldn't surprise me to see Andrew resume GWAR'ing, though..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have put this in my calendar and will monitor his edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed you blocked Andrew for one week. This should be more effective than the 31-hour block, which didn't affect his ways at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Ihardlythinkso blanking articles in order to make a point

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

Ihardlythinkso has been blanking and disrupting articles he has contributed to in order to make a point. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

A number of editors have discussed this issue with him, but he hasn't stopped. I brought it up on his talk page, here, and got quite a response back. His posts to other users, such as Quale, have recently been way over the NPA line.

• "shut your fucking stupid baselessly condemning mouth."
• "fuck off, Quale"
• "(I don't ever expect apology from that SOB.)"

His response to me was, frankly, even worse.

I think a block for disruption and personal attacks is, unfortunately, warranted in order to prevent this sort of editing from continuing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this [45] show he is trying to WP:OWN the article (or at least his contributions), but my guess it is spite more than anything. He can be blunt, but he isn't dumb and he knows he can't just remove his contributions to the articles. The third pillar makes that abundantly clear, as does the CC-BY-SA license he released the contribs under. He and I have bumped heads a few times, so I'm not inclined to get involved with dishing out sanctions myself, but an explanation from him is certainly due. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Blanking articles" is what vandals do, and I am no vandal. I have three (3) orthochess articles to my name, and any blanking was in error and corrected by me already. I did remove content contributions made by me in those three. On Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening, I removed my copyedits. (I have my own reasons, they have nothing to do with "proving a point", or "creating disruption", so you have no basis to assign those as intention as you have -- that's false, and springs from bad-faith. What readers of this ANI don't know and can't empathize with, is the way I've been treated by editors like yourself, User:MaxBrowne, User:ChessplayerLev (but that was a long time ago, but he never apologized for the bogus ANI and falsifications made then and attempt to get me blocked or banned, as you are doing), all supported indirectly by defacto project lead User:Quale, who has only disparaging accuses and false blames for me, and compliments to those who would attack and attempt to smear. (It's not very pleasant. There is only so much unfair treatment and bullying incivilities a person can take. That limit was pushed over me recently.) I won't be editing orthochess articles any more, as a result, I won't be able to return to project articles I've touched, to touch them again after having improved my editing skills. (Articles I've copyedited when I began here freak me out, how embarassingly poor my writing editing skills were then, and I've drawn the conclusion my skills will probably continue to increase over time, to the point where edits I think I'm pround of today will make me cringe in embarrassment again in future when I see them. I don't want those edits hanging around as permanent monuments to my mediocre skill as editor at that time. I can't return to ProjChess due to chronic maltreatment and prejudice by Quale to disparage me, and compliment those who would attack me. All of that is true for anyone doing the research. But ANIs are burning stakes, aren't they. (No time for digging the truth. Hang'em high!) I believe this ANI is nothing but the OP's assertion of continued conflict-dominance clashes with me at article Antichess and article Checkmate, and if true, a means to harass and misuse process. (Why does he care? No reason other than that. Oneupmanship. Need to assert superiority over another editor he's been in dispute with.)

The issue here is whether an editor has the right or not to remove their own copyedits from an article. If it can be done without disturbing other editors' contributions, then why should it be denied? Edit reverts are the same thing: an editor has changed their mind on leaving her/his edit in the article. So I have changed my mind on Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening. I have my reasons, they have been partially explained -- enough to know accusations of valdalism are wholly untrue and bad-faith by an editor who I've had content clashes with. p.s. In each case of clashes with the OP, I've withdrawn from said Talks to avoid drama with him. He's too aggressive and unstoppable IMO, and objective discussion isn't in the cards with him -- only forcing his way, and "winning". I've avoided him therefore, now he comes to my Talk to unfairly accuse, and open this ANI as further contesting with me for whatever motive. I suspect the motive has nothing to do with the health of the encyclopedia, but rather interpersonal conflict he revels in. I'd like someone to tell him to leave me be. I've loved Wikipedia and contributing to orthodox chess articles. But the hostility, false blames, attempts to smear and defame, have made the "collaborative editing environment" a joke of inhospitable abusiveness in my perspective. (Just symptomatic of the wider rampant incivilities and lies told and smears conducted against editors generally -- a civility problem WP has no answer for, but has become the encrusted cultural fact here long before I signed up as editor. I simply don't want to be a part of it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Dennis Brown's speculation of "ownership" is not correct. I wanted to remove my copyedits, and the example where User:MaxBrowne was excused for doing this at Chess.com by another editor, that he had the right to do so, was basis for me to believe or offer, that I have a right to undo my edits if I want. Nothing more. I have no desire to break any rule.

Myself, I am not the slightest bit convinced of the sincerity of your argument. But putting that aside and responding to your question, there is no rule against reverting your copyedits. However, once you make an edit here, you release your contributions to CC-BY-SA and have no right to deny the restoration of those very same edits. Others clearly feel the content is beneficial to the article. You have no right to remove it without building a consensus for removal. Resolute 01:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My take on this is that Ihardlythinkso is always sincere. I'm not saying that he is always right. Cardamon (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that answer. To clarify, I didn't assert at any time I had right to deny restoration. (I didn't know.) I asked an editor to not restore, that I preferred no restoration (and explained why). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At least twice you told editors to not revert a revert, with one of them telling the editor to go read policy and the other telling the editor they were in violation of policy. [46] and [47] So you were asserting that readding the material was against policy. GB fan 01:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's misleading. I was telling that editor that his revert of my revert was out-of-order. (The edit-warring template itself says to not revert a second time, "even if you believe you are right".) That discussion issue was over BRD versus BRRD, and whether his or my revert was the "B". So that is entirely a different issue than if I do or don't have right to deny (ultimate) restoration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. When Kkj11210 (talk · contribs), a mature and polite editor, tried to discuss the blanking of the chess articles, IHTS immediately launched into a bullying ad hominem based on KJ's youth. I am also fed up with having my name constantly brought up in the process of attacking other editors over incidents that had nothing to do with me. I honestly have tried to have as little as possible to do with this editor lately, but his recent editing has been extremely disruptive. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesspool stuff, MaxBrowne. (As long as you feel free coming to the ANI cesspool to accuse of narcissism and disingenuousness, according to your need to falsely accuse and smear, do I in turn get to tell you that your behavior is that of an unethical cheat? Underhanded sleaziness? Do you want to throw more insults and buy the house some popcorn? This is your element, isn't it? Cesspool. Mud. Happy as a pig in mud you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take a break. After a day or two think about whether you want to continue editing here, and imagine how much more pleasant it would be if you and other editors could be nice to each other. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's taking a break whether he wanted to or not, as the above came after my having warned him not to continue with personal attacks; accordingly I've blocked Ihardlythinkso for 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about what happened in discussions concerning the Chess articles in the past, but I can only give my views regarding what I've observed in the last few days. From my take on the issue, it looks like user Ihardlythinkso believes that he has been subject to personal attacks in the past and that a number of editors are against his good-faith efforts to improve Chess-related articles. In response, he has been removing his early (and apparently bad-quality) additions while believing that such removals are beneficial to the articles. I didn't accuse him of WP:OWN since I was being WP:CIVIL, but I do believe that he was acting without awareness of WP:OWN. After the expiration of the block, I think that a discussion attempting to put behind past events, as well as a good dose of WP:AGF, will be adequate to resolve the conflict. KJ ^{click here} 05:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso has been editing for far too long and been embroiled in enough disputes to plead ignorance of WP:OWN or do edits like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

His responses on his talk page to my trying to explain why he was blocked are disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who's conduct I think is "disturbing" is yours, Bushranger. (Turning good-faith Qs of you, instead of according to your responsibilities re WP:ADMINACCT, into some kind of lecturing, shaming, baiting fest.) You obfuscated in every conceivable way and for as long as you could, to dodge answering two simple and clear Qs. (Until I had no choice but to give up.) Now you attempt to take credit for something not due you. I call that dishonest. You really take the cake. But somehow I think you don't care. (Is that because you're admin and see yourself invulnerable? My third Q also went unanswered: What are your recall parameters?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your questions regarding the block were answered immediately; whether you overlooked them accidentally or otherwise is something I cannot help. What you call "lecturing, shaming, baiting" was an attempt to point out how your conduct is unacceptable for a Wikipedia contributor; again, if you refuse to listen I cannot help that. As for recall parameters, they involve something that you have proven incapable of extending: good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. (If my Q about the block was answered immediately, then why didn't you say so when I continued to ask the same Q several times, and complain to you that I'd not received any answer from you? Your RfA Opposes pointed out sarcasm and/or a pattern of your giving "silent responses", in the form of a complaint in that RfA about your behavior. I see now you haven't lifted even a little finger to make any corrective changes in that behavior, based just on what you've said above. Not good.) You have no right to lecture me, attempt to shame, condescend me at my Talk, when I was merely trying to get understanding of your POV for the block. You think you have the right to soapbox and lecture me regarding civil behavior? Boo to that. If we had a forum to discuss, and a moderator to keep our discussion reasonable, I can perhaps name at least a half dozen personal attacks and personal slights you made at my Talk. You have no right to do that to a good-faith editor trying to get basic info from you about the block you executed. That's bullying behavior, and abusive as well. I think you are not fit to be an admin.) About IDHT, sorry but my view is a competing one. It's you that consistently displayed IDHT, not me. And about your good-faith criticisms, just like the block you made, how can I appeal or address, when I don't even know what the hell it is you're talking about and your issues of concern have never been presented to me in any comprehensible or digestible way? In any event, though I'd love to discuss that with you, that will be impossible, because I'd require as mentioned a space to do it in, plus a moderator to regulate your manipulative and obfuscating communications. Another reason it won't happen too, is that the topic that caused the ANI was Mann jess's efforts to warn me from reverting my edits from articles, and when I didn't heed his warning, he immediately opened this ANI for purpose to stop said reverts. Now in manipulative fashion you seem to be re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI to some never-defined "bad-faith" issue of your concern. Sorry but I was having no luck even getting a square answer from you about the specific reason you blocked me, let alone all of the abuse you have decided amongst yourself that I must suffer from your mouth. Does not compute. Another reason no discussion of your issues will be conducted, not only because of the lack of feature here to provide a space for said discussion, and a moderator to keep orderly, but I'm finding it personally soiling to have any contact or interfaces with you whatever. That said, I wish you would get the fuck off my back and stop your irrational baits. I've already told you I think you're a disgrace as an admin; you aren't changing my opinion by your further lectures and condescensions. What do you hope to gain here? (Get me riled so I say something off-the-cuff whereby you have another crack at blocking me? For a longer duration?) Pathetic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you got a specific answer after you asked what the specific PA you had been blocked for was, where I said "you posted this over an hour after you were warned", with "this" being linked to your specific post that caused the block; and it was made within an hour after you requested an explanation. I find it honestly perplexing that you're accusing me of "re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI" when my comment regarding good faith was in direct answer to your question. I have answered your questions clearly and concisely, only not answering them promptly when the questions were accompanied by (yet another set of) personal attacks against other editors. However, your conduct in response, both on your talk page and here, has been a sea of invective and personal attacks, including but not limited to comparing me to Mexican immigrant traffickers. From your pattern of commentary it's clear that you immediately assumed bad faith on my part, and decided to remain in that position regardless of any attempted explanation, instead deciding that any attempts at speaking plainly and clearly about the issue must be abuse, and progressively escalating invective in response to each attempt to explain the situation - and its consequences for you. Accordingly, I regret to say I can provide no further assistiance in trying to help you to remain a productive member of the Wikipedia community, which is what I have been trying to do all along, and instead will leave you with the same advice I gave another editor below on this page: when you find yourself in a hole, continuing to dig can only have one result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, I put in good-faith effort to learn the specifics of my block with you, and it was impossible to get any answers from you (you wouldn't give them, only lectures, condesensions, insults, attacks). At that point I gave up trying to communicate with you on the normal reasonable basis I give to everyone equally out of respect, until an editor shows me by their behavior and responses that I can on longer do that in good-faith. (In other words, you lost good-faith from me back at my Talk. I'm no longer entertaining anything you write to my attention with the usual good-faith care I give any and all editors. You lost that respect a long time ago, and I told you specifically the same thing on my Talk a long time ago. Now you are parading a paragraph to my attention, as though I care, and as though a communication link of question/response exists between us in good-faith, which it doesn't, and hasn't for some time. I've wasted enough time trying in good-faith with you. You didn't even give me the courtesy to understand the specifics of my block, before appeal time expired. That should have been priority with you, after blocking someone. Now you give excuses that you were busy or something, but that is BS Bushranger -- you are admin, and if you make a block, you should address the blockee if he is asking to understand for what exactly, when she/he asks. So I'm not buying your "I was busy". That is completely inexcusable given the power of block and role as admin at WP:ADMINACCT. The possibility of one-to-one communication with you broke down totally at my Talk as mentioned, and any pretense to others on this board that a conversation is still going on, or can go on between us over specifics of the block, or related Q/A, is just not the case. I've told you numerous times already that I wouldn't entertain any interface with you again, unless there's a moderator to control discussion, and a place to conduct said discussion. And you accuse me of IDHT???? I'm not interested in anything you have to say or accuse, without a moderator and a discussion room, Bushranger. I've found your argument & discussion style to be exceedingly manipulative and obfuscating, and I won't attempt to deal with that again, on my own. Now I've told you that perhaps more than a few times. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Busy or something"? "I was busy"? That proves that either you absolutely did not read my comment or are deliberately ignoring it, as I made no such statements and implied no such thing. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• So, while "classic narcissist / Diva behaviour" is just calling a spade a spade (as claimed on IHTS's talk page), "Cesspool stuff." is a personal attack warranting a block? Is this one of those Wikipedia April Fools' Day things? NE Ent 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Cesspool stuff" was not a personal attack. However calling somebody "an unethical cheat" who is engaging in "underhanded sleaziness" is, and when the person making those statements has previously been warned that any further personal attacks will result in a block, they get blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not directly call MaxBrowne those names. I was being rhetorical. He personally attacked me with "classic narcissist", which is pretty vicious and lewd and no editor should have to endure such an attack as that, and I came back to him with, essentially an argument: is that what he wants to do here? call names? does he want a name-calling fest? like me calling him [those names]? is that what he wants? I was clearly trying to shame him for opening up name-calling, since it isn't logical, it isn't appropriate, it isn't helpful, in descends to the lowest-common denominator. So just like Basalisk did on my Talk, you pick up on that and use it as an excuse to block based on a civility infraction. His attack was clear, mine reply was not a direct attack, it was rhetorical, I could have said "do I get to call you Frankenstein's butt now?" or any other thing, it didn't really matter. I did not want to PA him, he clearly wanted (and did) PA me. (That said, why didn't you warn him? If you had warned him, perhaps I wouldn't have needed to throw out the rhetorical stuff to try an deter him. But you didn't warn him. You warned me. And I did not see your warning, I was unaware of it because I was busy responding to the ANI, and not going to my Talk.) The fact that you excused MaxBrowne from the PA "classic narcissist" by telling me on omy Talk that it wasn't a PA because he was just calling a "spade a spade", is the same as you making the same PA against me, Mr. Administrator, and that is not only unbecoming but I think is de-sysop worthy, since you should and do know better than that. But you likely won't be de-sysop'd for that, since admins seldom lose their tools and you know that. So you take pot shots at me by reinforcing the "classic narcissism" PA, because you can get away with it. That's just plain abuse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on NE Ent, don't employ tunnel vision over this. There are plenty of diffs provided in this discussion of personal attacks from IHTS, from both before and after the warning, and frankly it's not the first time this guy has sailed close to a WP:NPA block [48] Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk, ever since I criticized the editor who was your nominator at your successful RfA, you have gone out of your way to insert yourself in my wiki-life, and try and trick and trap me into a block. (For example, it is a fact that an admin called me a "mother-fucking asshole" in an Email, and upon knowing that, you went to my Talk and asked for the Email to be revealed at my Talk, knowing full well had I done that, it would have been an outing and an immediate sanction imposed on me.) I can diff several other of your posts where you bogusly threatened me at my Talk, and other editors came to my defense and chased you away. But you're still out to block me, or see me blocked. I call that carrying a long-term grudge, and is unbecoming of admin. You should self-evaluate better, Basalisk. You won't drop your stick. But tell you what, I'm willing to give you something and make you go away. I'm willing to commit [Eric could do this himself if he wanted, he doesn't want, I don't blame him] to never using a curse word at anyone ever again. [E.g. "fucker".] Just like Eric, when I've used curse words, they are by choice, not because I'm a lunatic madman not in control of my mouth. The challenge will be, how to get my meaning across as effectively, when curse words are short and succinct, whereas telling someone the same thing in more tea cerimony style is less impacting and "artful". But if it would make you happy, I'll promise to never use another curse word on the WP. Will that make you happy? [And BTW, I don't know why the WP software doesn't already screen for curse words, and replace them with "****" etc., like dating sites do!?!? Simple!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I don't know anything about dating sites, but I imagine the wiki software doesn't bowdlerise profanities so that they can be included in articles for encyclopaedic purposes. Generally speaking the whole system is designed assuming that the people using it will act like adults. Diff away if it pleases you, though characterising a threat as "bogus" strikes me as a category error. I'm not trying to get you blocked IHTS. That's what you say of everyone who disagrees with you; they're all a bunch of fuckers trying to get you blocked. Just take a break from this and take it on the chin. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I have some software background, and a table of article names could be exempted in the software to accomodate exceptions, that is all design-requirements stuff easily done. Adults swear Basalisk, more than children, so you got that reversed. Providing diffs isn't my entertainment or desire, Basalisk, telling you I can do that is a signal to you that you shouldn't challenge me on what I asserted, because I can back up what I say. (Your threat was entirely bogus and I can prove it.) I do not say about everyone that they are trying to get me blocked, that's a category overgeneralization, in fact I think I've said that of extremely few editors in reality. (But I know throwing BS overgeneralizations around at the ANI is consistent with the cesspool arguments and mud slung that is the cultural norm here, so you're fitting in real good with that. To me I'd be ashamed, but you and many others just love it. It's so tacky.) I don't know what you're advising me to do ("take a break", "take it on the chin"), Basalisk, I really don't. It was not my idea to open this ANI which Mann jess opened to stop reversions of edits at articles I've edited, turns out he's wrong about it, it was permissable to undo copyedits I've made to articles. I have no idea what you mean, and I don't seek your councel either, you just turned down a good-faith offer to get to leave me alone, I don't know how to make you leave me alone, quit calling me a child, I think you are the immature one, Basalisk. What will make you go away? Did you want to discuss Kevin Gorman here? This dialogue and cesspool tangents are abusive shit, and if you revel in it, you revel in shit. And I just can't fucking respect people who do that, you know. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, Ihardlythinkso as was explained to you above you can not remove content from WP just because you added it, specially claiming things like "I created this article so should have a right to delete it (User:MaxBrowne once deleted Chess.com, and he as granted permission to do so, since he was author of that article", "Undid revision 601789037 by Kkj11210 (talk) a high school student reverts me??", "I am author, I withdraw this article". Incidentally on March 29th you breached WP:3RR on at least three articles (Veniamin Sozin, Fischer–Spassky (1992 match), Paris Defence) and should count yourself lucky you didn't get a long block for that alone. Your lack of civility only adds insult to injury and you should consider stopping while you are ahead. Just drop it, calm down and resume your editing in a few days with a cooler head. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Those initial reverts were mistaken and repaired, and those initial editsums were written hastily in span of only a few minutes during a windown of time that was indeed emotionally depressing to me. I have already explained this. I have a cooler head now, but some things remain the same, and this venue isn't really appropriate to discuss it. It's my understanding going forward that it is resolved that an editor may remove their edits from an article if they want. (Not OWN, and not barring restoration by another editor feeling differently about the value of the edits to the quality of the article. [That said, I'd like to point out that User:Mann jesse's restorations were not based on anything related to article quality, he has no interest or investment in said articles, he as only restored to counter reversion by an editor he feels in completition with based on previous content disputes where he also tried to force his way with edit-warring and IDHT discussions and I objected. So he forced his dominance where he can. This is interpersonal conflict in action, and nothing about article quality. He has no investment or care about said articles, he has only tracked my actions because of a need to prove dominance. Or claim I am a vandal. I am not a vandal, I've reverted my own edits, not other editors'. I explained I have complex reasons for doing so, and none of them are what has been accused.) You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility, and that there are perhaps 1000s of ways to be uncivil than using "bad words", and those forms of incivility are tremendoudly worse in my book than any bad words could be, since they enter unethical areas that bad words simply don't have access to. I don't think this is a forum to discuss individual diffs of incivility and their context with other diffs, and evaluation of what civility really is, and the limits of policy to define and capture it, and the inequitable enforcement by whim from administrators that results. What is the further purpose of this ANI, and Gaba, I respect what you are saying, but what practically do you want from me, or is this ANI just to chastise endlessly over a dead event that lasted only a few mintues? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility" - this frequently repeated claim by IHTS is patently untrue. Here a polite request to discuss an edit is met with "give me a fucking break" and accusations of "wikilawyering" and "edit warring". And of course this edit summary is the very definition of an ad hominem. Not an "accusation", but a completely accurate description. Want more diffs? No, didn't think so. But they're there for anyone who cares to look. There are *many* examples of IHTS initiating incivility in his editing history, most recently against Resolute (talk · contribs) who attempted to offer constructive criticism and was met with a torrent of abuse. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those were an emotional few minutes for me, I felt the editor was edit-warring, and that provoked me to some degree, but you're right overall, the incivilities were mine there, and they weren't justified. But that editor and I were able to discuss just fine, after those emotional minutes of mine. I'm not a perfect robot, and never claimed to be, but it is true that there are extremely few unproviked incivilities from me in my three or so year history. This incident was an extremely complex emotionally challenging time for me, and you found one of extremely few instances. To attempt to take that and generalize or characterize me as misrepresenting myself, is a dirty underhanded trick, MaxBrowne. And you are also the editor how came here and called me "classic narcissist" unprovoked. In our past history you have proven to me that your behavior is one of the most despicabe I've ever experienced from an editor, and you know tha we are enemies because of that history. So you come here as a foe to throw mud and mischaracterize and join a lynch party. Your "torrent of abuse" hyperbole is just that. I tend to think exaggeration and distortion are forms of lies and dishonesty, but apparently you don't. You seem to have gotten away with your "classic narcisst" personal attack without a block, but instead baiting me into a response where an administraor unaccountably decided to block me and not you. Has this emboldened you perhaps, MaxBrowne? And aren't you lucky that readers to this ANI probably have no interest to discover your abusive demeaning bad-faith incivilities chronically made against me in WT:CHESS threads. But I know you'll attempt to throw more mud here, because that's your ilk. But your behaviors seem to be supported there, and here, and that speaks to the abusive environments here, not to anything I've done. You seem to revel in this abusive environment, I don't. As long as the WP is as hostile and uncivil as it is, you'll continue to do well here. And you're happy with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unprovoked? For once and for all, Stop dragging my name into it when you are fighting with other editors. Don't want me involved? Then don't talk about me.

It's good that you acknowledge that your attack on that particular editor was unjustified, but your claim that it was an isolated incident is untrue. Here you tell a new editor to "grow a brain". Your removal of the material was justified, but your uncivil edit summary was not. Here an IP's admittedly poor edit is reverted with the edit summary "dumbass". Please just drop the self-serving claim that you don't initiate incivilities, because you do, and frequently. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you're right again, that editsum was bad form. (Was it to an IP for an edit that could be construed as valdalism? Possibly. But one should give benefit of the doubt, and I failed in that case.) But no otherwise, if you assess unprovoked incivilities by me as "frequent" -- that's just not true. The incivilities thrown at me by you, have been frequent. The godawful threads on WT:CHESS where you chronically and baselessly attack me without end for bad-faith, and your essentially trying to turn a convention discussion into a personal attack page on me, shows your own level of civility, MaxBrowne. So what exactly is your logic here? That I have incidents of unprovoked incivility, so I should be indef-blocked? Where does that put you then? Will you self-indef block for calling me, unprovoked, "classic narcissist"? Or is it that you don't see yourself as initiating incivilities? If the latter, that is complete self-denial. Your editing history shows that you don't have any real care about civility, insulting respected chess editor User:Toccata quarta, for example. And all the unreasonable and out-of-line defaming attacks you've made against me. At least I try to do the right thing on Wikipedia, I'm not perfect. But you exploit the loose environment here, are heavily more uncivil than I have been re unprovoked attacks, such as the personal attack thread at WT:CHESS and your unprovoked "classic narcissist". Do you think you are applying your civility standards equally to yourself?! You once even challenged me that I was not qualified to tell anyone they were being uncivil, if there was any speck of incivility in my record. (How logical is that?!) But now you are accusing of the same, when your own record has plenty of it, and even in this thread. Am I supposed to find some logic or reasonability in your arguments, MaxBrowne?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Want me to find more examples of unprovoked rudeness on your part? Because I can. "Classic narcissist behaviour" was my interpretation of your actions, based on a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) your hypersensitivity to criticism (2) your extreme hostility and argumentativeness over the most petty disputes (3) your flattery towards those who affirm or defend you (4) your absolute inability to see yourself as others see you. I've come across this sort of behaviour frequently on the net and I can recognise it when I see it. Do you not even see the contradiction in an edit summary like "fuck off uncivil asshole"?? Do you think WP:NPA and WP:CIV somehow applies to everyone except you? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you levy that PA again, MaxBrowne. And rub it in for good effect. (Do I have to tell any readers here how abusive?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. If someone were to accuse me of having sex with sheep, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since I know I have no zoophilic tendencies whatsoever. It's so far from the truth that it's laughable. This is the effect that the majority of your insults have on me. On the other hand, if someone were to call me a loser who spends way too much time on the computer, that would carry a lot more sting, because it's much closer to the truth. If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. If I'm totally wrong about this, maybe you could do something to correct that mis-impression? Believe me, I would love to be proved wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason we haven't indefinitely blocked Ihardlythinkso yet? Since 2012, all I've seen him do is jump into one raging dispute after the next and exhibit a level of IDIDNTHEARTHAT which a deaf person would find difficult to replicate. He seems to believe that NPA doesn't apply to him, as demonstrated above, and gets all up in arms if anyone dares to question anything he does. The headaches Ihardlythinkso has caused are way out of proportion to any good contributions he makes, and have wasted a tremendous number of man-hours from people who have to intervene and deal with the abuse he hurls at anyone and everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Northern, I'm having hard time even imagining or conceiving that any paragraph could compete with your above paragraph, for being right-out-of-the-playbook for the infamous mob and pitch-fork generation for the equally infamous lynching that this board is noted for. (I mean, your paragraph is so iconic, it seems like a copy/paste right out of such a playbook. Cookie-cutter parody even.) The thing is, I don't think that occurs to you, because you are so like a pig in mud here, and that is the accepted cultural norm of this venue. (So, you have no embarrassment whatever for participating as you do, since you know your mud flinging, and torch-waving, will be accepted by other editors who over time have somehow come to accept and call normal this cesspool environment that is a magnet for peanut gallery abuse and drive-by incivilities [and digs, and lies, and smears, and BS]. Because anything goes here. And you have no shame for that. [Wow! I don't know what else to say. It seems right out of a comic book to me, but it is the reality, for so-called adults, "some of whom are partially educated" {George Carlin}, at Wikipedia!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That, right there, is probably the best example of someone failing to get the point that you'll ever see. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't done, Mr. Basalisk. And your reference to a "point", is BS. (It's a call for a lynching, plain and clear. With shot-gun unsupported condescensions thrown in to dress it up. Can you summarize the "point" you're seeing to be there, Basalisk? Let's see your summary sentence of said "point". It is criticism and condesension. Mud slinging without a venue to back up what one says. So a free-for all digs and insults and accuses session. Pure cesspool stuff. And I'm supposed to methodically address said editor's concerns? In this venue? When he only wants my head on a pike? You like the tenor here to be one of free-for-all abusiveness, and if I don't receive the abuse like I'm "supposed to", then you have more attacks, re "IDHT". Not buying it, Basalisk. I think your thinking is confused and purpose-driven. You want no reasonable result, or you wound't have rejected the personal offer I made to you earlier. (You're complaining, I thought, about swearing. I offered to stop swearing in any situation on the WP, if you would only leave me alone and stop harassing, ever since you introduced your self when I criticized your RfA nominator. You ignored that proposal. So how is it that you think you don't have unclean hands and unclean intentions here, Basalisk? (BTW, you give me a headache. Are you happy about that? Serve your purpose? Joy joy joy?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For a long time, I've known you to be an enemy toward me Northern, because I pinched your nerve for calling me a "12-year-old" in a bogus ANI that you closed, where I conducted myself as professionally as I could endeavor dealing with all the mud-throwing there. Because I went to your Talk and civilly objected to your comment "12-year-old", your response was to re-open the ANI on that basis, and you encouraged any admin to come in and block me. (That shows complete and emotionally-driven revenge, Northern, and how would that in any way possible be behavior consistent with WP:ADMINACCT or becoming of admin. Instead it shows to me complete abuse of your power as admin, and a disregard for "behavior at a higher standeard" as though that is a joke. You also kidded and joked and ridiculed me then, at your Talk, with your buddy and notoriously abusive admin Toddst1. Total unbecoming of admins. But you feel you have free license to do, because your admin badge is for life, and admins are seldom dysysopped here, and editors are under the abusive thumbs of admins like you, and you revel in that arrangement. I've not the first to claim the environment with admins of your ilk is corrupted and uncorrectabe, because said admins bar change through protecting their statuses, but surely "admin for life" is a corrupt concept to begin with, and fosters the kind of abuse of power you show so unembarrassingly. You're impressive Northern, as a model case of revenge-driven grudge-driven admin, doing what you can to fulfill those grudges, when opportunity arises. And many opportunities can arise, because any editor can open an ANI thread at any time on any basis, and then the doors open to this free-for-all mud throwing and torch-waving to service said grudges. A wonderfully civilized environment. You're part of what makes that environment tick. And you're proud of that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect it might have something to do with the 23,000 / 68% mainspace edits. The goal is to produce an encyclopedia, right?

I'm the first to admit it would be great if we actually had civility policy rather than a civility meme. Somewhere up there I'm accused of tunnel vision -- to the contrary I'm going to assert I have forest vision, and I just don't understand how someone can legitimately draw a line in the sand here and say that one editor's 8 meter "narcissistic diva" tree is okay but another's 9 meter "cesspool / rhetoric question" tree is block worthy -- even assuming we all agree as to measure the height of the tree. NE Ent 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See again the part about continuing personal attacks following being warned that further personal attacks will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, it's not enough to make an ordered list of words and draw a line between the ones that are just-barely-OK and the ones that are just-barely-unacceptable. The context matters. Two people might use the same phrase, but in one case have a reasonable basis for it and in the other case be lashing out without any real justification. You have to ask yourself: Does this person have a good reason for using this phrase? Do other reasonable users agree? Are they speaking with some specificity or as part of a broad pattern of personalizing disputes? In this case I think the answers to these questions are clear and focusing only on language itself (apart from context) misses most of the picture. --Amble (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people just don't get along and it's best for them to simply stay away from each other. In case someone decides that's the case here and proposes an interaction ban between IHTS and Quale, MaxBrowne, Bushranger, Basalisk and The Blade of the Northern Lights, I want to make sure that we check various talk pages and add Malleus, Drmies, Eric Corbett, Sjakkalle, Dennis Brown and, of course, me. That covers the people baiting/attacking/wiki-copping/whatever against IHTS according to IHTS on my talk page. I'm certain there are more hiding out there on various user talk pages/article talk pages/ANI/etc. At some point I have to wonder how many people we can reasonably expect to simply steer clear of one individual before we decide a civility block is in order. A glance at IHTS's talk page seems to show that a 24 hour block for personal attacks generated more personal attacks, with only the slightest bits of light peeking through. Personally, it seems to me that the ratio of light to heat in this case has been appallingly low for far too long. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why he should be blocked. If he repeatedly blanked pages, repeatedly Uses Vulgar language, and when he gets blocked, gives more Personal threats, he is obviously WP:NOTHERE. I feel we should just block or ban him, as he goes and tries to attack with WP:THROW. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 01:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any particular course of action with respect to this editor. It should be obvious that we're not friends, but I still think WP:NOTHERE is unfair. I think WP:NOTNOTHERE applies here, specifically the section which reads: "Difficulty in good faith, with conduct norms - A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. While these can lead to warnings, blocks or even bans in some cases, failure to adapt to a norm is not, by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively." MaxBrowne (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While WP:NOTHERE may not be applicable, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:IDHT are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea that I'm some sworn enemy of Ihardlythinkso is a fantasy which exists only in his head. For the last year and 3 months I've barely been involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia, and on those rare occasions I've deviated from my article work I haven't really encountered him at all (except once when he started flinging mud at me in front of ArbCom, which doesn't especially trouble me). The articles I've worked on have also given me a fresh perspective on a lot of things, not the least of which is the definition of "abuse" (on a personal level I find it upsetting when people bandy it about so freely, for reasons that should be fairly obvious). I have paid some attention to what's happening around here, though, and I completely stand by every word I said above. If the list of people Ihardlythinkso doesn't get along with is the size of the one SummerPhD provides above, and Ihardlythinkso is the common denominator in all of them, it's a sign that the problem may be fairly one-sided; in addition to agreeing with The Bushranger that CIVIL and NPA seem applicable, see WP:All socks for a good summary of Ihardlythinkso's attitude. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So (per WP:All socks) being on the receiving end of a wiki lynch mob is like being denied credit by multiple agencies? Good analogy! Equifax loses 18.6 million lawsuit NE Ent 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you understand my point; if you can't get along with everyone else, there comes a point where you have to consider that you're the problem. I had to do this myself in real life, as indeed the way my brain functions (or doesn't, as the case may be) is the source of a lot of aggravation for people who interact with me. Over the years I've worked extremely hard at adjusting my communication style, and while I'm far from perfect you'd barely recognize my social skills given what they once were. I could have patently refused to accept that I'm ever the problem, but if I did that I would have likely been arrested for breach of peace many years ago (I get rather riled up over certain sporting events, it's been an enormous struggle to get that under control). Same basic issue here; if Ihardlythinkso rejects all responsibility for the problems above, as he has been before, the problems which are documented here are only going to get worse and create a massive timesink. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Block

• Support blocking, per the discussion above. And I'll third the notion that I don't appreciate my name being dragged up all over WP in disputes I have no part in. I've been referenced something like 15 times by IHTS in the last week, along with insults and accusations of bad faith. I've intentionally stayed away from his page and this thread to let others comment, and yet I'm still getting attacked. My very first involvement with IHTS was met with a stream of personal attacks which have never ended. This was followed by intentional obstruction, edit warring, and all manner of other issues, which completely prevented any hope of collaboration. IHTS is the first editor for whom I ever asked for an interaction ban in years of editing. I'm having trouble finding any editor with whom he's able to work pleasantly; none so far have commented. If he's unable to work with anyone, then he doesn't belong on a collaborative project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport, reluctantly. As IHTS has now gone from egreious personal attacks to creating from whole cloth statements that were not made or implied, I have to conclude that either they are not interested in editing collaborately or collegially, or are incapable of doing so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (enthusiastically). He's already been blocked, didn't seem to help. Maybe we should try something else. NE Ent 11:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NE, I trust you since you are a reasonable man and not a former enemy drawn to this ANI looking for blood. What do you like to see different from me. Please be specific. I guarantee you'll get it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first thing should probably be to stop expecting Wikipedia to be rational, fair, coherent, consistent, or anything like that. Secondly, if you find contributing to Wikipedia isn't enjoyable, I'd log off until such time (if ever) you find that it might be. Beyond that, it would depend on what specific goals you have moving forward. NE Ent 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - During his block, he continued to make personal attacks (which he will tell you were justified/weren't personal attacks/were just payback/aren't as bad as the attacks he's endured/etc.). What would you suggest? Perhaps an interaction ban with an extensive and growing list of editors? "Something else" is not a suggestion. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I've had no contact in any time recent, or need to contact, and no wish to contact, any of the complaining editors in this ANI. The only contact there's been between me and the complaining editors at this ANI in any time recent, stems from this ANI itself. And 100% of the responses I've given to the complaining editors in this ANI have been turned around and used against me by them, as "fresh" complaint. That is a trick and a trap, since the ANI itself is being used as bait for responses, and no responses were possible, that wouldn't be turned around. That is because all the complaining editors here are former enemies, holding grudges. I wish for no enemies, and no enemy relationships, that is why I have avoided contact with all these editors when the interactions turned sour. But it is a reality that enemies exist, and they are drawn to an ANI to try to find reason to harm, generating it in the ANI itself, since past contacts with them had been dried up and dead. This is a trick and a trap. There is also plenty of WP:STICK present which is the basis of it all. I don't carry any stick, and I don't taunt or bait anyone intentionally, ever. I have just wanted to be left alone by these editors. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you just want to be left alone, why did you drag my name into a dispute that I was not involved in on your talk page? Keep in mind that I'm not the first person you've done this to. Northern Antarctica (₵) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. How many more second chances is he going to get? He has been reported to ANI for incivility on several occasions. He has a chronic, long term problem complying with the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies, and despite repeated warnings has shown no willingness whatsoever to address this issue. Rather, he has amplified his personal attacks recently, notably on this very thread, because he knows he can do this with no real consequences. What is the point of having a civility policy if people can continuously violate it over several years without so much as a reprimand? My patience with this editor is exhausted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support He is very uncivil. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Undecided/Mild Oppose Good contributor, especially towards WT:CHESS. If he prefers to concentrate on Shogi, Xianqqi and Chess Variants in future then that's fine too. He's given at least a small amount of leeway in admitting that maybe, just maybe, he may not have handled things perfectly. But if nothing else comes out of this rather sordid process, I hope he will at least stop dredging up old conflicts every time he has a disagreement with another editor. It's really not nice to drag someone else's name into a conflict that they had nothing to do with. Please stop it! If nothing else comes out of this process, please at least take this on board! Seriously! As for past incidents between Toccata and me, we've long since moved on. So should you, IHTS. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC) *Edit:Reluctant Support: While the chess WikiProject needs more active participants, IHTS is a net negative for the project due to (1) numerous personal attacks (2) tendency to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation (3) holding on to personal grudges and constantly resurrecting them, even in unrelated discussions (4) utter unwillingness to address any of these issues. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the part about dragging non-participant names into a discussion, but this section is about IHTS, not SummerPhd. NE Ent 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• We have already noted that IHTS has been known to drag non-participant names into a discussion. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I feel IHTS is trying to make a last ditch effort to save himself from the tightening trap. To much incivility is to much incivility. Maybe we could only have him be able to edit chess related articles as a "Compromise" Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of keeping the rhetoric at a reasonable level, let's avoid using terms like "noose" here. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK then, does this phrase look better(Noose to trap)? Thanks for the heads up. 00:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I've got to say that although I'm highly critical of Ihardlythinkso I'm not really thrilled with some of the inflammatory choice of words on both sides; just as a reminder, this is what a lynching and a noose really look like, a discussion at ANI is neither of these things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the block caused Ihardlythinkso to vent, the venting continued after the block ended, and some of the things being used as a reason for a second block are the result of this venting. It's bad form to block for venting. @IHTS, please try to calm down. Cardamon (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - IHTS has a long history of venting, was blocked for venting and vented some more. Yes, it would be a bad idea to block for a venting event. It is, however, very disruptive when there's virtually no end to the venting and the venting consists of a steady stream of personal attacks aimed at anyone who dares to mention the personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Cardamon. I also don't see enough "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy" to justify an indef here. Is there evidence of, say, socking? That might change my mind. I still believe in the concept of "escalating blocks" unless it's perfectly obvious that an indef is warranted, and that an indef here in neither necessary nor in line with that. Topic bans can be issued if they are truly needed. Doc talk 03:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cardamon, Doc, HiaB, et al.; and mindful of The Blade's observations about inflammatory word choices on both sides. John 8:7 comes, surprisingly, to my godless mind. Writegeist (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here rises to the level of another block. The first one strikes me as having been a borderline call. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The big problem that led to this ANI thread was, obviously, the blanking. You can call that a diva-ish move, if you like; it certainly was disruptive but it's been handled. More useful than a block (which would deprive us of Ihardlythinkso's article contributions, that a few editors have pointed out are useful) is a restriction, a kind of ad-hoc restriction, like "no venting outside of your own talk page". Or, if an admin thinks some vent veers into NPA territory (and I would include "dragging" others into disputes, as examples of something or just to tirritate), a block (but not an indefinite).

  I am very mindful of what Ihardlythinkso did on Summer's talk page for the longest time, and I was on the verge, more than once, of blocking for it; the only reasons I didn't was that a. I may be a bit of a coward and b. I wasn't looking forward to having to defend myself from claims of being involved, in these endless rants. Let's keep Ihardlythinkso on a leash, if you will, and let's keep talking. They are not unreasonable, even if they seem to get pretty close to it sometimes. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So kind of like WP:ROPE as in its his last chance? Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 21:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:A50000 at Soviet Union

The only edits that A50000 (talk · contribs) has performed this year have been to repeatedly edit war over the labeling of the subject of Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as either a "socialist state" (the current form) or as a "communist state" (the form he keeps restoring) [49] [50] [51]. After the March 20 (at least in my timezone) edit, I informed him on his talk page that he should raise the issue on the talk page but he seems to have ignored that and made another edit in the past 24 hours to restore his preferred version. These have been his only actions on Wikipedia in what is essentially a year, and he has been blocked for disrupting articles relating to communism and socialism in the past. He only seems to respond in the edit summaries and has apparently paid no heed to the message that I left him on his user talk page. Based on this current disruption and past disruption, I believe that A50000 should be topic banned from topics relating to communism, broadly construed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is a single-purpose account, whose purpose I cannot clearly discern (their comments in edit summaries and on talk pages are a bit cryptic, though one gets a clear-enough hint here and here) but whose methods are not acceptable. Sources, if they are ever provided, are terrible, and many of the talk page comments (like this) combine borderline trolling with personal attacks. A topic ban is a possibility, but given the soapboxy, unsourced, disruptive, edit-warriorlike edits made by this user, an indefinte block (not infinite, of course) is the best option. I'd love to hear some more opinions, but that's what I think I'm going to do unless I am swayed otherwise. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  I was trying to be generous with my proposal, but an indef block probably would serve the same purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yep. "Problem" is, they stopped editing. Let's keep this in the backs of our minds. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  You spoke too soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can't block for a remark like that on a talk page. If it moves into article space that's different. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples:

• DYK nomination for Tripedalia cystophora
• DYK nomination for Euglossa dilemma
• AfadsBad's talk page My name and reputation gets dragged into a discussion where the subject is something else entirely. User HalfGig was also harassed and stopped editing after this incident.
• AfadsBad's talk page again I ask for guidance on my errors but do not receive it.

The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar". Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I am not going to read all this. "Underemployed scholar?" Lol.

Anyway, Cwmhiraeth cannot accurately place information in Wikipedia, and her level of knowledge is frequently too low to communicate what is wrong to her, like why C4 and CAM photosynthesis have different names. Every article of hers has made up information, inaccurate information, random pieces of information that give undue weight to what she has added, and plagiarism. Her main sources are usually too old, and she cannot overcome the problems of the disagreements between 1963 taxomony books and advances in modern biochemistry. She does not repair articles when she can understand what is wrong, and continues adding the same errors.

Go ahead, check her articles against their sources. "Tropical Southern Ocean," "no cacti have leaves," "CAM and C4 photosynthesis are identical," the sea disaster corrected after it was off the main page.

Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, it is surprising that Wikipedia editors and admins would fight to keep 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia with made up science and taxonomies in them and want to continue adding them.

WikiCup Ahoy! And onward Essjay! Or whatever his name was, he has good company with WikiScholar Cwmhiraeth. Her articles are passed and passed to the main page based on the strength of her having written so many, she doesn't claim expertise, but Wikipedia editorial superiority over the "underemployed scholar." Expertise exhibited. Taxonomy for Dummies, anyone?

Correcting bad science is harassment? So what is making up 1300+ main page articles for probably millions of hits, replacement of accurate science in Google search results with fantasy taxonomies, and making a mockery of an encyclopedia?

And Colonel Henry demanding that intrusive liquid metasediments intruding imaginary rocks is a Good Article?

You don't need experts, just qualified ninth graders.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates WP:NPA. However frustrated you might be with a user, do not under any circumstances patronize him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of AfadsBad's critiques of DYK science content being very well founded. Mind you, AN/I probably is hardly the right venue for that discussion. (I'd suggest Wikipedia:Editor review or an WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.

As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for Desert and this is the response I got, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" The chunks of text I removed was misinformation; it is not true that all cactic don't have leaves, and no sources said that. I removed the misinformation about C4 plants being just like CAM plants, and Cwmhiraeth reverted the removal and claimed that it was true, again. And, in addition, also claimed that this information was sourced. She does not listen to corrections, and the only reason she is paying attention now is because of her claims, and now yours, about my "shitty way of bringing things up." Does any one on Wikipedia care that the content is wrong? I tried just stating that it was wrong. I was insulted and scolded as if I was an incompetent child interfering with someone's owned article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.

The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.

I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

  I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."

If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her wikihounding at the project, and the offsite harassment. Correcting an error or discussing an error is one thing...but AfadsBad's behavior, especially the counterproductive incessantly-repeated ranting and attempts to drive away editors (WP:CTDAPE), is downright bullying and abusive. I would propose some sanction also if AfadsBad keeps rehashing the same argument--it's old, it's tiresome-- she's said over five times and is older than two months (i.e. water under the bridge)--since most of her complaints have been repeated to anyone who would listen and happened last year (rehashing old shit is bad form to begin with...rehashing it as an attack is disruptive and a waste of anyone's time).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor and the commentary I saw at Cas Liber's page and User:AfadsBad as it appears today suggests a level of personal attacks that is over the top. This sort of thing is unacceptable; people can disagree over content without behaving like this. Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced info about relatives

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

---

Ongoing problems with User:Bcd3174 (previously known as "Charlescorm") who has a history of promotional editing and is repeatedly adding unsourced information to List of Lebanese by net worth. In particular he is repeatedly adding information about his (dead) relatives (i.e. Charles Corm) [52][53][54][55][56], despite it being repeatedly removed by myself and other editors. I stumbled across List of Lebanese by net worth, found the information to be unsourced and very suspect and have attempted to improve it. Bcd3174 seems unwilling to accept that the information there needs to (at least) be verifiable. They have been warned on a number of occasions on their Talk page[57] and the issues have been repeatedly explained on the article's Talk page but their behaviour hasn't subsequently changed at all. It's perplexing! Sionk (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Sionk's concerns; the editor is essentially a single purpose account editing articles related to Charles Corm, and despite many requests to read and adhere to WP:V and WP:RS, and advice concerning original research in articles, they don't seem to quite understand that it is not ok to add unsourced information. Maybe more advice and pointers from other editors who have been uninvolved with them before could make them understand what the issue is. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

--Bcd3174 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)This is BS! I spent ages researching and editing the article of "Richest Lebanese in the world". I have spent ages researching who are really the richest Lebanese in the world. It so happens that my GRANDFATHER was one (if not THE one!) of the richest men in Lebanon. After passing away, his wealth was divided among his 2 sons (my father and uncle). Ask anybody Lebanese about the Corm family and they will tell you that we are billionaires (not that I care that much at all; there are much more important things in life than money; this article just happens to cover THAT topic). So what?! Am I supposed to be ashamed to have a rich family? Am I supposed to apologize to Sionk and Bonadea who know NOTHING about Lebanese wealth (actually integrating in the list the names of people who don't even exist! I.e. Maya Papaya and co...)?! Maybe they just can't reconcile the fact that I am an honest and meticulous editor but also the son of a billionaire?! To show my good faith, I sent them the following message a few days ago: @Bonadea and Sionk. As I messaged you both, can we please bury the hatchet. We are NOT enemies and I harbor no other intention than making this list as ACCURATE as possible (just like you)! That means that I apologize for past coarse language. It was only a reaction to having all my hard work deleted under really lame arguments (with all due respect). And you should appreciate the (educated) work I put into this page. I happen to know Lebanese wealth inside out. It doesn't work according to Forbes lists or other BS lists that are known to be notoriously incomplete (when not downright WRONG). There are AT LEAST 5 Lebanese billionaires living in Africa that are not included in Forbes and co. nor the list I compiled. Why? Because these guys' fortune, well above 1 billion USD, is unknown. It could be 1, it could be 10. Their assets are "undercover". Also, and contrary to you Anglo-Saxon thinking, it is common practice in the Middle East to talk about FAMILIES. Forbes MENA (the regional version of Forbes) recently released its list of "RICHEST" and it was a list of... MENA's RICHEST FAMILIES!!! That's the way it works around here: FAMILY WEALTH! Because nobody, including Forbes (!) and hence I trust you will agree neither of you too, can or will ever be able to breakdown the wealth of individual family members. Again, this is how it works around here and if even FORBES approaches the "issue" that way, I trust that you guys will have the humbleness to respect that approach too. Getting to Corm, he was the exclusive agent of Ford Motor Cars for the entire Middle East. Everybody in Lebanon knows the Corms are worth billions. But they are a discreet family who have no interest in being in Forbes (which in turn has no way of measuring their fortune hence does not list them). Now either you want to make this page ACCURATE AND FAIR, either you want to just propagate s* intelligence and information, creating a snowball effect that just reinforces Forbes and co. s* lists. Also Bonadea and with all due respect, your date of death logic is BS! Either you consider a man dead and hence don't include him or his family in the list either you do (again, please read above my part on FAMILY WEALTH). But I don't think it is your prerogative to decide what length of death is acceptable or not! If you insist in removing Corm, then you MUST remove Safra and Hayek. If you don't, you have no consistency. And consistency is the key to credibility. And credibility is EXACTLY what Wikipedia lacks. So if your plan is to KILL Wikipedia (whose death I am convinced is around the corner as nobody I know trusts a word coming from Wikipedia, they just use it as a quick info "fix" on subjects of little importance to them), continue applying DOUBLE STANDARDS the way you do. I just HATE double standards. They are just about the biggest impediments to OBJECTIVE reporting. Over and out...

Their reaction to this kind message and invitation to COOPERATE with me was to simply REPORT me on this page! Again, I am NOT going to apologize or retract because I am working on a list where one of the listees happens to be my grandfather! And if you force me to do so, you (I don't even know who I am talking to) would be going AGAINST every single principle Wikipedia stands for! Over and out...'

It is really very simple. There is a single standard: All information must be sourced. Information that is not sourced can be challenged. When unsourced information is challenged, the burden of proof rests on the person who wants to add the information. Once again: the fact that "everybody in [group x]" knows something is not a source. Nobody is attacking you, nobody is asking for an apology from you. We are only asking for sources.

In addition, the reason sionk added this report here was not your message (which I would not have described as "kind", and which ascribed incorrect characteristics to me - I am not Anglo-Saxon) but the fact that you have persisted in restoring your ancestor to the page, without waiting for consensus on the talk page, and without reliable sources. You have been cut a lot of slack, and treated with a lot of courtesy despite not always being quite civil yourself [58], [59] (I'm not sure whether your characterisation of me as "nothing but rude, aggressive and conceited towards [you]" refers to this, this, or this). --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

--Bcd3174 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)If I was ever rude, I truly APOLOGIZE. It was never my intention. Please read my comments above. I extend to you all a hand of PEACE so that we collaborate instead of fighting. I have started my hunt for sources for this article. Not ONLY for my grandfather but for ALL the people on that list. Just give me some time and help out IF you want to make this page relevant and by extension Wikipedia a trusted source of information.

--Bcd3174 10:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)@Bonadea and @Sionk. Let us then seek dispute resolution since you seem on a mission to DELETE whatever I post, whether backed by sources of not. This is OBVIOUSLY personal and personal differences have no room on Wikipedia! You should know that better than me...

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

User:IPadPerson tagging articles for problems that do not exist

A while ago I began to notice IPadPerson (talk · contribs) tagging articles for problems that don't exist. For example: BLP Sources on an article with 113 sources at the time, [60], [61]. I left them a talk page note here, March 10th.

After that note, it continued: Lead too short on an article with no other information besides the one-line lead, [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

I asked them once again to knock it off (here, March 23) and like many other attempts at contacting them, they ignored the message and continued on: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].

IPadPerson has had many incivility problems in the past, surrounded by issues of failing to respond to any user outside of one or two occasions (including when they were blocked for their incivility and requested an immediate unblock, all of a sudden having a ton to say). So it comes as no surprise to me that they've ignored my first two warnings. But this behavior of tagging articles for problems that aren't obvious or don't exist isn't beneficial to the project whatsoever. Gloss • talk 17:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like textbook drive-by tagging, which I agree can be annoying. Connormah (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

While IPadPerson seems to have improved on civility, the tags placed don't seem to have been given much thought. Is it just me, or did the block perhaps prompt responses to other users on talk page? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Side comment: Most tagging is drive-by tagging in the sense that it is the height of laziness on the part of the editor leaving a tag. If there is a problem they have noticed, they should take action to FIX or at least IDENTIFY the problem. Most tags do not articulate what the problem is, and the tags are left as a substitute for actual work that can help solve the problem. Note: the worst offenders are some of the highest edit count "leaders" of wikipedia--the ones who make multiple edits per minute and have no time to actually consider what they are doing with their edits. Really, a tag is a one-person complaint about an article, sometimes on articles that have thousands of views (meaning none of their predecessors have seen fit to change anything about the article). Furthermore, the public, header level announcement that there is a problem with this article, cumulatively serves to harm the overall look of credibility of Wikipedia. I equate tagging to vandalism on my talk page.

Often, after a tag has been left on an article, other editors use it as an excuse to remove legitimate, valuable content, doing greater damage to Wikipedia's archive of knowledge.

So in regard to this editor, yes their edits are junk, but virtually all taggers leave junk. The entire concept should be scrapped. Trackinfo (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As much as I don't think the tags IPadPerson placed were needed, it doesn't seem appropriate to call someone's edits "junk". Regarding "laziness", I can see how tagging articles can be seen as lazy, but sometimes they are done when the user doesn't in that moment have the time to fix the issue himself/herself. For example, placing a "needs additional citations" tag can help while the editor searches for sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To further show the user's unwillingness to cooperate, or even discuss... they've removed my previous warnings and the ANI notice (see here) Gloss • talk 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

While removing a message from one's own talk page is technically a sign indicating the user acknowledges it, in IPadPerson's case it would've been much more beneficial to at least reply first. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The least that IPadPerson can do is recognize that there is a problem with their edits. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if more of a "I don't understand what my faults are" or a "I don't have any faults- you're just making this up" case..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

More like the latter. I randomly chose (no, just kidding). Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Any more opinions would be helpful. I honestly think this user will not respond with another warning and the only way to get the message across to them is to issue a block. Gloss • talk 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Any admins for a punitive-only block that might or might not help? Honestly, it looks like one of the few options from here. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Gloss • talk 02:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And on another note: [81].. Gloss • talk 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Reporting User:Lighthouse01

Lighthouse01 (talk · contribs) is currently involved in an edit war on Serbo-Croatian, and is making POV edits (of the usual kind, in this article). I had a look at their editing history and it seems that they've been making similar edits to other articles, like [82]. This seems like WP:OWN-like behaviour, which is confirmed by these edit, in which they made rather offensive and racist remarks (in the edit summary in the first): [83],[84]. CodeCat (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This also looks like a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. I'm worried that this editor is here with a pretty strong nationalist agenda that is not going to allow them to properly collaborate with other editors. -- Atama頭 20:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, people for thinking that. Actually my country is surrounded by nationalists, and my edits seem nationalistic. But they're not. Lighthouse01 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The user tried to delete this report [85] (note the edit summary), and has put more personal attacks on their talk page [86]. They also contacted me on my talk page, which was civil at least, but rather hypocritical considering the edit summaries they've been leaving. I find their behaviour very contradictory to be sure... they apologise while spewing insults and personal attacks elsewhere. CodeCat (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Three-admin panel requested for closure of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, when the discussion has run.

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Such a move request has been made in the past, and has frequently engendered very spirited discussion. The last time such a discussion went for the full discussion period, it was closed contentiously by a non-admin, leading to an equally contentious move review. In order to head off any shenanigans, I would like to request that a panel of three completely neutral and uninvolved admins (i.e. not having participated in the conduct or closing of any of the previous discussions) convene to monitor this discussion, make sure that it does not veer off-topic, and close it either at the end of seven days (if no extension is sought) or at the end of fourteen days (if an extension is sought). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to close it either by myself or as part of a 3-admin panel. I have no particular interest in the article, other than being a voting-eligible US citizen.--v/r - TP 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks - do you want to see if you can find the other two, or wait for more volunteers? bd2412 T 20:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The RM just opened today so there is no hurry. We can wait to see who volunteers.--v/r - TP 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd feel comfortable being a member of the 3-admin closing panel. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. One to go. The discussion seems to be quite civil this time around, and I hope it will stay that way, but it is worth keeping an eye on just in case. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Further to this suggestion of a panel to close this move request - which I support and thank User: BD2412 for thinking of it - I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one female administrator involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of a "maiden" name vs a surname, which is something that might benefit from a more gender-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose gender I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. Thanks Tvoz/talk 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Female administrator" and "closing a move request" immediately brings User:BrownHairedGirl to mind. We often disagree, but she is fair, well-experienced, and has no lack of spine. bd2412 T 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Tvoz/talk 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one administrator with the last name "Clinton" involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of "Clinton", which is something that might benefit from a more "Clinton"-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose last name I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe BHG is a Clinton. But really, do people with a name really understand it? And it someone in the family is close enough to this, would they not be biased by their existing beliefs which may not reflect what our policies are? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of the foregoing, and today's date, I would like all of the administrators participating in the closing panel to affirm that they are not 1) Hillary Clinton; 2) Bill Clinton; 3) any member of the Clinton family; or 4) any member of the Rodham family. However, George Clinton is okay. bd2412 T 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But what if they're not Bill Clinton, but rather Bill Clinton? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to User: BD2412's suggestion, I would be happy to volunteer to be one of the 3-admin panel. I will not be available to help until Saturday or Sunday, and hope that would be OK.

I have no particular interest in the outcome, beyond a general concern for respecting established policies.

To the best of my knowledge, I am nor related to any members of the Clinton or Rodham family. I am not now, nor have I ever been, called "Hilary" or "Rodham" or "Clinton", or any permutation or combination thereof, either on wiki or in other contexts. This disqualifies me per CombatWombat42's test, so I will leave it to others to decide whether that black ball is fatal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. The proposal was initiated at 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC), so the time for discussion should end at 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC), unless additional time is requested. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG. Tvoz/talk 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not, have not ever been, nor intend to be in the future, a member of either the Clinton or Rodham family.--v/r - TP 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's inconsistent with this evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You've caught me. I am a distant cousin of theirs. Coincidentally, I am also a distant cousin of yours as well.--v/r - TP 01:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1

Despite by blocked for 48 hours for unspecified reasons ([87]) by User:Fayenatic london, User:Skookum1 continues to make personal attacks. The last month and a half has seen an incredible wave of personal attacks, many against myself. Other more experienced editors advised me not to do anything since it would be a waste to time, so I sat back and observed the Skookum1's attacks continue unabated. Finally I started issuing warnings on his talk page (March 20th, March 21st, March 21st, and March 31st, in hopes of grabbing the attention of an administrator, but so far in vain. People have commented that Skookum1 makes valuable contributions; however, the other editors and I also make valuable contributions to Wikipedia for years now and have done so without violating basic Wikipedia Pillars.

For a sampling of personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" also constitutes a personal attack):

• Against myself: "she's NOT a good editor, she's behaving in a rogue manner, I'll take it up elsewhere, I guess I was just pointing out to you that somebody's sleeping dog didn't really want to stay lying down...." diff
• Against myself: "You don't get how half-informed you are about the FOO people problem ... Your logic throughout all of this has been half-informed ... It's ironic to me that you, as someone on an indigenous high horse often enough, as with how you came at me over the Nevada categories, would in this case wind up pandering to the name-changes brought on by colonialist attitudes/chauvnism towards native nomenclatures..... diff
• Against myself: "Well, if I didn't have to hear the same obstinate, half-informed ideas brought over time and again ... All the things she's bringing forward right now I told her about already, she dismissed them, told me what I thought didn't matter, and that she's entitled to her opinion. What she's really saying is she's determined to underscore her ignorance and has no intentions of learning about the subject matter she's screwing with" diff
• Against myself: "you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories ... start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about." diff
• Against myself: "pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??" diff
• Against myself (accusation w/o proof): "... considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards ... to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do.... Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process." diff

...these go on and on, and I can provide more diffs if need, but to move on to more recent attacks:

• Against User:Maunus and myself: "He was at the time of most if not all, hence the overwrite power he had, which maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour." diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami and myself: "Your attitude has been hostile and contrarian, and you yourself attacked me subtextually during that little game you played with the Shoshone categories, your position there also being against guidelines for category use and harmonizing names with category titles. Kwami's out of line, and this ain't the first time (his little game with the K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke." diff and diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" diff
• Against JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." diff
• Against JorisvS: "Please contain your prejudices ... The subtext of bigotry towards native peoples and their names in all such RMs is both tiresome and disturbing ..." diff
• Against JorisvS: "You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." diff

If anyone wants more examples, I can furnish more.

Skookum1 has frequently accused me of attacking him, but when asked to find concrete proof, could not (User talk:Skookum1#March 2014). The conversation where he incorrectly believes I accused him of racism is located at User talk:Skookum1/Archive 18#Categories on redirects and User talk:Skookum1/Archive 19#December 2013. He accused me of calling his edits to Nevada tribes' categories as "vandalism"; however, I never did. The edit summaries of the edits in question can be found: here and here; they involved removing reservation cats from redirects.

Skookum1 has many conspiracy theories against me, which, frankly, I find disturbing. In truth, I try to avoid him as much as possible in my editing, this AN/I being a major exception. In real life, I work with numerous Native artists from British Columbia, but don't bother writing about them on Wikipedia in the attempt to avoid Skookum1.

This recent barrage of personal attacks has created a toxic environment that does not serve any of us well. Ignoring the problem hasn't helped, and issuing warnings on Skookum1's talk page hasn't achieved anything. These personal attacks need to stop. If there *is* a policy that allows a user to attack anyone they want without any recourse, I would like to hear it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Comment I've had many run-ins with Skookum, though I haven't always been polite either. If I disagree with him on a matter of procedure (for example, when Skookum dislikes the names of articles that follow our naming guidelines, I think it's best to discuss changing the guidelines, rather than making scores of move requests and arguing each of them independently as an exception to the guidelines), then he accuses me of racism, perversion, conspiracy, or other acts of bad faith. I've had good experiences with him too, where he's been reasonable and helpful, but only when (a) I agreed with him, or (b) I was seeking his advice and had no opinion of my own. Skookum has made valuable edits, but not IMO valuable enough to overlook his socially inappropriate behaviour. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• My reasons for blocking are set out on my talk page rather than Skookum1's, User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Skookum1. I have tried to coach this editor, but have not succeeded. Although I chose not to take further enforcement action in his case, I have been warning him (see his talk page) that action is bound to come if he does not change his behaviour, but sadly this has not changed. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • My encounter with Skookum1 was at this recent CfD. I went into it neutral but speaking quite frankly I came away from it with the impression he's here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• This ANI and the threats of it I view as part of an ongoing harassment of attack and obstructionism by Usyvdi on partisan and personal grounds and constitutes an abuse of power; Bushranger made me as a person the target of discussion in that CfD, rather than address the issues or even read my statements, despite support from other editors who were in agreement with me on that issue. Usyvdi has partisan motivations here and is abusing her power as an admin on behalf of that agenda, and has issued NPA warnings one-sidedly while ignoring those made against me by herself, Kwami, JorisV, Maunus and others, and also tolerating an obvious campaign of oppositionism in various RMs and other discussions. Her own condescensions and derisions toward me are a matter of record and constitute harassment on behalf a particular agenda and some kind of personal resentment that seem to have begun quite a while ago; this is all highly unCIVIL and AGF and her own NPAs against me put her assault on me in a highly hypocritical context. Others respect me, and actually are capable of reading my posts instead of complaining that don't have time or ability to read so-called "walls of text"; many patronizing comments by her and her colleagues at NCL are staple fare in various RMs, and her refusal to discuss her inconsistency on various matters pertaining to guidelines and other matters. This is a nuisance an ANI and I believe it is her conduct, not mine, that should be on the table and her adminship reviewed - and revoked.

She denies saying things to me which I know she said and must be hidden in page histories somewhere, which I will take the time to dig out because of this ANI; she has also deleted my attempt to broach an important issue where she is in conflict with her own actions, and added the extremely NPA edit comment "Get a life!". she has refused discussion and met important questions with silence. The one-sided nature of her conflated NPA accounts completely belies the ongoing derision and opposition and insults of herself and others who are defenders of the extremely flawed guideline WP:NCL.

This is all a waste of time and just more harassment, and I believe part of a joint campaign to drive me by that particular faction to drive me from Wikipedia or have me blocked so as to muzzle my critiques of their actions and faulty guidelines and questionable behaviour. It is completely one-sided and highly partisan in nature and highly immature overall; playing wiki-cop when she herself is no one to talk is, quite frankly, a bore. I have been doing useful work while putting up with harassment, evasion, derision and more; this ANI is just more procedural obstructionism and hostility towards my editing activities and is highly questionable in the extreme. This ANI should be about her, and her erstwhile allies against me, not about me. I have work to do and that life to lead that she told me to go get; Wikipedia is becoming more and more about procedure and protocol that honest work on articles and seems increasingly smaller and smaller pool full of narrower and narrower minds invested with more and more power....and pompous behaviour. Yes, I am voluble but I am articulate and respected by many editors despite all the derision and denunciation.

This ANI is a nuisance ANI and partisan harassment and IMO nothing more; conflations of critiques of actions and guidelines are being misportrayed as NPA when much more explicit and vicious personality attacks and sundry derisions go unaddresszed, and are a tiresome bore at countless RMs and also that CfD that Bushranger interloped on by attacking me for my writing style without addressing content and support votes; that CfD and its predecessor and t he RMs preceding it all need revisiting, perhaps mediation or Arbcom or wherever, and NCL needs an RfC to address its many inadequacies. The use of adminship on behalf of a partisan alliance hostile towards me is highly questionable and should be being reviewed by all the adminship, not just the claque of those who recite TLDR as it it were a guideline and not an excuse to not listen or address important issues and incorrect claims which cannot be put in terse form.

The presumptuous behaviour and comments towards me by her and other admins who presume to speak for "the community" or as "we", as JorisV has done and others allied to Uysvdi is also a matter of record, as are incantations of guidelines without reference to the wider context of the rest of guidelines; the use of "fanatic" is an apt discussion of the WP:DUCK behaviour of those concerned, and was conflated into NPA by hypersensitivity and an obvious laager mentality by those who maintain that NCL has primacy over all other guidelines. Yet despite even more virulent NPAs against me, I am the one being attacked and now officially harassed....I will post a link or two later to longer replies and comments about the decay in commonsense and civility at Wikipedia in recent times, including a reply to her on her pre-ANI warning to me last night, which I withheld for review until today.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator. I ignored your personal attacks for weeks; however, they did not abate, so I gave giving you warnings for your personal attacks (which I would have no cause to do, if you would simply stop creating personal attacks). An AN/i is not a personal attack; having a different opinion is not a personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • how bizarre but also typical of you, in all your conflations of my points about issues and guidelines and ongoing conduct and often rank dishonesty into alleged NPA status. "having a different opinion is not a personal attack" is completely contrary to how you have been treating my "different opinions" (which are 90% of the time or more directly about citable facts, other precedents and various guidelines other than the one being tub-thumped repetitively and out of context; I present facts, you claim they are only opinion while continuing to defend ORIGINALRESEARCH in NCL and also in NCET, and you deride my presentation of this with open derision and uncivil commentary on a regular basis, though not as harshly as the many AGFs and NPAs from your NCL colleagues which you also turn a blind eye to.

I am glad you are not an admin; I have seen your overwrite redirects and other things which led me to believe that; your pompousness and back-handed attitude towards my attempts to discuss guidelines and such matters as the "FOO people" problem and category redirects has been noxious and insulting. Your ANI is as hypocritical as much of your other conduct and words; this is a waste of time and is just more obstructionism and and a way to keep from answering to issues and RMs and to seek official muzzling of me to keep me from critiquing the NCL agenda and your own inconsistent positions on many matters. I will find that lengthy derision you launched at me re the category redirects which you deny making, as it was competely an NPA, being insulting and also somewhat racist towards me as a non-indigenous person.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1 is passionate about what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. While Skookum1 could have picked less inflammatory words I can understand his frustration when faced with a group of editors who don't understand what the guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages)) say, here and here and here. Faced with that sort of remark and the belief by this group of editors that "one size fits all" ("Foo people: and "Foo language") even when this leads to article titles that violates Wikipedia:No original research it is no wonder that he tends to get frustrated. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a single monolithic group of editors. Over years now, I've dealt with the exact same situation, have been equally frustrated, but read and am familiar with the current iteration of both conventions, discuss the issues on the talk pages of those conventions, and don't resort to personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Given there's established consensus to violate WP:NOR in the name of WP:MOS when it comes to article titles in certain other parts of the encyclopedia, that ship sailed long ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Me, too

In this diff today, Skookum1 attributes all kinds of unspecified bad intent to me and others. This is uncalled for. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez, yet more conflation and distortion claiming to be NPA when really it is evasion of the gist of your opposition, which is obstructionist and not about guidelines or real-world usage, but only a defence of your claim that the title in question is ambiguous, which it is NOT and you ignore both guidelines and cites/stats produced by entrenching the belief that it IS ambiguous, despite being no different from Coquitlam, Nanaimo and other town items that share a name with now-archaic usages;WP:CSG#Places is very clear about such issues but you muddy the waters despite proof that the District of Saanich is the primary usage in the course of justifying ignoring guidelines that I am acting under the mandate of, and with consensus from other WPCANADA editors.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1, forgive me for being extremely blunt here, but there's a saying that's relevant to your situation here. Extremely relevant, even. "When you're in a hole, stop digging." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your repeated attacks on my writing style buried the very relevant points I raised and the support votes coming from informed and conscientious editors who understand what I'm talking about and don't hassle me for my writing style as if it were a crime; BHG's closure in making me the target of the negative and off-guideline closure are of the same kind as your own targeting of me in your Fayenatic's close of last year of the previous CfD. and rather than heed him, you ignored the Mightyquill's comments about focusing on what I have to say not on me, which is totally contrary to the way any discussion is supposed to be decided on; on guidelines and facts, not targeting the proponent as a reason to deny the very needed CfD to correct the very bad and vague resulting stasis at a very questionable title. Others see my points and agree; the closure of the Squamish town RM was similarly skewed by procedural bafflegab and the endless TLDR mantra by those who cannot manage to read extended argument or even the guidelines, and by a host of opposition votes from people voting against the proposal in well-established and persistent patterns of knee-jerk opposition to anything I do or say.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned there, I came into that discussion neutral; my opinon of your editing style and discussion style was fully shaped by nobody other than yourself. Perhaps you need to consider, just for a moment, that if people are "opposed to anything I do or say", then perhaps maybe, just maybe, the problem is not them, but you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Wow I'm not sure if Skookum1 could have proved the OP's point any better. Might have been better to plead the Fifth, however, based on the above alone, I forsee a break in Skookum1's editing patterns in the near future ES&L 10:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean the huge amount of valuable work I've been putting in despite endless harassment from a certain faction who want to see me gone because I'm in their way? Summary censure of a valuable contributor and very encyclopedically-conscious editor because of the insecurities towards my lengthy writingz and detailed commentary and wide-ranging interests and knowledge, or silencing my ability to respond to putdowns and insults accordingly? Is Wiki-bureacracy putting itself ahead of content so readily that someone who's created a huge mass of articles is so easily shut out by someone's attacks against me reaching such fever pitch and endless hypocritical accusations against me by those stonewalling and degrading me on a regular basis? Really? Is that what Wikipedia is about? The iron hand of so-called wikiquette and blatant hypocrisy about same, rather than honestly and fully addressing issues of content and TITLE??Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks provides the definition of "personal attacks," which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh, so Kwami calling my bringing up guidelines that he doesn't like "ridiculous" and "idiotic" and more is fine and dandy huh? And there were claims about NPA about me that had to do with nothing more than showing how he (and others) were in violation of guidelines or had ignored consensus (just as you had done in re-creating Category:Squamish). I'm busy in real life; your own groundless accusations and many putdowns of me are many, I'll get to them yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You have also successfully showcased why there is WP:DIVA (Specifically the part stating "... long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, long of course being subjective). Seriously just in the ANI responding to your behavior you have tossed out at least half a dozen dispersions. The requirements to edit also include being able to work in a colaborative environment; content isn't created in a vacuum. Creating a hostile editing environment is not the way to go. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should use that term "Diva" it applies very much to Uysvdi as links here later will show; but here's a good one where she reverts a needed change to NCET saying "no consensus", meaning that she and Kwami don't want it, even though it's come up over and over and over again in the RMs that the "NCL Pack" (I was reading WP:List of cabals last night have been so bitterly and repetitively opposing on spurious grounds; claiming that the NCL-advocated "FOO people" is "preferred" has been clearly shown to be in violation of TITLE, as is also the claim that it is "unambiguous".....those have to come out, along with the ORIGINALRESEARCH claim that such in a "language-people pair" both are primary topics so both' must be disambiguated; the consensus has taken place, just not in the little backyard where she and Kwami are stonewalling/ignoring the discussion of NCET that will never be a consensus, given her silence at questions she doesn 't want to answer, and Kwami's rank insults and negative commentary. "Subjective" is hardly what others familiar with my work would call it; guidelines, sources, informed local knowledge and more, are being met by everything from ad hominem attacks and snipes, irrelevant red herrings, mis-citations of guidelines or just not answering to the major guidelines; I'll compile links to these later; I'm busy in real life today, but between "DIVA" and "subjective" you have nailed on the head not me, but the activities thrown up and thrown at me in opposition by those railing against my attempts to put right what they have put wrong, including that little reversion of Uysvdi's at NCET, which she does not WP:OWN. Many others have pointed out those flaws in NCET, the consensus is there, and the flaws are so many in NCL that IMO it should be trashed and started over from scratch from objective reality, not the agenda of a club of linguists.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to AN/I, Skookum1, the little that I've learned is that, regardless of your contributions thus far, editors that are seen as disrupting the project are sanctioned. I've seen editors who were productive for years and years, then some straw breaks the camel's back, they go off, making accusations and can't be talked down off the ledge and they end up being blocked. Editors here are asking you to come down from the ledge. Enough of the conspiracy theories, claims of being ganged up are rarely met with empathy because these are never one-sided disputes.

Also, no one, I mean, no one, wants to read a wall of text. If you want people to read your argument, please be concise, direct and on topic.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The editors who are disrupting the project are those who are persistently blocking changes mandated to titles by major guidelines; and Kwami's attempt to shut down RMs because he claims he wants a centralized discussion; one that he did not hold when he went across thousands of articles without discussion, applying a guideline that he wrote himself; among the casualties were important indigenous titles in my own part of the world, which it took five bitterly fought RMs and no end of personal abuse and baiting from, to correct. "Disruptive" like "subjective" and "diva" are way more apt for his behaviour and that of the other NCLers who persist in trying to block name changes with subjective arguments, specious commentary, and re-incantations of NCL with no discussion of anything else - except attackign Canadian English. Uysvdi has mostly stayed out of these RMs; the whole campaign of oppositionism has been noted and criticized by others.... I'm used to the ironies of being accused of what others are doing, but calling ME "disruptive" when all this is going on...well, that's what Kwami said about my launching of individual RMs on the titles he wantonly changed to suit himself after the bulk RMs I launched to address only 120 of them were closed. I have to get busy with my day; the track record of this campaign to bully and oppose me is very long, and I'm not the only one who has observed that there's one hell of a lot of knee-jerk opposition and relentless nitpicking going on to delay the needed reversions; I was going to file a multiple ANI on this group of editors (whicvh is not a conspiracy because it's public and also demonstrable fact) but Uysvdi beat me to it. I'm not the one being disruptive, I'm the one being victimized by those who are being disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, you're doing yourself no favours here. Walls of text + inflammatory language in response to concerns raised at AN/I are extremely unlikely to result in a situation that continues with your unimpeded ability to edit. Walk away from the computer, have a cup of tea or whatever you prefer, and practice some mindfulness before you continue to engage here. I urge you to do this for your own good, and for your ability to keep editing without problems. — Daniel 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 exhibits some classic diva behavior, and his inevitable return from the last "throw my arms up in the air" wikibreak that lead me to this conclusion is reinforced - and problems continue. I do not understand the persecution complex, and I probably don't need to. Skookum1 needs to toe the line like we all have to. Doc talk 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The tacit message I've received from Wikipedia in the last month and a half is that Skookum1 gets to shower me with personal attacks, including accusations with no proof of my attacking him, and he will face absolutely no recourse—despite personal attacks bringing a major breach of the pillars of the institution. I've been plugging along since July 29, 2007, editing and creating new articles. But despite a solid track record of six and a half years of editing, apparently I just have to lump it and endure attacks such as the following?

• "IMO you are a coward and a hypocrite... like a blind bull in a china shop. ... So go ahead, feel powerful, delete me from your little self-contained world; and throw me another taunt; you attacked and degraded me over your precious nevada categories, then waded into a BC category as if by deliberate malice. Knowingly provocative. I think you're happy with the mess you've created. Since I've pointed out that you're a hypocrite and acting from cowardice too, I might as well add that your behaviour is clearly passive-aggressive ... I also think you're a racist." diff
• "impugning me as a racist and a white-guy-who-should-butt-out-of-native-topic areas, as Uysvidi has done" ... "Childish behaviour masked as righteous snottiness; I'm not the self-righteous one here, you are, and Uysvidi." diff.

There's all this discussion about how to attract and retain new editors, female editors, native editors, etc. Why would *anyone* want to work anonymously and for free just to endure treatment like this??? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uyvsdi, I'm not sure you've read the comments we've made towards Skookum if you honestly somehow read that we tacitly approve of their pathetic, childish, and inappropriate behaviour at all. The message that they should have got was this: "you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message DP 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WHOA ""you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message" = if that's a statement against me or for me, I'm not sure, but given that the prevailing winds here are "shut up and let us pass judgment on you" I'm gathering it may be the former. "The condemned is not allowed to speak in his own defence".......very Kafka-esque. The "pathetic, childish and inappropriate behaviour" is in the nasty and/or wheedling comments and obstructionism I'm responding to in all cases. "Any further comments [from the accused] will lead to a block"?? So it's ok to vilify me, but not OK for me to put any of it in context? If so, then per my just-now comments in response to Uyvsdi's continued hounding of me below will see me blocked by the time I wake up (it's 1:51 am where I am) - and the discussion she's quoting from will go quiet and the issues and guidelines I have brought to the front burner will be left gather dust in archive-space. Upshot: nothing done except tossing out of Wikipedia a highly productive contributor with a great amount of knowledge and dedication, as many others have observed, despite my prolix manner, I've done one hell of a lot of work in many areas.

Why toss me out? Because I dared defend myself against unfair criticism, and dared to dispute guidelines that are flawed by pointing out how they are in violation of major guidelines? Is that how wikipedia works? I'm not the one trying to waste time by delaying or obstructing RMs, I'm trying to correct things that were recklessly done in the name of those inadequate guidelines (one in particular, whose advocates are the real problem here); it was Uysvdi's own actions at Category:Squamish et al who precipitated my taking things to proper procedure to get the matter properely addressed. Instead of y'all continuing to justify your intent to ban me here, why don't you actually have a look at the points raised in the RMs and in the NCET discussion and take part in it, instead of aiding a very partisan opponent in her campaign to prevent me from continuing to try and raise the issues of those guidelines. If you do vote to block me, you are being played ..... and the guidelines will go uncorrected and will continue to be abused by those who perpetuate their misapplication and inadequacies, and Kwami will go have a beer and a laugh.

Other editors have observed to me privately that ANI and the like are habituated by people who like to exert power, who like to say no, who like to pick people apart unfairly...... who relish their roles as jury, judge and executioner......prove me, and them, wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was in part responding to a message on my talk page that nothing would happen and that I was wasting people's time. Here's posts from yesterday/today:

• (directed at User:Kwamikagami): Edit summary: "pfft, you're hardly the one to talk about 'workign with other people'", talk: "why do you continue to pretend that any further discussion is needed when you have resisted, stonewalled, and derided any attempt to discuss anything and indulged in endless and repeated derisions and insults?" diff and "The further point, constantly rejected by "global English chauvinists..."
• (also directed at User:Kwamikagami): "Your own attitudes towards native people in last year's RMs "we don't have to care waht they think" are both un-wikipedian and against guidelines. It's also worth noting that a lot of the native endonyms are plurals, in fact I'd be hard pressed to think of one that isn't. Your attempt to shut me out of a discussion you yourself invited me to is all too typical of your behaviour and bad attitude and is yet another AGF on your part. Will you ever address actual issues instead of wheedle and wiklawyer by habit of being obstructionist and endlessly seeking to defray discussion rather than actually listen to it???? It is you who are "disruptive" and it is you who deserve the nasty epithets you wielded at me, here and elsewhere." diff
• (still directed at User:Kwamikagami): ""Or do you mean stop taking part in pointing out issues and precedents you persistently ignore by attacking and sniping at me?? Points, since I know you have difficulty, like so many here, with reading blocks of sustained argument and topic points..." and "Let me bold the critical phrase for you, since you have comprehension problems it seems..." and " I'm talking straightforward references to guidelines, you are making accusations and distortions and now "shut up and go away" subtexts "will you stop now?" Why don't YOU stop refusing to recognize widespread consensus that is based on, as CBW has observed more than once, guidelines that you just want to ignore or nitpick by whatever means; when confronted by them you attack me...." and " "Why don't you stop now?" indeed. YOU are the stonewaller - and "white man speak with forked tongue" also." diff.

The last line, wth??! We're in the 21st century. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You really don't have any sense of irony at all do you??? That comment was because Kwami is, as always, twisting what people say to claim it means something else- something you have done to me yourself re the "people" issue I raised in a guideline and you came back as if I were talking about TWODABS, which it was clear I was not. I'm a white man, and I don't engage in such dishonest behaviour as we so persistently see from Kwami, who you are bizarrely defending here as though he were a victim and not a persistently disruptive and obstructionist quibbler (there's other words I can use, but...). Why don't you address the guidelines and consensus points I raised there instead of coming here and giving my responses to Kwami instead of also the b.s. he was dishing out so as to avoid discussing those same guidelines and issues that you won't condescend to admit to, though dozens of RMs, as Cuchulainn has observed and I quoted there, have already spoken loud and clear. You don't want a discussion, and you don't want a "consensus" with someone about guidelines and precedent-setting RMs, you want to silence that discussion by blocking the person who brought all those guidelines and issues up and has had success in getting others to listen, though you won't even answer me, but you do want to talk ABOUT me, out of context, so as to have me banned. So those discussions will go nowhere, and you can claim that "consensus" is on your side. To achieve that consensus you have come here to enlist a firing squad......Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're avoiding me, but you're obviously still bent on hounding me, and continue to be "just fine" with Kwami's ongoing snipes and tendentiousness at that guideline "discussion" where CBW and I are trying to talk about guideline issues and changes that need addressing in the wake of, as observed by Cuchulian, "consensus has spoken" across a whole slew of RMs mandating that changes that I tried to make and you claimed "no consensus" when reverting........your silence on questions concerning the terms "preferred" and "unambiguous" speaks to your lack of unwillingness to enter discussions about actual guidelines that you and those who concocted NCL and now seek to stonewall NCET from the changes mandated across dozens of RMs...my retorts to Kwami are all correct, and your unwillingness to address his ongoing taunts and the insults he copy-pasted across those RMs is proof to me of your one-sidedness and your intent to continue to harangue about me while it's me who's bringing forward the issues that the consensus you say does not exist has clearly already mandated.

Your hypocrisy on the "FOO people" issue in re-creating Category:Squamish against consensus on a category title you knew very well, if you had indeed read the CfDs as you claim to have, was contentious and controversial in the extreme, and happened only a few weeks after Montanabw suggested we stay out of each other's way, me out of Nevada and the Southwest, you out of areas you know I'm active in i.e. BC native categories, the system for which I am, yes, one of the principal architects. You waded into a controversy on a subject/title that you know very little about and on the basis that "FOO people" was ambiguous - your word precisely, and ratehr than address that you rudely deleted my attempt to raise it with you, just as you had refused to listen to reasons why Category:Skwxwu7mesh was valid per TITLE/CONSISTENCY/PRECISION and yes, it is very ironic that you would seek to retrench a "colonialist" name instead of going with CONSISTENCY to return it to the native form that was created by an indigenous artist and activist of some note.

That you also unhatched a PRIMARYTOPIC dispute over the town/district of Squamish is not incidental; precedents on "town-people" pairs continue to be resolved in favour of the town; you waded into somewhere you had no knowledge of, and refused when I did try to broach it with you, as recreator of the "new" (previously deleted by consensus) category

Using me as an excuse to not create native artist bios is, quite frankly, pathetic. Create them, I rarely work on artist bios of any kind......no doubt you will point to this as another so-called "personal attack" when you tolerate Kwami's direct insults and stonewalling right and left is just proof to me of your partisanism and not giving the full context of why I was responding as I did to Kwami - and JorisV, who also has been extremely tendetious and oppositional and also refusing to address guidelines.

CBW is right, I'm passionate about what I believe is best for wikipedia and that I'm very frustrated with the stonewalling and derision coming from the NCL camp and speak my mind about the obstinacy and pissy - tendentious - responses I get, which often contain overt or soft-pedalled personal attacks and condescensions of all kind. Kwami has tried to shut down the discussions that, with some exceptions due to PRIMARYTOPIC reasons, now have established consensus, as observed by Cuchulainn, for the amendments to NCET and NCL that you refuse to address (through your silence) and which Kwami is turning, time and again, to attacks on me, including twisting what Cuchalainn had said to pretend it agreed with him which it did not in the course of, once again, to stonewall addressing the issues that not just me, but CBW, has raised.

There is much more background behind Usyvdi's selections against me above, including the recent ones from NCET (where she does not post the material I was responding to), that point to an overall pattern of obstinate and hostile BAITing that is very much along the lines of Kwami's failed attempts to block last year's RMs. Among these were my attempts to raise the issue of indigenous endonyms at IPNA, only to be pushed aside with "we've got more important things to do" without even telling me about NCET or, if that was before NCET came into existence, the relevant section at NCP it was transferred from or the discussions going on about it on the NCP talkpage.

No doubt my 'failure' to shut up as instructed above is going to be yet another stroke held against me; but if I can't defend myself against a one-sided witchhunt when others who do much worse, and persistently continue to obstruct and oppose and also insult and deride me......ack.... if that's the case, then Wikipedia consensus is more of a kangaroo court than rational discussion, and issues are being ignored while the bearer of the person who is bringing them forward, wanting them addressed when they have not been, and you refuse yourself to deal with them (Uyvsdi) never mind condescend to discuss them;

I have produced view stats, googlesearches, guideline citations, and been responded to with silence/inaction on your part and continued WP:BAITing me by Kwami, and now seeing you cherrypick my responses to him as more evidence of why you want me banned from Wikipedia, raises again my original point that this is a highly partisan and one-sided ANI and is really harassment, and nothing else. Well, it's not nothing else if you do succeed in having me thrown out like Kauffner has been....interestingly it was his tendentiousness that created the Squamish imbroglion in the first place, what with his very hasty speedy CfD and TfD to "Squamish" right after the initial RM there were ill-informed claims were made to justify changing a title that had stood for six years

as with other native endonym RMs/ closures and guidelines raised in them have demonstrated, "Skwxwu7mesh" did address all of the bits of TITLE that NCET and NCL, which you refuse to allow proper reforms to - reverting saying "no consensus" but refusing to discuss anything towards that consensus discussions where, other than having to respond to Kwami's ongiong nastinenss, I'm being very "rational" and specific about guidelines and precedents.

If my need to voice my defenses here, or against Kwami and his wikilawyering and tendentiousness at NCET and elsewhere, is used as a reason to call me a "diva" and throw TLDR at me as if it were a criminal offence, with capital punishment awaiting me if I dare to speak again, or to respond to you, then it underscores my point that wikiquette, and not content, is the primary governing module of the Wikipedia "backroom".....making an editor the issue instead of the content is boilerplate for discussion pages.

The Squamish issue that you waded into either without knowing what you were doing, or as deliberate BAITing is not dead; it will come back if not by me by others; it was in fact, your observation in doing what you did there that prompted me to address address moving via RM back all the NCL-instigated "people" additions on indigenous articles, and also those RMs for Canadian unique placenames-take-no-dabs per WP:CSG#Places that led to the growth of WP:CANLIST considerably this last two weeks, including the Squamish-parallels Lillooet, Chemainus, Sechelt and Tsawwassen, among others (Comox looks at this point as though it will close in favour of the town), and where PRIMARYTOPIC has not been shown to be the people, who themselves self-identify differently from the towns and regions which are the modern primary topic of those names.

Squamish is no different, the problem there is that any attempt to talk reason there is drowned out by ongoing attacks against me....including from those other people whose personal attacks you show no interest in replicating, only singling out my responses in the course of your attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. So that, it seems, silence will fall on discussions to reform NCET and NCL and that you and Kwami can claim that "consensus" means that those guidelines will stay the way they are.

If your intent here was simply to provoke me to more necessarily longish responses to your one-sided complaints against me, you have won. If defending myself against ongoing obstructionism and insults means that my voice has gotten sharp, it is a measure of frustration with the lack of comprehension or respect that this is all about. I know my subject material very well (which you do not, as you displayed re Squamish), and because of all the RMs required to fix what you will not, I'm getting to know guidelines pretty damned well too. Disruptive behaviour and tendentious, obstructionist conduct in discussions by your cohorts go unaddressed and uncommented upon by you, yet you make a point of continuing to defend them as if they were victims and do nothing about them and single my responses to them out. Your attempt to turn a point of mine into something else re "people" vs TWODABS somewhere seems typical; you didn't even apologize for that; changing the meaning of what someone has said I've seen lots of before, it may have been a lack of comprehension of what I had said, but given the overall pattern of picayune wikilawyering and ostructionism I am seeing and continue to see', it's me that's being victimized here, as elsewhere.

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by correcting out-of-date titles and addressing guideline issues that, frankly, the "old consensus" at IPNA did long ago until it was ignored by some who knew better; you only got here in 2009, long after Luigizanasi and Phaedriel and the others who established the conventions re titles and category names retired or went inactive. And now rather than fess up to the realities of those guidelines, you refuse to discuss them and are trying to silence their main proponent, who has been getting NCL-instigated titles corrected right and left. It is you who are not willing to properly discuss issues, not me. Instead of discuss these issues, you continue in your campaign to have me blocked and continue to be one-sided about what I say in response to ongoing obstructionism and attacking me instead of discussing the issues I raise, without ever addressing what it was that got said that I was responding to. That is tendentious, clearly hostile, and disruptive in the extreme; rather than talk to me and try to seek ground, you continue to talk about me, relentlessly, and continue to remain silent on the atrocious behaviour of Kwami and the more soft-pedalled but persistent derision from JorisV and others; it appears not only white men speak with forked tongue. Oh, is that a personal attack? I don't think it is, I think it's totally fair given your one-sidedness in this matter, your hypocrisy on "FOO people" re Squamish and re "preferred" and "unambiguous" at NCET, and the way you are indulging in your right to speak here, knowing that the TLDR mindset already heard here means that if I do speak to defend myself, that will damn me further. In other words, and per my "kangaroo court" comment above, the accused does not have a right to speak, and anything they have done will be held against them........conflated out of all context and irrelevant to the content issues those comments came from.

I've done a mammoth amount of work here, despite the campaign to systematically obstruct and, it seems, BAIT me, and during the course of this ANI, which I've been trying to ignore as t he partisan witchhunt I still maintain it to be. That you are spending more time attacking me here than actually addressing the consensus that has emerged (due to my assiduousness in pursuing these issues, item by item, guideline by guidline) speaks worlds about the contrast between "wiki-idealists" like myself and "wiki-bureaucrats" that I have seen comments on in various places.

I've tried to talk common sense and guidelines and facts and been treated with derision and insults, and by yourself the back of the hand when I try to raise issues with you; long before the NV categories thing it seems, you've had it in for me......and now, seeing my success in putting NCL on the hotseat where it belongs, overturning its false premises in RM after RM after RM, this ANI was launched against me, while you continue to refuse to discuss issues or guidelines, and Kwami continues to insult and wheedle endlessly and tries to turn my words against me, per his usual inimitable....and you take notes and come running here to report back my responses to him. I'm the one talking guidelines and better content; all you are trying to do is muzzle me so those guideline and content issues will remain unadressed....and maybe so you can go start writing those BC native-artist articles you blame me for you not starting bios on. Hmpf. Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I must say, in Skookum's defense, that he does make a large number of valuable edits, and WP is on the whole better off for his presence. But it's no longer possible to have an intelligent, or civil, conversation with him: Any disagreement is proof of "perversion". There's one article (Comox people) where the last time he was on the talk page he had agreed with me, that we should use the assimilated English spelling Comox, but now he's changed his mind, and thinks that we should use the "native" spelling, K'omoks (though this isn't the native Comox name, but the name one of their neighbors uses for them!). Since he's changed his mind, without so much as a mention of that fact on the talk page, all the people he used to agree with are now racist, recalcitrant, obstructionist, etc., as if somehow all our opinions should stay in sync, without any discussion, even when we change them, and any divergence of opinion is willful disruption. You can't reason with an attitude like that. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some sanction needed. AFAICR, I first encountered Skookum1 when I was trying to help clear the CFD backlog, and spotted a CFD which had been open for weeks. When I looked at the page, it was obvious why it was open: the extraordinary verbosity of the nominator Skookum1 had produced a discussion which no sane admin would even try to read, unless they had a masochistic desire for a prolonged headache.
  My closure (as consensus to keep, on account of the nom having tried to bludgeon everyone else out of the debate) was [ challenged on my talk] by Skookum1, who was again verbose and rambling. I responded that I had nothing to add to the close, but that deletion review was open; and then I closed the discussion. Skookum1 stil posted again anyway, and I promptly reverted that post.
  What we see in this discussion is more of the same extraordinary verbosity, blaming everybody else for the conflicts which surround Skookum1's editing. I agree with User:The Bushranger's comment that Skookum1 appears to be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Whatever the merits of his case, his style of communication prevents consensus formation. It's not just the number of words, but the failure to structure them with sub-heads or bullet points, and the rambling mixtures of substantive points with complaints about other editors.
  Unless Skookum1 radically changes his approach, I don't see how can work collaboratively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Destructive editing by TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Uh, ANI isn't DR and I can't see this ending with a positive outcome for anyone. RFC/U is a better venue. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) Yet again, Red Pen washes up on the shores of ANI. This, for those unfamiliar, is the most deletionist of deletionists. Half an article wiped as one, always with the letter of policy (usually WP:BURDEN) to support them. Yet this is a profoundly negative contributor (and I'm far from alone in holding this view). Look at the contribs history - a sea of red (big reds too, taking 5k off an article in one bite is commonplace) and remarkably lacking in any sort of positive contribution. 50k+ edits and 8 article creations. This is an editor solely interested in serious admin bizniz, and with zero thought for contributing to an encyclopedia. Mostly they limit themselves to trivial crap, fortunately. They rarely approach a serious article and have yet to demonstrate any subject knowledge in any particular field. Although they do have a nasty little sideline in going after articles whose contributors disagree with them, see Mr Whoppit. I post this today because today's deletion targets started to get close to robotics articles, a subject where they might get to leave lasting harm behind. We see whegs tagged as a dicdef, a favourite tactic for working up to deletion. Then LAURON, a German walking robot, gets half its volume and most of its six generations deleted, but not all of them – making the article a rather pointless travesty, yet not having the balls to take it to AfD with an audience. Rhex is another similar robot, probably the best known robot using whegs, and again its demolished without rhyme or reason. The external links are removed because Boston Dynamics who built it have 404'ed a page in a reorg (Google has it as top link for "Boston Dynamics Rhex", which is hardly robot science to rediscover). Then the content is removed as unsourced. Most importantly, hexapod (as the broad topic-level article) gets cut in half and all sources removed as "they are not reliable sources they are commercial promotional sites". That's sites like Carnegie Mellon, Berkeley and JPL. I reverted these deletions. Of course I was edit-warred to delete them again in moments. BRD is just something for the little people. What is going on, what is going on with this project and what is going on with TheRedPenOfDoom? I do not believe (and certainly hope not) that Red Pen's repeated actions have the support of the community as a whole. We have always had articles that are less than perfect, we have WP:IMPERFECT and we have guidance in place for how those concerned, interested or simply so inclined can progress articles forwards to improve them. These are better guidelines than Red Pen's simple "scorched earth" policy on everything he touches. This is particularly so when he either doesn't know who JPL or Boston Dynamics are, or lies to misrepresent the content hes deleting (and just read his past history for plenty of examples of such). This project, and the state it has reached, was not achieved by editors who acted as Red Pen is doing. Is this the behaviour we want for the future? For if so, it's time to start abandoning a lot of past policies and kicking out a lot of old editors, myself included, who are simply incompatible with this brave new world of "authoring by deletion" and dogmatic simplicity over knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I have to disagree with this. TRPOD is a valuable contributer, I don't think he's perfect but I've had dealings with him on a few issues related to Bollywood stuff and my impression is that he does a lot of work that is difficult and often ignored precisely because people just give up because of promotionalism and such. There needs to be a balance between inclusionist and deletionists, sometimes quality is improved much like with trees by pruning what doesn't work. Sometimes though an abundance of information is desired too. I think it's more of a philosophical differences in approaches. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC) BRD isn't philosophy. Red Pen is perhaps the editor most convinced of his own perfection and least open to discourse about article content. I don't know anything about Bollywood and I can't comment on that (and we surely do see a lot of spam) – but when he pops up in a field I do understand, like the major RS-worthy players in the field of robotics, or even whether the Daily Telegraph is an unreliable tabloid or not, then I recognise when he's talking crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not 100% what's happening here so no comment on the validity, it may well be, I'm just vouching for my dealings with him. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC) TRPoD is a valuable contributor. If Andy Dingley were to leave due to TRPoD's editing, I would have a hard time not considering that another valuable contribution. Removing material that is not derived from reliable sources and eradicating original research from articles is a good thing. Objecting to the removal of unsourced material is a bad thing. It really is that simple, Andy, and if you have objections to it, I would suggest that you do something else for a hobby.—Kww(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I have to agree the editor's sole reason for existence seems to be negation, the name, probably a sock, if my five decades on earth mean anything experiencewise, speaks for itself, even if one doesn't pat attention to the behavior. The complainant should bring up some diffs, they will justify action. Just complaining doesn't, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC) <ec x2>*Deleting material which isn't controversial but is unsourced would drop the total text of the encyclopedia by 90%. And thankfully, doing so isn't required or even strongly suggested by policy. If TRPOD believes that material is false or has a basis for suspecting that the material is wrong, that's one thing. But looking at the removal at LAURON, it's a terrible call and he is edit warring rather than discussion. Sure, be bold, but when reverted discuss. That's what WP:BRD is about. I'm not a fan of this editor in any case, but crap like that is just indefensible. (In particular calling 20 years of academic research a product list implies a huge lack of understanding of the topic. So huge I think WP:COMPETENCE applies.) Hobit (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hobit, you've been here long enough to understand WP:BURDEN. Once the material was challenged due to being unsourced, it is the responsibility of the person restoring the material to provide the citations. There are no exceptions to that policy. None whatsoever. Your opinion of the removal or the quality of the challenge is irrelevant: once removed for lack of sourcing, it can only be returned with inline citations.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Read the rest of WP:BURDEN please--there is a balancing act here. "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[3] If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If TRPoD stated that they couldn't source the material, fine. But they didn't. Also notice that sourced material was removed with a justification that implies a massive lack of understanding of the topic (as if they didn't read it in fact). I know well enough that you and I won't come to agreement on this topic. But the fact is the vast majority of Wikipedia is unsourced and the vast majority of that material is correct. Deleting useful things because no one has gotten around to sourcing it when you've no reason to believe the material is wrong is a horrible idea. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hobit, you cannot just add unsourced material per WP:OR. Whether the "vast majority" of Wikipedia is unsourced is a something else (I also seriously doubt that much of it is unsourced), correct material or not. Kww hit the nail right on the head about unsourced material being challenged. I would listen to him, he knows exactly what he's talking about. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC) All of that is true, Hobit, and serves as a reason to caution TRPoD. Your restoration of the material is prohibited, however: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". TRPoD has challenged the material: his challenge is unambiguous. WP:V is policy, WP:BRD is an essay: it cannot override policy. If the material is so clearly and obviously correct and so clearly and obviously valuable, then it should be trivially easy for you or another editor to provide the inline citations that are mandated by policy.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I don't really want to have this discussion in two places. But could you please read WP:BURDEN again and acknowledge that the person removing the material has obligations also? In addition, could you justify removing the sourced material (and cite)? Hobit (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Fine, I'll restrict my comments to here from now on: the sole inline citation removed was to a YouTube video, not normally considered a reliable source. The obligations on the person removing the material are suggestions only, while the obligations on the person restoring the material are an absolute and unequivocal mandate.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Here's an example of very constructive editing on the part of TheRedPenOfDoom: Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique - promotional content replaced with encyclopedic content, and citations placed appropriately. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I don't really see the point of the edits on LAURON. "Not a product catalogue" doesn't apply here as this robot is not a product for sale in a catalog. Unsourced material should be deleted if it is contested--but let it be contested validly. If it is spammy, not neutrally written, contentious, likely untruthful, sure-- but was that the case here? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hobit, there are obligations for both the remover and the adder. As the adder, you need to support additions with reliable sources. As a remover, one would have to do so if the material is not supported by a reliable source. Not every source is reliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) If the encyclopedia only valued contributions with a positive byte size then this place would be a swarm of trivia and bad anecdotal narratives. Thank God, or TRPoD or whatever, that we have editors who run the encyclopedia through some kind of filter so we can churn out quality over quantity.--v/r - TP 05:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) The OP's complaints should be dealt with as individual incidents through normal channels if they have merit. RPoD does excellent work deleting large swathes of absolutely unacceptable material in many places. See e.g. the history of James Rosemond. I haven't looked at the specific complaints of OP, but really, there's no *general* case to be made that there's something wrong with RPoD's editing. And who knew that I'd end my editing today agreeing completely with TParis, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Well hey now, I'm an agreeable fellow! Sometimes... :) --v/r - TP 05:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC) How many baseless and inaccurate accusations can be made against an editor before WP:BOOMERANG comes into play? Reyk YO! 06:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this in passing having been invited to look at a different section on ANI. I am not clear why this has been collapsed? My experience with User:TheRedPenOfDoom is related to one incident only here, but the following edit behavior and lack of communication which accompanied it indicates to me a double problem. Is there a reason why apparently continued problematic editing and (lack of) communication should not be addressed? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we at least have some response from User:TheRedPenOfDoom before closing this? Such as for example an undertaking not to blank and redirect articles that clearly meet WP:GNG without using AFD as the rest of the editing community do. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't compel a person to post on ANI. If TRPOD feels that a discussion closed as unactionable does not require his input, then that's fair enough. Reyk _YO! 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I am most certainly NOT going to agree that taking an article that clearly meets WP:GNG to AfD is appropriate, because if it clearly meets GNG it probably shouldn't be taken to AfD. I am not going to agree that redirecting a bad or unsourced subject to a more valid topic is inappropriate and AfD is better because Wikipedia:ATD#Alternatives_to_deletion says otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, alternatively how would you feel about a simple ban on deleting and redirecting articles? There are visible cases, such as the one I linked, where you did delete and redirect an article which met WP:GNG, so how should the community treat with an editor who is unwilling to recognize that in cited cases they made a mistake on WP:GNG. It's okay to make mistakes, if that was the 1 in 100 you got wrong then hopefully that can be demonstrated. Could you perhaps estimate, roughly, how many articles you blank and redirect in a given 30 days. For example. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So, when was the contest held that awarded the "most deletionist of deletionists" tiara, and why was I not invited? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the invitation as promotional spam. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oof, Nancy Kerrigan'ed right out of competition. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All is fair in love and deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to Torchiest for their efforts in trying to take the LAURON article forwards. This is not assisted though by edit-warring from Kww here, simply trying to disrupt the constructive efforts of another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't confuse enforcement of policy with edit-warring, Andy. Whatever you may think of TRPoD, he has challenged the material, and, per WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, inline citations are now mandatory to support the material that he removed. Not little notes about how citations would be nice, but actual inline citations. Note that while Torchiest initially failed to comply with policy, he has now complied with policy, rendering this discussion moot. That doesn't make your participation in this less disruptive: do not intentionally violate WP:RS in the future, as it will probably lead to you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a second. "WP:RS in the future, as it will probably lead to you being blocked" - User:Kww, I hope you will not be blocking anyone. I only now recognise your name as being the editor who was working together with RedPenofDoom to delete Bible translations into the languages of China which you blanked and redirected as "redundant topic". Since you have made no contributions to that article, it may well be pure coincidence, but might appear that you are taking a special interest in the deletions of RedPenofDoom. May I ask have there been other incidents where RedPenofDooms blanks and redirects and articles, is challenged and you follow up by blanking and redirecting the article again? Perhaps you could indicate if you are or are not a wholly uninvolved party to RedPenofDoom's editing? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you are a disgrace as an admin.

Your editing is almost entirely unconstructive. It oscillates between tag-team edit-warring with you and Red Pen to delete swathes of articles when improvement is called for, not rapid blanking, and then as here (and again, all too frequently as Red Pen's pet admin) using threats of imminent blocks against other editors. As I recall, the first time you threatened me like this it was for adding RS to a topic you had already decided needed to go.

As to your clear attack above, "If Andy Dingley were to leave due to TRPoD's editing, I would have a hard time not considering that another valuable contribution. " and giving your view that driving me off the project would be a valuable contribution, then if you'd said that of any other editor I'd have dragged you off to ANI for that alone.

Your actions here have been those of wikilawyering and disruption contrary to the goals of the encyclopedia and harmful to it. When an editor, Torchiest, has the time and inclination to do what is needed here and to start improving the very issues you complain of, your reaction was to edit-war against them and to start threatening.

Kww, you are a disgrace as an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to take the focus of your own WP:BOOMERANG problem by lashing out at others. You have shown a constant disregard for the need for sourcing, and this case, where you brought an issue to ANI after having violated WP:RS, is simply an example. As for Torchiest's edits, I retained those that were policy compliant and removed those that were not. Hardly disruptive: it's exactly what you would expect an admin to do with respect to an article where administrative assistance had been requested and clearcut, unambiguous violations of policy were occurring.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that TRPOD and Kww are disruptive editors -I think they act in good faith. Still it is also true that they team up often (my experience is mostly in List of unusual deaths) and that especially TRPOD can have a stubborn attitude that makes collaboration very difficult. They tend to engage in a "I am right and you are all morons" attitude. A softer and more open to compromise approach by both editors would be welcome.--cyclopia^speak! 17:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Just wanted to say that I somewhat take issue with the suggestion that I failed to comply with policy. I was in the process of complying with policy, and indicated I would be adding more sources. I assumed I would be allowed time to source the remaining parts, since it seemed clear that such sources existed and could be found based on the progress I'd already made. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know what issue you could take, Torchiest: the challenge was clear in the history, and the policy clearly calls for citations, not tags as placeholders. I didn't accuse you of being disruptive or ill-intentioned, just pointed out that your initial edits were not in compliance with policy. In the long run, you did exactly what is expected: instead of screaming that since sources should be easy to find and running to noticeboards, you found those sources and included them in the article, complete with policy-compliant citations. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I`d say that his edits are a sea of red, but they are justifiable (He is removing spam and vandalism, etc. ) Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 17:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Happy Attack Dog, on a review of RedPenofDoom's edits over the past week there is certainly some spam and vandalism being removed, that should be recognised, perhaps 1/2, perhaps up to 2/3 of RedPenofDoom's edits, but the question is (1) what exactly of this content on the German robot consitutes "spam and vandalism"?, (2) when an edit is challenged/reverted do we encourage edit warring as the way to proceed? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:TekkenJinKazama

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

---

For the past 24 hours, this user has been harassing me about an article I'm not even involved with. He wants me to do something about the Ra.One article, wherein he insists that the film is in English. I have told him time and time again that I have never seen the film, so I have no say on what languages were used on it. My only issue with him was his constant vandalism of Shaolin Soccer, claiming that the English dub of the U.S. version is the official language. - Areaseven (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Naghmehetaati

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

---

Could someone, perhaps someone who speaks Persian, have a word with Naghmehetaati to see whether it's possible to get them to stop posting walls of text in Persian on Talk:Hassan Rouhani. I removed several of their posts and left a message at User talk:Naghmehetaati but without success. Some of the comments appear to have been directed at Hassan Rouhani himself and others seem to treat the page as a forum. They probably mean well but they don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I used Google Translate to put a note on their talk page. The text is almost certainly distorted in some way, but perhaps it might be enough to get the idea across. BMK (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If the editor is unable to communicate in English, then that falls under WP:COMPETENCY. There is a reason why there is a different project for each language. If I went to the Persian Wikipedia and started leaving messages in English everywhere (and only English) I'd expect to be blocked too. If the editor is able and willing to communicate in English then there won't be a need for a block, so I suggest giving them a chance first. -- Atama頭 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As always, WP:SPEAKENGLISH applies... Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Naghmehetaati (talk · contribs) just made another two talk-page posts: diff and diff. Each is an Arabic (I think) post that appears to be some kind of opinion of no relevance to Wikipedia. They are easy to revert, but firmer action may be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not Arabic. It uses Pe (Persian letter). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• No response on their usertalk after several days of continued and ongoing posting in Persian on talkpages (a really long one here). I've indeffed until such time as they say something on talk to explain what they're trying to do, but my own feeling isn't that it's to help build an encyclopedia. If it turns out to be, and that the competence to do so is there, unblock them by all means. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

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

India Against Corruption disruption yet again

We've got more incoming disruption at India Against Corruption from the same meatpuppets/SPAs/role accounts that have previously and tendentiously been pushing a POV and issuing legal threats. I'm really rather fed up of this place at the moment and can't be bothered digging out diffs but if someone is around who knows the history then please could you do the necessary. Plenty in the archives here, and stuff at mediation, with OTRS etc. I have reported it to RFPP but that can take hours and this is election season in India.

You'll see some recent back-and-forth on my talk page history and at that of TheWikiIndian (who is blocked for 2 weeks right now but only the tip of the iceberg). - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I protected the page when I noticed the edit warring a few minutes ago - hadn't seen this or RPP. This is the second time in a few weeks that this page has been protected. The elections are 12 May 2014 and I expect a number of attempts to use Wikipedia to promote candidates and parties. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the problems will continue after the elections because this is a massive misunderstanding of how we operate. They've been invited on numerous occasions to create India Against Corruption (organisation) or similar if they think they can satisfy WP:GNG but they never bother. Which is because up to now it hasn't satisfied GNG and they know it. Anyway, I'm gone & it is no longer my problem. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a gross distortion of the facts. IAC is an apolitical organisation. We care a fig for elections. FYI, yhe elections are on 9.April.2014 onwards. It is Sitush who is promoting political candidates Arvind Kejriwal (who was a part of IAC but is now a politician) and Anna Hazare (who was never a part of IAC, but is endorsing candidates for a fee). On 27.March 2014 the leading Indian newspaper "The Hindu" published this [88]. Sitush now stands exposed and refuses to discuss this news report . Accordingly IAC demands that all references in the article titled "India Against Corruption" to Anna HAzare / "Team Anna" are deleted within 36 hours. Mr. Sarbajit Roy and Mr. Veeresh Malik are the trademark and copyright holders for all aspects connected to the brandname "India Against Corruption". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article has been fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The above looks like a "chilling effect threat" to me. Probably the IP should get a time out for that. BMK (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Please read the news report first and the retraction by the newspaper. Does Wikipedia still justify IMPERSONATION of our body? Can any Admin explain WHY Sitush dropped out of MEDIATION when he couldn't justify his impersonating edits ? 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
      • What happens after 36 hours when we don't comply with your demands? (Incidentally holding trademarks doesn't prevent the organization from being discussed without its permission, and, at least in US law, one cannot copyright a name.) BMK (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
        • We have many options open to us. This is NOT a legal threat. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Discuss us freely, but don't allow IMPERSONATIUON of us on your website. Impersonation is a contravention of WMF's "Terms of Use". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
            • • Impersonation of who? You're not a named account, you're an IP. We have no way of knowing who you are, so there's no way to prevent "impersonation". Make an account, show OTRS some proof that you represent an organization, and if it's verified, then if someone claiming to be from the organization turns out to be an impersonator, something can be done. Until then... Beside, who are claiming is impersonating the IAC? Sitush? Simply because he's written an article based on facts from reliable sources that you don't like? You don't and can't (and won't) control what's written about you here, so if that's what you're after, it's not gonna happen. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Just to assist you folks. On 27.March.2014 the venerable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu" deleted a news story that Mr Hazare was with IAC and fully published our rejoinder that Mr. Anna Hazare was never a part of IAC, and after confirming this from Mr. Hazare. The link is above. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My earlier comment here was removed by someone. As for discussing freelym, we've done that for nine months and you "lost", for want of a better word. It is things like this that have put me off Wikipedia, ie: clueless contributors & the fact that the WP systems mean one has to put up with them for such a prolonged time. Ending the ability to edit anonymously would be a start. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding IP editing. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IP, howe many more times must you idiots be told that the article does not say Hazare was a part of the IAC organisation that you represented. He was a part of the IAC movement and a member of a committee that was popularly identified with that movement and the term (not the organisation) IAC. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for evasion - I think it's pretty clear that, whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this is a continuation of the usual IAC disruption. Since there's clearly no reasoning with this person/these people, blocking on sight seems to be the only strategy that will work. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• @ Sitush: it wasn't the IP who removed your earlier post — I think that must have been an accident. The sock you mentioned in the removed post has been indeffed, along with another one who just removed the header to this section from the ANI TOC[89]. Possibly more interestingly, the more established editor TheWikiIndian has made legal threats and called you a paid editor who published inaccurate information in Arvind Kejriwal as a paid edit to solicit votes for Mr. Kejrijwal's party and to confuse the public. I think you recognize that, Sitush — do you have the link to that blog again? — and Dougweller is in it too, he and the paid editor Sitush jointly vandalised Mr.Roy's Wikipedia bio-entry. Well, it is April 1. These abuses by Sitush and admins have been reported to Michelle Paulson and Philippe Beaudette, TheWikiIndian states. I only blocked him for two weeks for egregious personal attacks, which he repeated on his page after the block, so I removed talkpage access. But if anybody wants to indef him pending retraction of the legal threats, I won't stand in the way. There may be multiple reasons — a checkuser of TheWikiIndian vs the IP posting in this thread would be nice — but anyway, I started with two weeks. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

• TheWikiIndian's claims are just bizarre. For example, I've supported deletion of Gopal Rai, Santosh Koli, Naveen Jaihind and Hemant kumar PY - those all relate to the Aam Aadmi Party that I'm suposedly being paid to support here and they're just the examples showing in my 7-day watchlist (others went before then). There is a lot of abuse of Wikipedia going on at the moment in the name of the Indian general election but I have absolutely nothing to gain from favouring one group or another: I'm not Indian, I'm not resident in that country, I've never voted in any government or local government election in any country, I'm not a member of any political association anywhere, etc. My only connection to India is a great-great-grandparent who was born in Bangalore to English parents who may have been very minor officials in the Raj or clerks to traders. She was back in England by the time she married, aged 21. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal for User:HRA1924

It's pretty obvious from the last several ANI threads about IAC that HRA1924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated sock/meatpuppets are NOTHERE (or are here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS). I'm not generally a fan of community bans, but given the persistent sockpuppetry, legal threats, and refusal to understand how Wikipedia works, I think the ability to block and revert on sight would be a significant net positive for the encyclopedia.

• Support as proposer 207.38.156.219 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is, we're not sure whether it is the same person or various meatpuppets. There are allegedly 29,000 people on the IAC mailing list hosted via riseup.net. Since it is an activist group and communicates in large part using electronic methods, I'd guess that there'll be quite a few different people acting in a co-ordinated manner here. We know that they've used open proxies here before, so things are really messy. I think admins just need to be aware that, for example, as soon as someone mentions paid editing/impersonation/libel/Indian legal system etc in connection with IAC then they're probably of the same tendentious origin and should be blocked at that point.

I've had some people in good standing from India contacting me about this: they would like something to be done that stops the torrent of clueless stuff coming here from the organisation. But they dare not get involved because they are in the country & so there are issues re: reprisals as well as the legal system. It should be borne in mind that practically anyone can open a case in India by filing a First Information Report - although that doesn't constitute a formal charge (as far as I am aware, but I'm no lawyer), it is a matter of public record & so can affect employment etc.

Ha! I've just noticed my very own AN is showing in the edit header for this page. As Bowie would say, we can be "heroes", just for one day ... - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page another IAC sock claims " 1,03,000+ edits 832+ still working accounts" while calling editors chutiyas.[90]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is he - 1 limb of the HRA1924 network. Can we discuss this sensibly without being banned and blocked ? FYI, I've been on Wikipedia for 9+ years, 1,03,000+ edits, and 833+ working user accounts. The HRA1924 "team" had 47+ years at Wikipedia and 6,00,000+ edits between us. And also FYI, we hardly ever edit India-centric articles. I only called Sitush thatTrangDocVan (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not while y'all are still making legal threats (saying "this is not a legal threat" doesn't make it not a legal threat), baseless accusations, and personal attacks, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Now there's an insteresting concept. We could deal with this coordination/canvasing via the authorized mechanisms laid out in WP:EEML or one of the related ArbCom cases. Yes I know this makes me the poster child for an attack by members of IAC (which ironically is trying to corrupt the wikipedia decision process) and for being an an ArbCom groupie, but as I recall this is the 4th or 5th time I've seen the topic come up so I consider it time to start taking hard actions against the instigators of wikidrama. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, we are being told that there is a very large network of editors - 833+ (more than a few hours ago) not including blocked editors, working together to edit Wikipedia. This sounds not good. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently looking into this matter. I've blocked additional accounts and will continue to investigate affected pages. FYI, here's a similar description at User:Turnitinpro. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs. Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus. Support. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as one of many people who has got nowhere trying to politely explain to these editors how Wikipedia works and why legal threats and personal attacks are not appropriate. Hasteur also correctly observes that many of the principles at WP:EEML seem applicable to this issue. From observation and experience, every conversation with IAC editors has been identical - walls of text filled with threats and red herrings, followed by claims the legal threats aren't really threats, followed by a repeat of the legal threats and dramatic pronouncements of refusal to abide by Wikipedia's rules or terms of service. It is disruptive to a number of Indian articles, has a chilling effect on editing and is no doubt wearying for the editors who are the subject of attacks. Like many political advocates ahead of an election, the IAC editors seem less in building an encyclopedia and more interested in promoting causes and condemning their foes. Good luck to them, but an online encyclopedia is not the place for electioneering. Euryalus (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Token oppose by the viewpoint farm trying to re-litigate the base issue again.

OPPOSE as a proud member of India Against Corruption. The article on India Against Corruption is factually incorrect and a violation of WMF's Terms of Use. It also promotes the impersonation of the actual "India Against Corruption" (a Registered Trust and Trademark owners) who actually organised and financed the 2010- onward anti-corruption movement in India, by a set of imposters. The article is a WP:HOAX. The point to be noted is that (a) HRA1924 was a declared role account for "India Against Corruption" (please see the account's user page history). (b) Till 23 Nov 2013 the article was exclusively about the actual India Against Corruption (ie. us). (c) On 23.Nov.2013 Sitush merged "Team Anna" into the article. (d) from 17.Dec.2013 "India Against Corruption" availed every opportunity on Wikipedia to correct the text of the article. (e) finally the content dispute reached "MEDIATION" under Admin:Sunray - the 2 core issues were "Is IAC and Team Anna one and the same entity ?", "Are the defamatory remarks about Anna Hazare to be taken to other articles ?" (f) These issues were vigorously prosecuted by IAC and Sitush could not defend his edits or his sources, and dropped out of Mediation - a Mediation carried out under a Wikipedia nominated Mediator under Wikipedia's rules. (g) Accordingly, the content dispute is decided in IAC's favor, and the text of the article has to be changed to delete all references to Mr. Anna HAzare and his Team from it, and to restore it to the version dt. 23.Nov.2013 by "Bobrayner". (h) IAC has no quarrel with Wikipedia if this is done. Thanks. We have always been prepared to talk /discuss. 6 of the 7 members of HRA1924 role account are also WP editors with 6,00,000+ edits and 2,971 working accounts between us, and we do not edit disruptively or pose a threat to the Wikipedia projects eg. [91], [92]. DocVanTrang (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Comment - If as you say, "6 of the 7 members of HRA1924 role account are also WP editors with ... 2,971 working accounts between us" then you are operating a sock farm. There is surely no credible reason for 6 people to collectively create 2,971 separate Wikipedia accounts. Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Comment, we do not operate any sock farm nor do we POV push or actively collaborate on edits (generally, there are a few examples though where 2 or 3 have at a personal level outside of IAC). The vast majority of our edits are to clean up articles in subjects on which we have absolutely no interest. The reasons for having multiple accounts (collected over 48+ years of edits) are complex. One of these is certainly that our members are "above average" intellectually w.r.t the average Wikipedian, have a life outside of Wikipedia, don't want to waste time in "dramatics" or Notice Boards, And also because of the racist Anglo Saxon biases in the English Language Wikipedia, and the snide sexist nature of some editors who are never regulated by the community. If Sitush can call one of our female editors an idiot and ask her to "piss off", she can certainly snap back that he is a "chutiya" (idiot). Another reason is that most of our members tend to "Deletionism" and don't agree that Wikipedia should be "the sum of all crap". PS: IAC is non-political and does not stand for elections. DocVanTrang (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC) NB: Our editors also generally don't use more than 1 account at a time. Please see our track record on the India Against Corruption article. In fact during the entire time we engaged in DR from 17.Dec.2013 nobody from our side touched the article. We also disclosed our COI (on Day 1) and requested edits to be made for us, which Sitush kept blocking. DocVanTrang (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC) You are operating nearly 3,000 sock accounts because you are "above average intellectually w.r.t the average Wikipedian?" That's certainly a novel reason for socking, but unfortunately its not listed in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, which outlines when multiple accounts might be permitted. In addition, the policy on multiple accounts includes the following: "editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. " If your contention is that these sock accounts are legitimate, please identify them. Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I am another part of HRA1924. Please do a Checkuser to verify it. We are not SOCKS. At least 300 of my own accounts are in use simultaneously - mainly in anti-vandalism and anti-pornography on the language projects and Commons. As a 12 year old Wikipedian, (and retired Administrator) I have no respect for the chutiyas who are admins today or draft these ridiculous policies. We're the good guys here. Wake up and smell the coffee. Don't waste your time over this IP. It will be discarded in 2 minutes and alloted to somebody else. The only thing which matters is Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same.. SOCKS can only be controlled with verified identities. The day that happens I'll gladly turn in 313 of my 321 accounts. 120.59.180.172 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "We are not SOCKS. At least 300 of my own accounts are in use simultaneously" - I think we can add WP:CIR to the list of problems here if this is truly believed as stated. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This isn't going away, this is mass socking, and they're either unwilling or unable to follow policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

77.97.151.145 and Talk:Sega Genesis

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

---

Could someone have a word with 77.97.151.145 (talk · contribs) and their contributions to this talk page, which consist entirely of intermittent abusive messages about renaming Sega Genesis to Mega Drive, ([93], [94], [95]) a discussion that has been done to death so much it has a prominent entry in WP:LAME. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, can an administrator remove these edit summaries the user posted as highly offensive: here and here ? Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Robomod

Robomod has been adding external links to fashionmodeldirectory.com since its first edit, now also crosswiki. I'm doubtful about good or bad faith. The template itself is questionable and imho that's clearly spam which should be checked by local sysops. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Sysops. Dear Vituzzu. I'm not a spammer, spambot or anything that wants to harm Wiki at all. The reason why I have been adding a few links to FMD is simple. They have revamped their website and their new designer profiles (all profiles actually) are more than just useful for Wikipedia. The interconnectivity brings you from a designer profile to the brand of the designer , up to all the editorials , advertisements and works that have been done by the designer. From there you have the featured models, booked agencies. Generally speaking, I believe and many on Wiki do, that FMD offers the user a lot of informative material. And that's what external links are about.

I've not "only" done links to FMD, I actually write clearly on my user-profile what I am into on Wikipeda. I've contributed a lot of editorial work and also other external sources such as imdb. I love fashion and I love models, designers and brands. I also admit that I love FMD and that I spend hours hours on that website. If you consider the links I've added to you the designers being non-informative and spam, please highlight them and I will personally remove them and apologize for decreasing the quality on that parts. I don't think there are any. I'm also fine with being supervised in the future to show and prove that I am only acting in good faith.

I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is, is above the average wiki-editor and I’d love to point the perfect example and I kindly ask you all to consider the following under a neutral point-of-view:

I have linked to FMD from Driess van Noten with the following link:

http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/ . The link provided contains an image of Dries (he is an awesome designer btw!) , describes with new content the designer himself and his look (wiki doesn’t do that).

From there the user is able to click on the associated brands: http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/brands/ , which is only one in this case, but others like Versace have dozens of brands.

From there again, you have the brand profile , which to be honest should also be listed in the external links .

The brand profile (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/) offers even more about Dries as a brand, and includes contact details but the most important is: it shows me his last fashion shows http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/shows/ and 560 (!) fully credited editorials : http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/editorials/ .

I assume that Vituzzu didn’t notice this immense set of information when he/she accused me of being a spam, but I totally understand the concerns as mentioned above.

Generally speaking, I kindly ask you to not take any measures against me and my work on Wiki. I love Wikipedia and I love FMD, and with regards to all the information used here on Wikipedia which comes from FMD since the very beginning of Wikipedia (thousands of references?), >>> Please continue reading at the bottom my final pleading.

As for the crosswiki accusation: I'm multilingual , I'm fluent in Italian (sono anche cittadino italiano :)), German, mostly with French, even Croatian, Russian and a few more. I study languages. I also invite you to consider the fact that the remark in bold at the top of the page, saying "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." was not followed, I would have been happy to have this discussed earlier. Kind regards ► robomod 11:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use imdb as a good example - it's not a reliable source. From a quick check, FMD is as bad as imdb and should never be used on Wikipedia of any language - using it would violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. ES&L 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably don't have the necessary background to know whether FMD is a good reliable source or not. I'm into fashion and I actually worked for a fashion label with both FMD and models.com, we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns. If you consider FMD and IMDB to be so bad, then I believe 99% of the links should be removed and most fashion articles would have to be removed from Wikipedia as they rely on information of these websites. Furthermore, only accusing isn't the way here, tell me how and why you consider FMD not being reliable? They are a kind of authority in fashion business and I think you didn't check the facts with your "Quick check" (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/info/about/). I also couldn't find any violations, you are welcome to point them out here. ► robomod 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns" ... taadaaaa! And that's the reason it's not acceptable as an RS. Muchos gracias :-) ES&L 13:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At that time, the brands sent the original images of the fashion shows and I am sure they still do. Otherwise how could they have 1Mio credited fashion images? It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users". Wouldn't you agree? ► robomod 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

>that wants to harm Wiki at all

Sigh.

>adding a few links to FMD is simple

A few? Try a few hundred.

>They have revamped their website

When exactly was this? You've been adding links to this website since your third edit, which was nearly six years ago. Also, are you trying to promote this website? That paragraph reads suspiciously like a sales pitch to me. We have a guideline on external links and your fluff does not address this.

>many on Wiki do

[citation needed]

>I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is

The lack of referenced content you have added in contrast to the number of links speaks otherwise.

> I also think that Wikipedia owes this to FMD.

Huh?

>we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns... It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users"

I was wondering why the site's profiles sounded like vapid promotionalism. What about the things the brands don't tell you?

Now for the million dollar question: why are the overwhelming majority of your edits and link additions to this website? You should have broader editing interests, having been here for six years and made over 1300 edits. MER-C 13:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was that much. I agree that I was kinda crazy for fashion a few years ago. I am not related to Ford Models nor FMD. As for FMD, I've been helping in the past with submissions but stopped after they started to rarely accept user submissions. I do have two editors in my FB-profile but don't know them personally. That's all. When I wrote "owe" I meant that many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information. It was not meant in any bad way. I just feel that we need an administrator here who is also into fashion and understands the work of a designer. I must admit, it's horrible to get dashed by a couple friendly(?) administrators. Addendum: The revamp motivated me to add links, like it was back in 2010 at their last revamp. You see the parallels? I agree with your comment that I should have more interests than fashion alone. I'll change that in my behaviour. ► robomod 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see this here at last, though I'd have thought Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam would be a more appropriate venue. This is major, wide-ranging, long-term spamming. {{Fashiondesigner}} was nominated for deletion by SilkTork in 2012, but the spam aspect did not come up in the discussion, such as it was. That template has 353 transclusions, {{Fashionmodel}} has 613, {{Fashionlabel}} 29. We seem to have 1857 external links to www.fashionmodeldirectory.com. A large proportion of those appear to have been added by just one user. I suggest that their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia, and that they should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia" . Please have a look at the model profiles my dear, how many information come from FMD? What benefit should they have from a link to a designer that has probably no visits per day? Viceversa you have for example 600 galleries to the brand or designer or model related? However, I leave the decision to the sysops and belive and hope they don't see it one-sided as you all do . I apologized but I am even more sorry for FMD that due to my behaviour I have probably ruined their reputation on Wikipedia. ► robomod 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited Wikipedia under any other names since you started editing as Robomod in 2008? NebY (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have probably edited many articles, especially not-fashion-realted ones, more spontaneous without logging in. I should have logged in more often to prove that I am not a stupid spammer, as what I am exposed now. I did the triple of edits in the content and without log in, when I read an article and noticed mistakes (I suffer from perfectionism). Shouldn't be an excuse at all. I'm sad that my username may be deleted now. ► robomod 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not quite what I was asking. Have you edited while logged in with another name? (BTW, I don't believe anyone's saying they'll delete your username.) NebY (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry. No, actually I have only this account. Is that somehow relevant? ► robomod 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is. You mentioned above that "many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information" so I looked for references to fashionmodeldirectory.com on Wikipedia and who had added them. On checking contribution histories, I saw the familiar signs of one person editing first with one account, then with another. One of those accounts was Robomod. I thought I should give you the opportunity to save some of your reputation here by owning up to those edits and revealing account names. I invite you to do so now. NebY (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Which reputation? I have no other accounts. "familiar signs"? Maybe someone copied the annotation, as I did in the past and others did as well. I think the SysOps can look that up anyway. This is turning into stoning like with the Talibans. Did anyone of you fabulous guys answer to my questions? I argumented everything and you are just trying to put dirt over me , over and over. Now I know what kind of people are managing Wikipedia. Do whatever you all must do as this is so ridiculous and you have fun in torturing people who try to argue seriously. ► robomod 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not someone who manages Wikipedia - not by a long shot. I've written up what I've found at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod; there's space for you and others to comment there. NebY (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a bad person to try to widen this witch-hunt. I hope you were very happy for at least a few hours but note that they decided that I am not one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive

• Just as a last note before I leave the place: It is said that nobody of those who bashed me now have answered the questions I asked. I apologized and I also defended myself with argument whcih were left apart. I hope the sysops don't judge my wrong contributing, but moreover look at what is found at the end of the links. It's not spam, it gives you much more information about all the profiles I have linked and I thought that this is the understanding of adding an external link. Please consider the above example of how much of further information a Wikipedia-user is able to find by following it. Thanks for reading me. ► robomod 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I personally find the information provided in the FMD website quite useful. I have requested for a few modifications to be done in a number of profiles in the past and they require members to provide reliable sources beforehand, regarding the new information being submitted, if not it gets rejected. That speaks a lot of how professional and accurate they strive to be. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the fashion-related articles in Wikipedia are based on information from FMD. Just take a look at the Chanel article, for example, and how many notes use FMD as their reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References). If links to FMD are removed, I'm pretty sure it would hurt Wikipedia more than FMD, but then the same should be done with links to Models.com, IMDB or other similar informative databases. -- Lancini87 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have here administrators who are not able to evaluate this. They see my account with many links to them and for them it's spam now. Noone of the above have visited the website from my example above. Where the link to Dries van Noten turns into an information flood that Wiki can't provide. And I agree, they should remove all articles that contain information from FMD. After all FMD is just like a fashion-Wikipedia, with the difference that you can't just edit and add funny information. ► robomod 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the editors here can properly evaluate a modeling website, posting links to your website shows a clear conflict of interest WP:COI ...Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote a product, service or website and adding links to your website in external links on multiple articles is a kind of self-promotion. As far as reliable sources, Wikipedia prefers independent, secondary source that have some kind of editorial process (peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers who have managing editors, books that are not self-published, etc.). What is not prized is a blog or website that reflects a particular individual's point of view, unless the article is about that individual and his POV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Please note that this is not my website, but I wish it was. Your comment is practically in line with what FMD is. They are seen as a neutral authority within the fashion industry, just like models.com, but with the difference that they don't accept any advertisings and promotions from any listed entities (see their about-page posted earlier : It says "FMD is not a place to buy promotion"). And they have independent managing editors [[96]] just like Wikipedia has, some of them are accredited journalists (two of them I have on Facebook as mentioned earlier). I think I shall invite the editors from FMD to this discussion, since we are now talking about a punishment of their property although the mistake of "spamminG was mine. ► robomod 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

i personally don't think that this is such a big issue at all. why make an issue over legitimate and reliable content information from a source that is most comprehensive when it comes to fashion data. if you look closely you will see that 90 percent of models info comes from the fashion model directory. for that matter if we are speaking about the legitimacy and reliability of data then for that matter why not question models.com, supermodels.nl or any other such service? imho i honestly feel that this is a totally biased and unjust situation that is being directed in effort towards User:Robomod. for that matter there are thousands and thousands of companies that have users on wikipedia editing and posting content on their behalf. why is the legitimacy not in question for them? if your intent is to bash user:Robomod i think the message has been sent across loud and clear. Clintong (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I did a mistake, I apologized for linking to many times (although my userpage states that I'm linking to other databases since ever!) and now they are trying to punish a fashion database that was source of thousands of fashion articles. ► robomod 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Simply put I just don't see the difference between this and our reliance on IMDB at all.--v/r - TP 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see something else which is not mentioned here.. FMD is really more than a database of profiles like IMDB. FMD also has a constantly-updated news section which gives professional reports of events of the fashion world. It conducts and publishes its own interviews with the models, such as in the Model of the Month section. In this way, and the way I use the site, I see it like an entertainment magazine which also has a huge database that consolidates and links the information. I haven't had time to go through all of Robomod's history, but it seems plainly wrong to discredit FMD as a source. It seems to be as reliable as any entertainment magazine. I know we are not talking about academic journals here, but this is fashion journalism (what do you expect?). In that realm, they are respected professionals. PdrMorales (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Honorable Wikipedia-Community.

We have taken note of the various statements found within this topic. First of all, we clearly distance ourselves from any activity on Wikipedia and we are not in any way related to the users who contributed about and for The Fashion Model Directory on Wikimedia projects. We also don't pay for such legal services. We run an old but updated Wikipedia license , Wikipedia License from 2001, that defines what underlines the exchange of data and content. This agreement survived thirteen years and was set up with the young Wikipedia team, and is still subject to simplify the usage of our material and the partnership with Wikipedia. Thus, we are not seeing this issue as a legit call to deprecate information from Wikipedia that has come from our fashion database. For any further bad reputation that is caused herein, we will need to clarify this with the Wikipedia management directly, and take the responsible persons to account. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me or our editors board by sending your concerns to wikipedia(AT)fashionmodeldirectory.com . Yours sincerely - Anne Roth (FMD Executive Board) --Fmdwiki (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

and take the responsible persons into account Potential legal threat? KonveyorBelt 01:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. How I read it, they are essentially saying "Hey guys, we weren't involved in the crap that happened. We have always supported Wikipedia, we continue to license all of our content to your needs, and hope to continue a good relationship with Wikipedia. We hope that you don't stop using our content after 13 years of a good relationship. Please feel free to have the WMF talk to our folks anytime if you have any concerns related to us. If anyone from our staff is involved, tell us and we will hold them accountable." That's my translation.--v/r - TP 01:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, they shouldn't have even started this thread in the first place if the issue was so petty. The best thing to do in cases like this, is for them (or anyone else) to not even bring up the topic at all.

And is this a sub-thread to the section above, or a new section? I can't tell, but it looks like it is unrelated to the section above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

i dont think this is a new thread, it is related to the section above. i think someone should merge it into the robomod discussion thread. WRT to what theyre trying to say i kinda agree with User:TParis, i went thru their wikipedia license note and it seems they are delivering 8000 vector logos and have no problem in having their content here on wiki as long as it is in tune with our policies. WRT to User:Konveyor Belt point on a threat: the way i read the situation is theyre basically trying to say "look guys we did not have anything to do with the spamming,but should the wiki community feel there is a abuse of usage feel free to let us know and we will take necessary action against that user/persons".... to User:Epicgenius, i do not think it was they who brought up the topic, but an administrator whose talk page wud seem to reflect a bias with the intent of damaging their templates and content herein just bcuz some user was spamming and not following our guidelines... at some point everyone seems to have lost focus of what the intent of this whole discussion was, it started with an admin bashing a user for spamming content here, but not only that the discussion went on to even talk about penalizing the source (FMD) as well. Admins should be thorough in their opinions without bias and have a neutral point not just in the content but also in their insinuations without the abuse of power... if this issue is not such a big thing i think we can all agree that it should be closed and let the topic lie to rest instead of dragging it on and on and inviting unnecessary attention from external parties Clintong (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Final pleading

• Dear Sysops, Dear Wiki

As an addition to the final word at the end here and the above: How many dead links did I remove over the years? I always stated my position that I will be adding wiki-conform links, removing links, removing bad typos, removing spam-links(!) and whatever I did. I am still sorry and apologize that the editing went in a one-sided direction. Also being denounced by an “administrator” like User:Vituzzu , who, after reading his Talk-page, seems to be everything else than a very responsible and courtly (probably young?) person. In my opinion, he does not deserve to be an administrator if you look at his way of talking to users. Even if someone calls me whatever, I don’t bite back like that as an administrator and move down to a level of that sort. He likes to open answers disrespectfully and fully dismissive like “Senti qua” (ma con chi parli cosi??), talking like the user would be some piece of shit. I’m, not referring to me in this case, but to the conversations on the linked talk page. Dear Sysops, you really should consult an impartial Italian administrator of higher status that should evaluate his talks there. I also wanted to note that at least he, as an administrator, must abide to the rules from Wikipedia. In this case you have it bold at the top of this page, saying “Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.” Vituzzu did not do that but I was open for any conversation and I always read my user messages. As for the rest, I overvalued the accusation from Vituzzu after reading through the messages again and some more comments here. I feel like a warning is sufficient and I will prove you that I am not a spammer (look at my final words please) and I am not a spambot (my nickname comes from Robocop, one of my fav movies = Robot Modification , but I am not a bot) and I am also not a sock-puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive (read how easy you get stoned on Wiki please! I'm accused here and immediately others try to destroy you. Sad.). I have no interest in neither harming Wiki nor linking anyone who does NOT deserve being linked, if for example based on the information taken from that page. At the same time I consider Wikipedia an open encyclopedia that should not just steal information and take work from others without annotating the source, especially when in the case I mentioned (Dries van Noten - actually all pages), the linked website is often the source of the article and offers more information (yes, I’m riding on Dries van Noten’s entry with 600 editorial galleries! – the probably worst example tho as Chanel has over 2000 editorials[[97]] - credited information that can't be shown on Wiki for copyright issues probably?). I also want to invalidate all the funny comments from the guys above who were talking about FMD and IMDB and other professional databases being sooooo bad, when Wiki has millions of outgoing mass-links like to http://www1.cpdl.org/ for example, for every composer? Generally I found mass-links to many open Wiki-like-websites. So my question is, do you consider an open source Wiki-website( like there are many around - not wikipedia.org I mean!), where vandals or any anonymous (not for CPDL , please don’t get me wrong I love that website!) user can edit and write down what someone wants, as a more reliable source than a professional database that reviews and proofs submitted edits hundred times? (will come back to this later below) Please continue reading all messages, as I specifically mention Wikipedia , and also the note to Anne from FMD. Thank you very much!

• Dear ES . I guess you have no idea about fashion. If I don’t have any clue about certain things, I prefer to stay quiet. You discredit websites and have a way of talking that reminds me of User:Vituzzu. Reading that you are one of the most active users on Wikipedia is not a quality sign and makes me sad.

• Dear MER-C. You are an administrator on Wikipedia and the ironical way of how you mucked around with me (“sigh” etc) is usually not deescalating like an administrator should handle such situations. I missed the neutrality towards me as a person. You sounded more like a biased friend of User:Vituzzu, but I hope I am wrong and anyhow I fully respect you as you were partially right in your argument.

• Dear Justlettersandnumbers . I noticed your continuously deleting of all the links I added. Did you even look at ONE link of them? Don’t you think Wikipedia readers could be interested in HOW the designer works? How their clothes look like? Did you EVER read one of the linked profiles? I can answer you this question (sorry for being bad educated in this case): No! You are probably a "sock-puppet" (now that I learnt what it is) or a nominal member that just wants to muck around and has fun in discrediting others. You removed links to Viktor and Rolf, Dries, Chanel(probably?) and many others. Wikipedia has actually NOTHING apart from a few statistical facts about these designers. If you followed the link you would have had hours of material to browse and read and if I knew about the Wikipedia agreement with FMD, I would have copied and re-edited it just for you too. In my eyes you could be an accomplice of stealing content from other sites by discrediting them. Good job!

• Dear Anne from FMD! I didn’t harm FMD’s reputation at all! I approached and invited FMD to this topic with the intention to help and as a result I get “take the responsible persons to account”. If you want to take someone to account you should do that with the accuser or you should consider taking someone to account who removes the links, like Justlettersandnumbers, who has removed links from profiles that are mostly based on FMD like the Chanel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References) article (and not to forget hundreds of model profiles who are sometimes a copy of FMD profiles) mentioned above by User:Lancini87 user . Why don’t they credit you? How could I know about your agreements with Wikipedia? Which in my opinion is ridiculous and needs to be redone if you look at the one-sided benefits. You should keep an eye at what they are doing with your content! They steal and take ownership of it and then remove you even from the references. This is Wikipedia in 2014 where anarchy and vandalism has reached almost the administrators level, dear Anne! You and your team should sometimes put an eye outside the fashion world! I expected some more professional support from you to be honest. Thanks anyway!

• to the rest. Thank you for sharing the same point of view and the support. Fashion is not for everyone as it seems.

Final Word: All my arguments with which I defended myself are left unanswered because there have not been any opposite arguments to it. Since this case applies to my user account for being a spammer, I ask the responsible SysOps and Administrators to not classify my account, my person and my edits as spam and not to ban or delete me. I clarified from the very first minute and beginning of my work on Wikipedia (see User:Robomod). I was always a member of WikiProject External links, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Persondata, Wikipedia Neutrality Project and after all the initiator did not approach me before posting a grievance about me here. I admit that my work became too one-sided after my interests turned in that direction, and respectfully ask you discharge me of spamming and to leave the cause as it is, with a more than noticed warning and a pain in the stomach. I furthermore promise to improve my editorial work on Wikipedia and I am open to an assigned supervisor. Always in good faith ► robomod 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate public slur by WilyD on another editor's character at RfD

At this RfD discussion, WilyD (talk · contribs) has publicly and completely unfairly accused another editor, Gorobay (talk · contribs), of "making racist slurs". The accusation is unfair because the other editor nominated a redirect in Macedonian to the article Work ethic with the rationale "not especially Macedonian" amongst a batch of similar nominations for cross-lingual redirects, with similar rationales in each case.

I removed the comment and replaced it with {{redacted}} (which I now notice is meant to be subst'ed — my mistake), as I consider making public accusations of that nature about an innocent editor as being grossly inappropriate. However, I noted at the time that I was willing to assume good faith as to the comment's origin: namely that WilyD misunderstood the nomination (as Gorobay was clearly stating that our article "Work ethic" is not tied to a Macedonian title, not talking about the Macedonian people). Which I must also say is stretching AGF to its limit, because WilyD has also replied to several of those other nominations without making the same error. However, WilyD subsequently restored the accusation. I removed it again, only for WilyD to restore it again (and in the process delete my additional comment noting the re-removal).

I think that my action in removing this grotesque and uncalled-for public slur on the character of another editor was entirely justified under WP:TPO, and that WilyD is acting entirely inappropriately in trying to force its inclusion in the page. I would appreciate hearing some opinions about whether I'm right or wrong. — Scott • talk 11:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me he's taking the piss. Anyway, where did you attempt to discuss it with him? — lfdder 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be where I replied to his comment on the page, and he replied to it with an edit summary, and I replied with a comment on the page again, which he deleted while replying with an edit summary. That's discussion enough for me. — Scott • talk 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While I don't particularly think it's Gorobay's intention to write something that comes across as racist, rather, merely sloppiness, it's also pretty unambiguous that writing "Work ethic is not especially Macedonian" carries a lot of racist baggage, and isn't appropriate. I haven't made the same statement on other nominations don't carry quite the same problem (though I think you could make a legitimate case that trying to make en.wiki less usable, rather than more useable, for readers with moderate English skills is ethnically insensitive, which is relevant to the background here). Intent is not really taken as critical, rather, when one accidentally makes a racist statement, they should retract or modify it, rather than complain about being called out. I would be willing to redact that comment if Gorobay changed his nomination statement to something not carrying this kind of racist baggage. WilyD 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously not a racist statement, you're intentionally misinterpreting it, and misquoting him to make it sound more like racism is shameful. If you are going to double down and claim it is, then let's handle it this way: if you falsely accuse someone of making racist statements again, you'll be blocked from editing, the same as any non-admin would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Oh puh-leeeze. What Gorobay wrote was entirely obvious and clear, and reading that ethnic slur into it takes a really, really twisted approach. Seriously, WilyD, you are seeing phantoms here. And if you were aware that Gorobay (evidently) didn't intend to mean what you think could be understood from it, the right thing for you to say would still not have been "stay away from making racist slurs", but something like "by the way, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but your statement could be misread as an ethnic slur; could you please re-word it?". I very strongly recommend you go there now and reword it along those lines, because the way you phrased it, you are in fact imputing racist intent to him, and that is a personal attack, on your part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WilyD, I initially read this expecting to agree with you but I think we can chalk this up to a misunderstanding. Scott should have talked it over with you instead of directly redacting your comment and Gorobay could have picked a different phrasing, but I don't think this was anything more than an unintended double entendre. I agree with Future Perfect here (and also do think that Gorobay should revise his comment). NW (Talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPO doesn't require you to talk over anything for a comment as inappropriate as the one that I removed (which is still visible, by the way), and reading the rest of Gorobay's nominations in context makes it quite clear that his comment is in no need of revision. — Scott • talk 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fut.Perf. and NW here. If Wily had concerns about the phrasing of a statement which they understood but felt could be misintepreted, they should have carefully approached Gorobay about it rather than making an accusation of racism when it's clear none was intended. If Scott had concerns about Wily's accusation, they should have approached Wily about it, at least before coming to ANI.

If Scott or Wily are going to claim they should not have had to do this because of whatever policy, guideline, let's consider the outcomes here. If Wily is genuinely concerned that the statement would be misread and people may consider to be intentionally racist, then the far better outcome is for this statement to be quickly reworded without a fuss. What isn't a desirable outcome is for a big controversy and illwill all around, for more people to read it and for the person who made the statement to possibly be reluctant to change it because of their anger about an unfair accusation. Having a quite polite discussion with someone is far more likely to achieve the first outcome, and doing what Wily did is far more likely to achieve the second outcome which is where we are now. (Although to be clear, I'm not saying Gorobay is relucant to change it because of this. I have no idea if they feel that way or are even aware of this controversy. I'm just saying it's possible that would happen and I understand why they would feel that way).

We can say more or less the same thing to Scott. The fact of the matter is whatever may or may not have been required, the comment is still visible and has been exposed to even more people via ANI, so it's unclear how this helps Gorobay in any way. While obviously I can't guarantee, Wily would have behaved better if approached via their talk page, the way things happened here isn't surprising considering the way Scott approached things. This includes the fact that people here at ANI, while generally disagreeing with Wily, are also confused why Scott didn't talk to Wily first (which someone with the experience of Scott must know is often the first question at ANI when applicable).

Incidentally, I actually partially agree with Wily that it would be far better if the comment is reworded. While it's not intriscly a racist statement and it's clear Gorobay didn't mean anything by it and I don't think it was sloppy for Gorobay to word it so, there is a risk it will be misread. People may read the statement without reading the other nominations on the page and so not see the statement in context. In fact, for people unfamiliar with en.wikipedia redirect guidelines and norms, if they only read that statement and not the followups, they may not understand the deletion proposal at all which may further add to that risk.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

which is often the first question at ANI - pfft. Please. Like I make a habit of dragging people to this noxious drama hole.

It doesn't matter that WilyD's loathsome accusation has been quoted here, because anyone with two brain cells to knock together can see that it makes as much sense as a chocolate teapot. And regarding it being still visible at its original location - unless someone here gives me a damn good reason not to, I'm going to remove it again really soon. Once again, as WP:TPO permits. If WilyD puts it back, then it appears that Floquenbeam is prepared to hand out a block, and that's fine with me.

And as for this: People may read the statement without reading the other nominations on the page - no. No they won't. — Scott • talk 09:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, someone better put a lid on this now there's still time. — lfdder 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at all of Gorobay's nom's for AFD? Across the board (just about ) he's used "Not especially (insert race ) " or "not (insert race) enough ". Had it happened just once, ok, I wouldn't call it racist, but as a pattern ? I'd say it does look racist, and WillyD was right to say something about it, because that's just what it looks like. As racism has no place in wikipedia, he would then be right to keep that out of the AFD nomination, so no, I'd hope he wouldn't be blocked over that.

Should he have spoken to Gorobay? Absolutely! But should he blocked for removing what really looks like a racist message out of AFD ? No way.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April Fools was yesterday. — lfdder 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1241edit

I think we have some issues with 1241edit, and to put it simply :

• WP:Sock puppetry : a second account, Ss1241, was discovered on the French Wikipedia this morning, and thus banned. Do you need a RCU here as well, or is the result on FR enough ?
• WP:No personal attacks : this second account has been used this morning to give me a "Warnning for Vandalism". Needless to say that "Vandalism" is not exactly what I have done. The main account is currently blocked on FR for the same kind of misbehaving.

From what I can see, he or she has had multiple warnings here, but also on Wikicommons. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What a user does on another wiki is outside the remit of the English wiki, so a banned user on the French Wiki will not be banned on the English wiki unless they have violated the policies here. Each wiki is self contained with its own independent policies. You would have to go to Metawiki to have their account globally locked but that would be a whole new level of policy violation. Blackmane (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean, do you need a new RCU to prove that 1241edit = Ss1241 or not ? As far as I know, if you have multiple accounts, you have to declare them, not use one of them to insult an other contributor when you want to. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you believe they're violating WP:SOCK#LEGIT on the English Wikipedia, you can open an WP:SPI DP 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that using a sockpuppet to issue fake "Warnning for Vandalism" could fall under the scope of Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT ? I don't need to prove that those accounts belong to the same person, Template:Frit has been proven already, so I'm not going to waste check users' time.

Just take one minute to read all the warnings that he/she has received already. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's not whether it's the same person, it's whether they are using two accounts legitimately. Follow the link you were provided with. Panda, an SPI won't be necessary here, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. I warned both that only one account should be used. I left a warning for incorrectly warning for vandalism. That's it, for now. And now we clean up the directory entry called Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University (University of Paris 6). Drmies (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should also keep an eye on this new account, Azadsp : contributing on the same article here, and uploading the same kind of non-free images on Commons. All those images have been used on FA, and those accounts bave been contributing to the same article there. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I responded to a request, and now the requestor tells me I have "no consensus"

User:Timeshift9 asked me (on my talk page) to make edits to Full results of the South Australian state election, 2010 and Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014. So, in good faith, I made them.
User:Timeshift9 then said I had no consensus to make such edits, and now seems to want to engage in an edit war.
You are probably not surprised to learn that I'm unimpressed by his response. And you are also probably not surprised that as I went to considerable effort (note: considerable) to make the changes he requested, I am quite pissed off. PARTICULARLY as I could have just ignored the request, or even politely responded: "No thanks."
But I didn't. I took him at face value, assumed good faith, and made the requested edits.
So, please advise where I should go from here. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like the other editor asked you to change article A to follow the example of article B, and you changed the layout of both article A and article B. Apparently the changes you made were different from the ones he had in mind. There's nothing wrong with that: having asked you to do something doesn't preclude him from having further opinions. I suggest getting opinions on the layout from additional editors interested in Australian elections. --Amble (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, you haven't explained why this gives the requestor licence to claim "no consensus", and that seems to be the basis of the requestors' (un justified) justification. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That just means he doesn't agree with the changes you made. There are two of you who are interested so far, and you don't agree on what formatting is best. If the two of you discuss and come to some agreement, that will be consensus. If you bring in other editors interested in Australian elections and they generally support one format or another, that could also constitute a consensus. As long as there are two of you and you don't agree, it seems fair to say that there's no consensus. --Amble (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential abuse of power

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

---

Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is mass deleting the joke AFD nominations that happen every year, simply because they don't like them. Almost every red link on this page is due to them. Editors have tried to talk to them about it, but they continue to claim that the nonsense is "disruption". However, doesn't WP:FOOLS say that jokes only need to be kept where casual readers won't see them? Not only is AFD a place where casual readers don't go, every page I've seen has been tagged as "humorous" so they are clearly identifiable as jokes. The page also says "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day. There is consensus against a complete ban of jokes on April Fools'." So it seems that these joke AFD nominations are not considered disruptive, and do not break any rules. It would seem that Spartaz is simply abusing his power to delete stuff they don't like. To conclude, it is perfectly all right to have some fun here on April 1, and one admin disliking it doesn't change that. NealCruco (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• You're joking, right? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if he's not, I am not either.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. Spartaz is being a bit heavy-handed here. In fact, one could argue that deleting TenPoundHammer's user page is actually disruptive, unlike the joke AfDs Spartaz is determined to censor. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you didn't respond to my question, so I'm going to block you for being incommunicado. Just remember, indefinite is not infinite. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, while Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1 is kind of funny (and deleted by RHaworth, who last laughed when Benny Hill was still on TV), though not as funny as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1, it's a joke that wears thin pretty quickly. I mean, who's going to comment on such a metametametametaMfD? Drmies (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• If Spartaz doesn't find these jokes funny, why did he delete TPH's userpage? Was he doing it to be POINTy? Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• He is in violation the official April 1 policy  :( . Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  That's not official policy. Please find the real policy and see if Spartaz is indeed in violation (he might be). Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  WP:Rules for Fools shows the current consensus. For anything else on Wikipedia, it's considered bad behaviour to act against established consensus. I don't see why this should be any different. CodeCat (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I agree. If there is consensus that jokes should be ok, it doesn't seem proper for an admin who doesn't like it to start deleting things and ruin it for everyone else. CodeCat (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weeeeell, I can't believe I'm jumping to Spartaz's defense here, but "ruin it for everyone else"? That's hardly what's going on here, and there are still plenty of jokes around. Just look in Category:Pokemon. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Joking is serious business - it must not be dis'd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

where the joke doesn't mess up what the poor innocent reader of articles sees, anyway. That way lies things like this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I am not joking. I am being completely serious. There is consensus that April Fools' Day jokes are OK on Wikipedia, as long as they are kept out of the mainspace and properly tagged. The pages I've seen that Spartaz hasn't yet deleted satisfy both of these conditions. He, therefore, has no right to delete them. Doing so is an abuse of power. You can't just delete stuff you don't like. NealCruco (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• User:DrmiesMeh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia:April_1_guidelines and Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools give 100% opposite and contradictory advice from each other. Likely leading to some of this confusion (Perhaps one of them is itself a meta joke?) In any case, I would suggest one of them be deleted so we at least have a consistent set of guidelines/policy for how these jokes should work.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am almost positive that Wikipedia:April_1_guidelines is a joke and I have removed the {{policy}} template and added a {{humor}} template. GB fan 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive there then? :rolleyes: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was confused by that as well. I agree that there should be one single page where all guidelines and such are collected. CodeCat (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• I've submitted a merge request at Wikipedia talk:April Fools#Merge Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and Wikipedia:April 1 guidelines into this. CodeCat (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Just as there is no policy that guarantees the right to April Fools jokes, there is also no policy preventing admins from dealing with the banality as they see fit (by either closing the AfD or deleting it). ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a policy to stop admins deleting joke XfDs, but one that might allow it. They can be speedily kept though. Dark Sun (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• • (EC) Just as a point of order [98] I deleted 'one AFD - which was for Stephen Colbert as it was clearly disruptive and borderline blpvio (seriously, if anyone can't see why this particular AFD was a bad idea they shouldn't be editing here). Beyond that I only deleted 8 MFDs - including one particularly amusing one that was designed to induce users to accidentally log out so that presumably everyone can have a big chuckle when the victims then edit with their ip address exposed. I restored one of the pages I deleted as it was a link page for the jokes. I also deleted TPHs user page since they had asked for it to be deleted at MFD. Before anyone argues that this was POINTy, I would suggest that it was no more disruptive then putting it up for MFD in the first place and I did restore it the moment TPH asked. So yeah, BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL I'm a big meanie party-pooper who should be desysoppsed for my terrible crimes. Alternatively we can all piss off and do something useful instead of wasting time with this nonsense. I might take this more seriously if the original complainant had more then 94 edits in two years and had actually bothered to engage me on the subject on my talk page. Maybe that bit of courtesy and rules following only applies to admins? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• I don't really like this line, taken from a discussion on Spartaz's talk page: "If you don't like the cap don't behave like a child." Tons of kids edit Wikipedia, myself included, and it isn't fair to discriminate based on age. I think it's ok to have one day a year when we can joke around and have some fun. While I understand that some may not participate, it's not as if Wikipedia is going to implode from a few jokes. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

• It's unbecoming for an admin to be dismissive and rude like that. It's also unbecoming for an admin to delete a page simply because he or she doesn't like the page. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I deleted them because it was disruptive not because I didn't like them. But then, since you haven't engaged with me to discuss my reasoning I guess its easier to use your super mindreading skill to make judgements about my motivations. I accept I could have used a better edit summary when I removed two MFD tags from live pages because they were also disruptive I'm still astonished that so much heat and light is being generated here over pretty much nothing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• When you unilaterally delete something because you deem it disruptive, you should expect to be held accountable for your actions. I don't mind that you removed MfD tags from live pages and that isn't the issue being here. The issue is that you may have overstepped the boundaries of your authority, especially in deleting TPH's user page (which is downright POINTy and probably more disruptive than the MfDs you deleted). Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe I have and maybe I haven't, but don't assume you know what my motivations are without first talking to me and this nice little Kangeroo court isn't the place to have that discussion is it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is this level of condescension necessary, Spartaz? Connormah (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At least as necessary as this discussion is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where there's condensation, the grass gets wit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good. NAEG. I LOLed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I support Spartaz's deletions, as well as the condescension. For subsequent April Fools days, I'd support a policy whereby you get blocked for the remainder of the day if you create a joke XFD that is not funny, as determined by a neutral administrator. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 21:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You say "that is not funny" like there's any other kind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Scottywong, I support the proposal to let admins decide joke XFD's, provided the admin is really, really, truly neutral. For determination whether joke XFDs are in fact funny, the admin must be so neutral that they neither have nor lack a sense of humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• How about a rule that April Fools' jokes are OK as long as they're (a) funny (b) imaginative (c) not disruptive and (d) no-one's done them before? That should pretty much ensure that 99.9% don't happen. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• April Fools' Jokes would be much funnier if some people didn't run around screaming that they weren't funny and draining all the fun of the day. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• They would certainly be a lot funnier if (a) any of them were funny and/or hadn't been done dozens of times before, and (b) some of them weren't rank fucking stupidity like AfDing BLPs or inducing editors to log out and reveal their IPs. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, one more remark, courtesy of Bongomatic, and now available at Template:Not funny. No need to subst. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

For each unfunny joke that has never been told, there are a hundred other jokes that were hilarious when they were never told. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Steeletrap reverts to Austrian Economics Sanctions article – Request for editing restrictions

Background: This is regarding an edit made by User:Steeletrap in which a (contentious) edit was made while a discussion has been ongoing.

• There is an ArbCom case pending in which User:Steeletrap (and I) are parties. See: Pending Arbcom.
• The article in question (Walter Block) is subject to General Sanctions. Steeletrap has been notified of those sanctions. The article talk page has a General Sanctions notification template.
• The editors involved with this particular piece had, to greater or lesser extent, agreed to a voluntary IBAN/TBAN. USER:SPECIFICO did not agree to the IBAN/TBAN. The ban between Steeletrap & myself seems to be void. User:Carolmooredc agreed to the IBAN/TBAN and seems to remains bound by the bans.
• Steeletrap has complained to an Admin about my edits. See: User_talk:Adjwilley#User:Srich32977_editing_AE_pages & Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Proposed_decision#Dispute_continues. (No action was taken.)

Edits:

1. At [99] Steeletrap adds material about Walter Block.
2. At [100] User:Carolmooredc reverts the edit.
3. At [101] I open a BRD on the particular edit, noting the sanctions and inviting discussion.
4. At [102] User:SPECIFICO restores the material. (No participation in the BRD was undertaken by Specifico.)
5. At [103] I revert the edit and point out the specific talk page location for the BRD.
6. Steeletrap engages in the discussion, see: Talk:Walter_Block#Writeup_in_NYT_opinion_piece. Specifico also contributes.
7. At [104] Steeletrap restores the material.

I submit: The discussion has been on-going, but not all issues (particularly WP:BLPFIGHT) have not been resolved. One of the interested editors (Carolmooredc) has not participated in the discussion (perhaps as per her voluntary IBAN/TBAN). There has been no RFC submitted on the edits. There has been no request for closure submitted. But, most importantly, there is no consensus for this BLP related edit. Accordingly, I submit that Steeletrap's restoration of the material violates the General Sanctions which pertain to this article and sanctions editing restrictions should be applied. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Without regard to the merits or non merits of these edits I will note a very recent ANI discussion which pointed out WP:NOCONSENSUS says " However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." which would make the default action remove, until there is a positive consensus for inclusion. This is echoed in Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." although that second policy bit appears to be written assuming the entire article was deleted, and not just a particular bit of content. Beyond that, with the sanctions on the page, it seems that this is an area where some level of enforcement may be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If three editors agree to an IBAN and violate it then the ANI should be about the resumption of disruptive editing, not a transplanted inappropriate content dispute at ANI. Take it to RSN or BLPN if you have genuine policy based concerns. Last I looked, Srich was changing his reasoning every time he posted, and the primary behavioral issue is not Steeletrap's content edit, which does not violate policy, but rather the Carolmoore's and Srich's violations of their IBAN given the sequence of events, I'm not sure but I think it is possible that Steeletrap also violated the IBAN. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the primary issues (positing that the material is about a living person, thus automatically falling under WP:BLP) are whether the material in the added material is intrinsically "contentious", whether the material is a "contentious claim" asserted in Wikipedia's voice, whether the material is "opinion clearly cited as opinion", and whether the material has a clear consensus for inclusion if it passes the other bars.

The first source (NYT article on Rand Paul) is neither primarily about Block, nor does it go into any factual specifics about his views other than in a clearly "sound bite" format, which Block clearly pointed out. Thus it is not actually a fact-checked reliable source about Block, although it clearly would pass usage at Rand Paul for its statements specifically about Paul. It is clearly an "opinion piece" with regard to its en passant mentions of Block. The NYT article clearly is not a "strong reliable source" about Block, especially where the issue of "out of context" has been clearly raised by Block. Thus that source, independently of any other considerations fails to meet WP:BLP as a source, much less a source for a contentious statement.

The second source provided in the edit at issue is from lewrockwell.com and is written by Block substantially as a retort to the NYT article which is not usable in itself, so I would rule out the response to material which fails WP:RS without debating whether the source otherwise would be usable.

Lastly we have the "insidehighered" source. The article is clearly an opinion piece, and by Wikipedia dicta is only usable for its opinions ascribed to Scott Jaschik as his opinion and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Any facts therein ought to be sourced to a separate non opinion secondary reliable source if we wish to use them.

We thus end up with one actual usable reliable source, albeit one which is substantially an opinion piece and not a dispassionate piece of reportage.

To the extent that the section is trying to specifically deal with NYT editorial opinions, it pretty much fails the primary Wikipedia tests of "Is it of encyclopedic value to readers seeking information on the topic?" and "Is it a contentious claim?" It also fails on the implicit claim which is clearly "contentious" that Block would approve in some way of racism and slavery, as material in opinion pieces frequently is taken "out of context" as apparently Block argues.

I suggest therefore that the material as presented does not have strong reliable sources, although some of the claims in the insidehighered piece would be usable if sourced to clear reliable fact sources, that the material is contentious, that it would require both acceptable reliable secondary sources not based as editorial pieces and also a consensus of editors on the article. Cheers (long answer, I know - but wish to cover this in a logical manner) Collect (talk) Collect (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, are you and Srich opening up a new version of Wikipedia? I ask because you seem to be parroting his imaginary policies. For instance, you claim that the NYT article cannot be used because Block is not the main point of the article. There is no policy suggesting that. You also repeat his statement that the piece, which was written by reporters for the Times news section, is an 'opinion piece.' Seriously, do you boys read newspapers? Read a Paul Krugman, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, or Maureen Dowd piece and tell me if it remotely resembles the report on Rand Paul's ideological influences. Moreover, the claim in question -- that Block thinks slavery was "not so bad" apart from its being involuntary -- is not a claim of opinion but a claim of fact: it's either true or false that Block believes this. The burden of proof is on you to show that the Times and its writers were misrepresenting an opinion piece as a news piece (the assumption on WP is that NYT is RS).

17 of Block's academic colleagues and the President of his university disagree with your view that it is unreliable. They were sufficiently satisfied by the accuracy of the quotation to publicly criticize Block for it. To my knowledge, no reliable sources agree with Block's claims of misrepresentation, despite the substantial coverage this story has generated. If you are concerned that the quote about slavery is too brief, you are welcome to expand it. (Block provides the full context of the quotation in his response article; anyone is free to quote his entire remark.) However, purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy.

Finally, is a BLP/RS issue rather than a behavioral issue. The question is whether the New York Times and Inside Higher Education pieces are reliable sources, not whether Miss Steele is an incorrigible trouble maker. It should be moved to the appropriate forum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy. " Somehow I've missed you making that argument in the Gun control debate... Perhaps you meant to say notable controversies you agree with? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC

I thank User:Gaijin42 for the no-consensus link. It applies to a certain extent, but is pre-mature. That is, the Walter Block discussion is on-going, not all possibly interested parties have participated (such as CarolMooreDC), and only some of the issues have been resolved (e.g., use of "however".) The problem is that Steeletrap seeks to re-introduce the BLP material while the discussion is going on. Also, Steeletrap describes my reversion of the BLP material as "cleansing" and "purging" and "OR" and now Collect is "parroting" my "imaginary" policies. It comes down to this – Steeletrap has a personal distain for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and people associated with it. Steeletrap is importing a BLP fight into Wikipedia. Steeletrap is TE by re-introducing the material before consensus is reached (or not reached). Steeletrap's behavior in this is unacceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a principle, not a policy. I tried to work with you in fairly representing Block's response, and to make the content more neutral. But you insisted on purging everything, from the 17 academic colleagues, to the university president, to the New York Times. Given the highly notable and imminently reliable nature of this material, your conduct is unacceptable. I cannot sit by idly while you 'cleanse' well-sourced content from an article based on no cogent argument. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a principle that reflects the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS of Wikipedia's editors - and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is a dynamic process. Editing (not just discussion) is part of building a consensus. Rich should have reverted whatever part of my edit he found objectionable, rather than purging everything and taking me to a noticeboard. I am not edit warring; my last edit to the article before un-doing Rich's reversion today was several weeks ago. Steeletrap (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How on earth Steeletrap can say a re-re-revert to the particular material – while the discussion is going on – is "building a consensus" is beyond me. Steeletrap wants Steeletrap's particular version. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. You can't discard WP:BRD as "just a principle", because it reflects the consensus of Wikipedia's editors on the subject - people can and have been blocked for ignoring the "D" in "BRD". And even with "several weeks" gap between reverts an edit-war is still an edit-war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that performing one revert (ever) constitutes an edit war. Is the meaning of that term whatever admin says it is? Steeletrap (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These issues continue to simmer and occasionally boil. It might be easier for some passing admin just to topic ban all of the participants name in the ArbCom case under the terms of the existing sanctions, pending an ArbCom decision. ArbCom are dealing with a couple of messy cases at the moment and it is no wonder that it is taking a while: trying to hit a moving target doesn't make things easier for them.- Sitush (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:IDontLIkeit. Apparently the merit of my edit, which no one has addressed but OP, has no bearing on whether i should be banned. Also: It's frankly naive to think that the reason Arbcom has taken months (particularly on a case as clear-cut and accessible (confined to one page) as gun control) solely because it's being so meticulous. Steeletrap (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, it's about time that you learned to AGF a bit. Since the voluntary IBAN etc did not work, a formal topic ban pending the ArbCom decision is eminently reasonable. No-one named in the ArbCom case has denied that there has been disruption etc: the issue has always fundamentally been about who is to blame, and the situation has not been helped by the tendentious wikilawyering and general pedantry of those who have been involved. Perhaps you can all get along on other subjects but you sure as hell are not doing when it comes to Austrian Economics, Ludwig van Mises etc.

There is nothing pretty or useful about a group of narrow-focussed, pedantic and often clearly-biassed contributors battering each other over a prolonged period and continuing to do so even when in the glare of the ArbCom spotlight. While I've got my own opinions about how ArbCom should decide, right now the greater good is clearly that the lot of you stay away from the topic area and from each other. And if you don't like how ArbCom do things then just walk away from Wikipedia entirely until the end of the year. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't break the IBAN. Rich did by reverting my edits, to non-Austrian pages incidentally (and in Carol's case, responding to posst of mine). It's absurd for me to submit to an IBAN when others insist on interacting with me. Steeletrap (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying. I've not apportioned blame in this thread and I'm not getting involved in arguments along the lines of "he started it ...", like kids in a playground. It is equitable to topic ban the lot of you until such time as ArbCom make a decision. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can ridicule me all you want. But provocation is a legitimate defense in plenty of contexts outside the playground. If anything, that 'he started it' is ridiculed on the playground shows that schoolmarms lack moral nuance. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop deflecting and grow up. You've been using the tactic for months now. I didn't ridicule you but, even if I had, it wouldn't alter the point. None of you are or have in recent months been a net benefit to Wikipedia when contributing to articles about this subject area. Since you can't control your own urges, the sanctions should be enforced as an interim measure. Don't like that? Go edit someplace else. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic and interaction bans for core Austrian Economics arbitration parties

I propose the following temporary sanctions restrictions be placed on Srich32977, Carolmooredc, Steeletrap, and SPECIFICO to avoid further disruption in the topic area:

• The editors shall not edit articles or talk pages in the topic areas of Austrian economics or libertarianism, broadly construed.
• The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages. (To avoid doubt, "interaction" includes edits to the same article or discussion after any of the other sanctioned similarly restricted editors have recently participated there; and "recently" is subject to discretion of the enforcing admin.)
• These sanctions restrictions shall terminate automatically when the Austrian Economics case is officially closed.

These sanctions restrictions are not intended to apportion blame among the named editors, but to halt the dispute until the Arbitration Committee resolves it.

Struck "sanctions" and replaced with "restrictions" to better convey non-punitive intent. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. alanyst 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, very good interim measure. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose Excuse me, I sincerely object to this. I have not participated in the recent incivility and I don't expect to be grouped with those who declared and then willfully violated their own topic and interaction bans. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support One would have thunk the ArbCom proceedings would have furnished a clue here, but for now this is a decent interim solution. Collect (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support This expresses much better the suggestion that I was banging on about in the thread. Specifico, it is equitable and, frankly, everyone has been claiming innocence and has been accused by others at various times. To exempt you would provide you with an open goal, especially since you basically chose not to accept the earlier attempt of a voluntary ban - you knew of the thread but kept schtum. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So, @Sitush: Are you stating that because I stated that I rejected the ban and instead declared that I would behave within policy and accept the consequences of any misbehavior, that I should now be sanctioned even though I did not misbehave? Let's ban you as well. Who knows when you might act improperly? And let's not forget Binksternet, Ellenct, Alanyst, and all Adjwilley. Let's ban the anyone in the room! SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO. We dont ban people for something they might do, without good evidence they will do it. Remove SPECIFICO and I will switch to support. Even though frankly I agree with Steeletrap, but if it keeps carol and srich out of action, its probably a hit the encyclopedia can cope with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, umpteen weeks of nothing and then you throw this into the mix? And you express a preference for keeping one "side" of the debate out of action? I wonder if you are up to date with events? And if you are approaching this neutrally? SPECIFICO was and still is a major part of the back-and-forth and yet they have fairly consistently supported the position of Steeletrap and of the now-gone MilesMoney. I've no real idea whether SPECIFICO's position is more in line with Wikipedia policies than anyone else's but what is clear is that they've remained involved over a prolonged period, they're named in the ArbCom case, they basically ignored the suggestion of a voluntary TBAN/IBAN that was mooted on the talk page of that case ... and we really should not be presenting someone who has been so involved with an open goal. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I proposed something similar as to Specifico & CarolMooreDC back in February when the ArbCom started up. And I joined the voluntary bans when Alanyst & Adjwilley were attempting to stem the continuing dispute. (And I later edited the Mises.org page when an IP posted some unacceptable material.) The only way to keep peace is to apply a ban/bans across the board. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Modifications – 1. Allow for article talk page edit requests to correct errors/suggest improvements. 2. Explicitly allow for vandalism reverts. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not support these suggested modifications. Given that the restrictions are proposed to be temporary, I think the potential for harm to the articles is outweighed by the potential for a re-ignition of the dispute if any kind of editing by the core parties in the topic area is permitted during that time. Edit requests on small errors and improvements can wait; vandalism can be handled by someone who is not restricted (just send them an email if it seems nobody has noticed it). alanyst 04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: While I'm supporting the bans, I don't think "sanctions" is the best term to use. The only evidence/diffs presented are those related to the Walter Block article. "Sanctions" sounds so punitive. (Perhaps I should be more careful of what I ask for!) – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As the proposal is not intended to be punitive, I have struck "sanctions" and replaced it with "restrictions". I apologize for the imprecision in the original wording. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support I'm cordial with SPECIFICO and I hope he won't take this personally, but he's as much a center of the disputes as the rest. Or at least, he's always shortly at hand whenever the dispute escalates. However, I would rather see this as an Arbcom injunction, formalizing it as related to the Arbcom case and making it more impersonal, than an ANI consensus.--v/r - TP 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

TP, my friend, this is exactly what is wrong with this process. I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration. The current problem, the one which is the topic of this ANI, is about Srich, Carol, and Steeletrap. Are you sure you meant to say that? One thing that causes a lot of corrosive back-and-forth on these noticeboards is editors' tendency to make factual assertions based on subjective impressions, faulty memory, or casual calculations. You were honorable enough to correct a similar misstatement about me in a prior ANI. I'm very disappointed to see you make the statement above. Others will now come here, see your baseless assertion, and falsely judge me and support sanction against me. That is not the way an open community should function. I am very disappointed. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't help the perception you've developed, whether intentionally or not. I'm sorry, this is my impression and I haven't seen much effort by you to suppress it. Not that you haven't, but I can't recall a time I've seen you not explicitly in agreement with Steeletrap and explicitly oppose to Carolmooredc. Can't help what I see from outside the mess that is Austrian economics.--v/r - TP 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[insert]TP, that question will be decided by Arbcom. What I am saying is that I did not misbehave in the matter which prompted Srich to launch this ANI. It's pretty simple and if you didn't see anything to justify your characterization of my behavior in the current dispute, then I do feel it's not appropriate for you to make such statements about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you say above: "I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration." The case began in late January of this year. Judging from the occurrences of your signature and the tenor of your remarks at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Talk:Murray Rothbard, Talk:Robert P. Murphy, and User talk:Steeletrap since that time (not an exhaustive list), I think it's safe to say you have not remained aloof from the dispute during the arbitration. Even if you are talking only about the instant dispute at Talk:Walter Block then you still seem to be embroiled there, having chided Srich there twice just a day or two ago. alanyst 04:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: Excuse me, I thought it was clear that the context for the current ANI and the behavioral issue is the discussion which began when you returned to the Arbcom talk page recently to report that there was bad behavior continuing. At that time I pointed out to you that Binksternet and I had not misbehaved or squabbled in the timeframe you identified. I didn't say above (and given your familiarity with the context, I'm surprised you did not understand) since the beginning of the Arbitration. However, it's now clear that I should have said "since the close of the Arbitration evidence and workshop pages" or something to that effect. As to my comments to Srich, you can call it "chide" if you like, but frankly that is not a helpful description of my clear, on-topic, substantive statement in response to his edit summary and subsequent elaborations on it. I addressed you on your talk page a short while ago so that we would not need to clutter this ANI with comments such as this. I know you are sincere and well-intentioned but I reiterate my opinion that you are not exercising due care in your statements about other editors at this sensitive time. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions seem to be irreconcilable at this point, so let us amicably disengage and let others opine as to the suitability of my proposal. alanyst 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What's amicable about you misrepresenting my behavior in the context of the current "voluntary IBAN"s and "voluntary topic bans" and the factors which Srich cited as the topic of this ANI? Misrepresenting other editors is a form of personal attack. If you have forgotten the sequence of events or are not familiar with the details of everyone's behavior since posting ended at Arbcom, it's all still there for the record. It's not a difference of opinion, and I feel it's disrespectful and counterproductive for you to insinuate yourself so deeply in these matters if you are not inclined to be thorough, clear and accurate in your statements about other editors. Incidentally I don't see that anyone has even notified Binksternet of this ANI. SPECIFICO talk 04:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a good start, but this can't last. Something else would have to be implemented in the long run. Epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: That would probably be where the current Arbcom case comes in. (Hopefully they'll be able to find a good solution where so many others have failed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Grudgingly Support I don't believe I should be banned, but if that's what it takes to get CMDC and Rich to stop their tendentious editing, I support it.Steeletrap (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support on Austrian economics and libertarianism biographies Almost all the articles that have been in dispute are WP:Biographies of living persons-related, yet somehow innumerable complaints by several editors about BLP issues on several noticeboards have not been dealt with properly by Admins, leading to arbitration. In any case...

I'd like to note that, I did ask here at the beginning of Arbitration for an injunction on editing of Austrian economics articles. Also, I have not edited any Austrian economics-related biographies or articles, etc. since the voluntary edit restriction went into effect.

I also recommended as a remedy in Arbitration that Steeletrap and SPECIFICO be banned from all libertarian articles because of concerns about their BLP-related edits in libertarianism articles.

However, this proposal is overly broad since it bans me from the many articles on libertarianism I have edited over seven years only because two editors choose to make controversial edits on a few libertarian biographies. That is manifestly unfair and just invites trolls (and sockpuppets) to find ways to ban editors they don’t like from all articles in a subject area by causing ridiculous controversies in a few articles and harassing the editor about them. That is not a very wise precedent, is it??

If Admins choose to make such an overly-wide ban, they might consider including @The Four Deuces: since he also spars with SPECIFICO/Steeletrap frequently, has taken them to noticeboards, engaged in the Arbitration, and edits quite a bit in libertarianism articles.

Also I’ve asked as an Arbitration remedy that SPECIFICO be interaction banned from me because of his history of following me to articles on completely different topics and reverting my edits or criticizing my talk page comments. Feel free to impose such a site-wide interaction ban now, and include Steeletrap who also has followed me, if less frequently. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your tendentious and ill-informed edits to barely notable and non-notable libertarian pages are problems. Thus edits to all libertarian pages should fall under the topic ban. Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note I have temporarily topic banned User:Steeletrap (pending the Arbcom close) with a somewhat milder version of the above, over an issue unrelated to the original poster's complaint. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the community can impose editing restrictions similar to Arbcom restrictions. See WP:0RR. So lock the page already and allow only admin edits that have been agreed on the talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• That won't stop spraying of the dispute across umpteen other noticeboards, nor are the disputes necessarily confined to one article - there has been more than one involved since the ArbCom case started. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Until the voluntary editing restrictions started a couple weeks ago, in 2014 I pretty stopped significant editing except on articles already under contention since SPECIFICO (and to a less extent Steeletrap) would not stop following me to articles they had not edited before. I did not want to bring the conflicts to the articles. In fact, this arbitration was started by someone after I complained here in January to an Admin that SPECIFICO was continuing to Wikihound me. An uninvolved editor there announced he was requesting Arbitration (see last sentence). (More details here.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)::::Am I reading this right? You'd pretty much stopped until the voluntary restrictions? Meaning that you started again after them? Also, define "significant", explain why you were still involved in ones already under contention, etc. I really don't see the point of your response here except as yet another attempt to sling mud at those with whom you've had disagreements (ie: to finagle a mention of wikihounding that is seemingly not related to the Austrian issues). That is something which you do a lot. Since the proposal includes a temporary IBAN, the alleged hounding would go away. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording is too broad For example, CarolMooreDC for years been a solid researcher and contributor on libertarian articles unrelated to the current disputes. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot find a single person who agrees with your endorsement of CMDC's "research" and is not on the same side of the ideological spectrum. Find me a pro-Israel liberal who thinks she contributes "solid research" to the community; you won't be able to do so. Good research is respected by both sides of the political spectrum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Only in death does duty end. — goethean 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would prevent these editors from participating in their own ArbCom case. You think I am joking? Look at the current request by Lecen to have a topic ban lifted that he himself requested. He has already been blocked after making an inquiry into whether he can comment on the topic bans of the other editors in this topic. —Neotarf (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Neotarf: The interaction restriction says: "The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages." Perhaps you missed the bolded part? alanyst 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @alanyst: Read WP:IBAN. "If editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to...make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". What do you think the admins are gonna read, the policy or some archived ANI discussion? I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'm saying that's the way it is. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Any admin who notices the parties interacting at Arbitration and is aware that they are under the restriction is more than likely to be aware of the exception I have pointed out to you. And in the unlikely event that some admin waltzes in and blocks one or more of them as per your scenario, I will personally pursue a reversal of that action as soon as I become aware of it. I really don't see that kind of thing happening. Far more likely is that without these temporary restrictions while the Arbitration case is pending, the dispute will continue to fester and spread. alanyst 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Neotarf: even the strictest reading of WP:IBAN allows for dispute resolution. See WP:BANEX which says, "Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following: [...] Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution...". In this case, it is "stated otherwise" with specific wording in the ban proposal allowing them to participate in the Arbcom case. I guess I just don't understand the objection here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @User talk:Adjwilley, that's how I would interpret it, and I see others have a similar interpretation to mine, but that's not how it goes down at ArbCom. If you look at WP:BANEX again, the exact wording is: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This has been interpreted at WP:ARCA and at WP:AE to mean you can only comment on YOUR OWN BAN and not on any restrictions on the person you have the ban with. Here's the diff [105]. In posting his evidence, the editor had made a question of whether he was allowed to comment, assuming that he was, and asking to be informed if otherwise, but as a result of the conversation between an arb and an enforcement admin in this diff, the editor was blocked for a month with no further discussion. I think some of the other arbs were a bit shocked, and indicated they would entertain an unblock request, but the editor was completely demoralized and just posted a retirement banner. These content disputes can end up being waged on many levels. —Neotarf (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here's another example. In this case evidence is presented of someone violating their topic ban, but the clerks are instructed to remove the diffs, since the person presenting the evidence is under an interaction ban with the individual. —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not to say the Arbcom would pay any attention to, or try to enforce a community interaction ban, but there are some rather large differences in expectations here between the community and the few arbs who have weighed in on the subject; I think some people who have asked for interaction bans in the past have regretted it. —Neotarf (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Primus1x

Primus1x has engaged in an edit war on Gundam Build Fighters by copying and pasting plot summary information from Gundam.info. He even admitted to plagiarism on this quote on my Talk page:

This is a false-accusation. I have made no claim whatsoever that I wrote the synopses myself, it is the work of whoever writes GundamInfo's descriptions for each episode. And if you have a problem with the way that they write, you take it up with them not me. Even if you believe you can write better, it would be unofficial and fan-made regardless. These are the official synopses do not remove them in favour of fan-written and inaccurate synopses for which the only source is watching the primary source; the entire series, and thus conform less to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources. --Primus1x (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

He's also hinted at a personal attack based on the tone of his writing. - Areaseven (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've put an explanation of copyright law on his talk page along with a warning not to do this any more. Thank you for reporting this problem, Areaseven. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this...

I have made no claim whatsoever that I have written the synopses myself, I instead applaud whoever wrote them.--Primus1x (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is he admitting to plagiarism, he's being very big-headed about it. - Areaseven (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just bluntly tell him that he is not allowed to copy and paste anything. And just post links to his edits to your user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read his Talk page? I already warned him twice about plagiarism, yet he still doesn't get it. - Areaseven (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of user:Primetime who had a major issue with understanding copy paste. Blackmane (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits have stopped for now. Any further copyright violations will result in an immediate indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG hot girl style vandalism--range block requested

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

---

Range blockers, please see what you can do about 198.228.220.192 and 198.228.220.75, and when you're done, feel free to unprotect ANI, which I semi-locked for the while. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is kind of a big range, /16, but I blocked a smaller subset, 198.228.220.1/24 for 31 hours and unprotected. We will see if that helps. If not, maybe have to jump to a /20 or so. I've never done a /16, which is the largest that they will trust to admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of a conversation about size I once witnessed involving a Belgian artist and some American actors, only it was about cock rings. His ring was HUGE. Thanks Dennis. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Few people are able to successfully create an analogy comparing IP subnets to jewelry for the penis, but once again, you've managed to link the unlinkable. It is a talent, I suppose ;). You're welcome. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm glad to see that April Fools Day is over, and we've returned to the level of seriousness commensurate with a project of this kind of co[s]mic importance. BMK (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Are those available as an alternative to the wiki t-shirt? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Political censorship

Please review [106] and [107] which I believe are blatant attempts to squelch discussion of accurate article improvements because of political implications. EllenCT (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree that Cadiomals has no business deleting your talk page comments. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No business eh? I suggest you read WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM thoroughly and tell me what part of her post mentioned improvements to the article and that it isn't an attempt at general "forum" discussion. That is justification for removing the post altogether. That is all I have to comment on this non-issue. She has done this on the Talk page before ([as well as bringing a dispute here before, in which she was swiftly rebuked) and shown her total lack of understanding of many Wiki policies. It won't be tolerated as we desire a Talk page with continuous discussion on improving the article itself as per the guidelines, and not a place for her petty political discussion/debate. It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor who has not removed most of her posts and only done this twice when it was clearly a violation. Any and all qualified Wikipedia administrators will back me up on this. You do not appear to be an admin. Cadiomals (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The linked discussion says, "the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like [an] attempt" but Cadiomals has defended VictorD7's unsupported assertions that US taxes are progressive. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of EllenCT's disruptive editing. This isn't the proper forum for a content dispute, much less one where she makes false claims. Every source presented supports the fact that US taxation is progressive, including her own source of choice. Her own comment here starts by conceding that they're at least somewhat progressive (rather than regressive, like European taxation), before closing by implying the opposite. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources which support the assertion that US tax incidence is anything other than regressive at the high income brackets that User:VictorD7 so incessantly attempts to portray otherwise, and he knows it. This repeated insertion of paid advocacy must end. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Loads of sources refuting everything you've said (including your own few sources, which you didn't understand) have been presented and several are being used, but this isn't the place for a drawn out off topic content discussion. I've never been the type to run to admin and tell, but if you falsely accuse me one more time of being paid to edit I'll look into the rules on that, because I'm confident that leveling such baseless charges is a rule violation that can result in sanctions. VictorD7 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the edit. Blanking sections per WP:FORUM can be appropriate for, say, new users who have stumbled into WP:FRINGE articles and want to share their views on creationism (and even there, a gentle nudge is often more helpful and less pointy). Blanking a discussion between experienced editors on what appears to be a topic relevant to the article.... probably a bad idea. Edit warring over it is definitely a bad idea. And at this point, I'll let the admins take over. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the same as my reply to you on my Talk page but I will copy-paste it here for others to see. @Lesser Cartographies: I'm sorry but you are wrong in this situation. The links in that post are not found within the article at all, they are simply links Ellen used to facilitate more of her POV pushing, and she has a history of wasting people's time with off-topic/casual political discussion or simply whining about other editors on an article Talk page (not necessarily me). Please read my post on the board also. I have only done this twice so far when I saw it as a blatant violation and have respected/tolerated her the rest of the time. As a third party who just randomly arrived at this not only do you not have all the info but it seems you didn't even glance more than once at her post and tried to see if it was directly pertaining to article improvement. Based on WP:NOTFORUM I feel I am justified in my actions in trying to keep the Talk page a productive environment. The last time she tried doing this she was rebuked by several people. I would also like to add that your interpretation of WP:NOTFORUM may not be everyone's interpretation, as the guideline is not just used against new editors and can/has been used to discourage unproductive or off-topic discussion or argument on contentious articles. I will leave your revert until an admin resolves this non-issue but if you had actual context you would know it was a mistake. Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Except her post didn't mention the article or contain a proposal for improvements, her links were to a political talking point that has nothing to do with the article, and her section title didn't even accurately describe it. That's on top of her well documented history of disruptive editing on multiple articles and talk pages (including that one). Context matters. VictorD7 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive, because they assume that corporate income taxes are not passed on to customers? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, and doesn't it violate a rule for you to level such a preposterous and false personal accusation? Not only am I not paid by PGPF, but they aren't used as a source for any "statements"; just a graph they created based on Tax Policy Center data, which you know full well. It was more convenient than drawing one from scratch. As for your description of taxes, multiple editors have patiently spent paragraphs and hours of their lives explaining the basics to you, including what your own sources say, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context of her other editing that is disruptive/forum-like (I don't know whether it is or not, you'd have to produce diffs). On the face of it her post is ambiguous as to whether WP:FORUM applies. It literally doesn't suggest a change to the article, but normally, AGF, one would assume it's implicit what the impact for the article would be. I don't know enough about the topic/talk page background whether that's so here. So, I think those that want the reverts to stand need to post diffs of the context. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say a good rule of thumb is: don't. It pisses people off. It does nothing to reduce conflict. It increases edit warring. We are not trying to build some idealized society. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, and an off topic comment or two is much more sustainable with that than conflict over said comments' removal.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt is correct. Trying to enforce FORUM on a user's talk page is almost always a bad idea. To enforce it strictly here would mean we have to enforce it strictly on everyone's page, which is a nightmare. We give tremendous latitude on how a user uses their talk page. I've been known to talk about what I did this weekend, or my opinion of something else that I"m not directly editing. A degree of socialization is tolerated and can actually be helpful. If you think something needs deleting on a user talk page because it is "borderline" (not vandalism or a personal attack, which is obvious, but FORUM or similar), ask an admin or uninvolved experienced editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This happened at Talk:United States, not somebody's user talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I misread the one comment then. Still, FORUM is not a policy that is strictly policed for good cause. Doing so causes more drama than tolerating a little side discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The diffs shown do not show an appropriate enforcement of WP:FORUM. Regardless of Dennis's very good point that we DO in fact give people latitude as regards posts, these comments were not in any way forum posts. DeCausa points out the level of literal thinking (and in my view rules lawyering) needed to consider these posts in that way.
  As regards enforcing WP:FORUM a warning within the thread should be given FIRST to note that it is straying off topic. If after that warning the forum posting continues then it could be appropriate to "hat" or "collapse" a discussion. But at this point in wikipedia culture, deletion is rarely acceptable for good faith posts anywhere (except on one's own talk page and even then it can be considered rude). Only clearly and unambiguously disruptive posts should be deleted and there again only when they have not been replied to (except in the most extreme cases).
  It might be an idea to template:trout Cadiomals but unless there is clear evidence of a pattern here the allegation of political censorship is just about as unhelpful as Cadiomals's deletion of the comments. I'd suggest both users should take a step back and try to extend an olive branch to the other party--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: In hindsight I could have just ignored her and let her posts blow over as they always do, since I'm not worried about her pushing her POV into the actual article anymore. But she has a history of sidetracking people's attention with political debate that doesn't directly pertain to making changes to the article, and I wanted to prevent it before it started. To me her most recent post with the links was another attempt at this since I doubt she actually expected it to be added to the article (and never mentions doing so). Funny thing is, if she had only mentioned adding it to the article, I would never have removed it since it would have complied with WP:TALK. But it was just the links, so I interpreted that as attempting forum discussion. In the past she made a more obvious violation by whining about other editors (not just me) on an article Talk page. I removed her post, she complained here and the admins backed me up, so that probably encouraged me to do it a second time. For the future I will just have to tolerate her little side discussions as long as it won't affect the actual article's content. Cadiomals (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Better approach to something like Talk:United_States#Health_by_political_preference is to simply and succinctly ask "What changes to the article are you suggesting?" NE Ent 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reagardless United States is not a good place to be discussing the advantages or disadvantages of each political party and I'd suggest that anyone doing so is indeed pushing a POV worth ANI's investigation.--v/r - TP 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that concerned administrators contact the editorial board of Social Science and Medicine to ask their opinion of whether encyclopedia editors have any reason to disagree with the publication in question. EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not what your putting in, EllenCT, it's where you are putting it. The article, United States, covers political parties in general from a overview. It does not cover what they believe other than calling one center-left and center-right. If you are using that article to bash a political party, that's POV pushing in an inappropriate place. We are not going to fill every nook and cranny of Wikipedia with political bashing.--v/r - TP 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Politics of the United States is also an appropriate location for this, but I strongly disagree with and object to the implication that there is no variation in health by political preference. While conduct and behavior restrictions requiring political neutrality may exist in the military (and I will instruct my congressional delegation to zero their enforcement funding at once, if they exist) such restrictions are opposed to WP:V. EllenCT (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at this. The support for this is politically motivated mapping and your strong beliefs, arguably correlation without causation. As an example, there are people out there that argue bras cause breast cancer. But because someone makes the case, does not make it so. Since you're often keen on primary source material, I'd suggest you see what the scientific literature says about this.Mattnad (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Russian partisan behaviour in Russians in Estonia

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

---

Users Sander Säde and Nug have been jealously guarding the article Russians in Estonia whitewashing any claims of discrimination by NGOs. Conflict started when I removed what I found WP:label and added claims of discrimination, both my edits were reverted and both users even refuse to add a POV tag to the contested section.--Kathovo talk 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The users just restored the verified fact you had removed and deleted the biased claim you inserted. The details are available in Talk:Russians in Estonia. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Who deemed Amnesty International biased? Obviously I'm contesting the neutrality of that section, so what is your reason for removing the POV tag?--Kathovo talk

WP:DETAG Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.
— WP:TAGGING#Disputes over tags

--Kathovo talk 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? My "jealous guarding" seems to be when I reverted your weird unexplained editorializing, [108]. Prior to that, my last edit to that article was in the summer of 2009... Also, it seems you missed a huge banner saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" when starting this topic. --Sander Säde 12:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

85.69.198.194 and disruptive editing on Tao Lin

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

---

After recently removing a section from the Tao Lin article that was only sourced by a personal blog and a 4chan archive, I was reverted by 85.69.198.194. Assuming good faith, I once more reverted the edit, making it clear the sources were non-notable. The IP then once more reverted the edit with the summary "Lin's internet presence is not to be neglected, even by BDSM lovers" (which I believe is in reference to my userpage). Their most recent edit appears to be an insertion of a 4chan in-joke with the summary "Link of a Tao Lin reading". I would assume it's safe to say this person is not here to build an encyclopedia, though I suppose that is up to administrative decision. felt_friend 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Final warning issued. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Banning of this IP Address

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

---

So this IP address that I am using is at my school. I'm requesting that the IP be banned either permanantly or for a long time so that the students at the school (other than myself) are not distracted by vandalizing random pages, as they seem to have already done at least once.

216.56.8.68 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

IP address has made one previous edit, which was reverted as vandalism and a warning issued. Odd that the OP's first edit is to AN/I, which isn't something most new users come to that fast. In any case, vandalism reports are best made at WP:AIV - if there is further vandalism from this IP address it should be reported there. Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Regardless of one's opinion on the WMF's lolnoing calls for SITE, allowing IP editing is not "encouraging vandalism". Period. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just as an explanation to the original poster... Wikipedia actually encourages trivial vandalism from school addresses, in the hope that after realising their supposedly "amusing" vandalism will not stay, a small proportion of more thoughtful students might edit Wikipedia in more useful ways. So, a few vandalism edits over a year or two - or even a month or two - is no problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Could you point to a policy which says that we encourage trivial vandalism from school addresses? I'd like to send all the trivial school vandalism I handle to the author of that policy for their ajudication. BMK (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC) @Demiurge1000: April 1st was yesterday, and even then it's not appropriate to give this advice to an IP. Vandalism is discouraged, period. -- Atama頭 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I doubt the IP in question is here to read anything I might write. There's a reason we don't semi-protect most articles. We do also discourage vandalism - on average - yes. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what I said. Carry on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC) @Demiurge1000: I think you mean don't bite the newbies. Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Nothing in WP:DONTBITE "encourages trivial vandalism from school addresses" which is the claim made by Demiurge1000, no misunderstanding about it, I'm afraid. I take it by their reply here without a pointer to any policy that there is, in fact, no policy whatsoever that encourages school vandalism, so I suggest to D1000 not to misrepresent Wikipedia policy, especially to easily-influenced newbies. Your comment here was unhelpful. BMK (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC) On the contrary, it wasn't destructive. WP:SAND is the right way to point them if they've only made one edit that looks like it's a test (not vandalism). Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncivility by 24.44.93.50

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

---

User 24.44.93.50 made an edit to pawnless chess endgames that to me seemed like his own original research (in fact two attempts). I reverted it and gave a level 1 warning on his talk page, explaining it. He left a nasty message on my talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a little premature to bring this here. Warn the user with that {{subst:uw-npa}} (and/or {{subst:uw-unsor1}}) templates, and report if either behaviors persist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

General approach would be to simply remove the rant from your (Bubba73's) talk page rather than request assistance here at ANI ... an editor whose fifth edit ever is that aggressive is unlikely to be converted into a collaborative editor. Best to revert and ignore and only worry about requesting a block if the editor persists. NE Ent 22:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for giving him the NPA warning. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Fort hood

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

---

Admin / editor eyes on 2014 Fort Hood shooting would be appreciated. NE Ent 00:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ent; Tassedthe beat me to the semi-protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikibreak.

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

---

I am feeling a bit burned out. I'll be back in a week or so. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Does that require the intervention of administrators? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Block him for a week to make sure he gets back well rested. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Page Ban Proposal For User "Earl King Jr."

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

---

Hello, I signed up after seeing the "talk" on The Zeitgeist Movement page, absolutely shocked at what I was reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement

"Zeitgeist really is a fringe group cult and that is why the usual media does not bring it up much, its just not taken seriously except by the zealots that believe in it. As you may know it has been called the worlds first large based internet cult. Mostly that is about the only serious internet commentary on it that is easy to find. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement

This does not sound like someone interested in maintaining NPOV and I do not think they should be allowed to edit a page they hold such vehement emotions towards. I also recommend experienced editors review the page for NPOV. I apologize if something is wrong with my post, as I said, I'm very new to Wikipedia editing and just wanted to bring this to the community's attention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andytark (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have any examples of the editor making POV edits to the article, as opposed to expressing their personal opinion on the article's talk page? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. BMK (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting... Flowersforparis has been blocked for editing in this subject, and for sockpuppetry, and you, in your very first two edits find your way to AN/I and manage to post a pointer to it on Earl King Jr.'s talk page. An amazing coincidence. BMK (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume that is FlowersForParis in another incarnation. His prose style of writing is nearly identical and he has a history of mixing it up negatively on related articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it is time to file an SPI with diffs to substantiate up your assumption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that shortly after being blocked, FlowersForParis posted as an IP on Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement to make a very similar complaint to the one made by the 'new' contributor here. [109] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock. It's striking how this "very new" user knows about things like page bans, about this noticeboard, even down to the culturally correct ANI phrasing ("recommend experienced editors review the page", "bring this to the community's attention"), and even about alphabet soup like NPOV. It's a sock. I'm not familiar enough with Flowersforparis's prose style to say that Andytark is with 100% certainty their sock, though the amazing coincidences, as BMK puts it, suggest it, as does AndyTheGrump's link. Liz, note the SPI instructions for administrators here: "In many cases, sock puppetry can be determined just by behavioral evidence and without the need for technical evidence. Many admins normally apply what is colloquially called the duck test – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." It's a duck. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

I understand WP:DUCK, Bishonen, it just seems like it is applied differently depending on who the admin is. Sometimes evidence is required while other admins will act on an accusation alone. I'm not singling anyone out, it just seems like sometimes the bar is set extremely low for identifying socks based on a few edits that appear to be suspicious. I think some editors think "probably is=is" when that's not always the case. I don't know whether or not Andytark is a sock (he might have previously edited as an IP, for example), I just have issues with how this policy is applied. But this is just a response to your comment, I realize that this case is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's simply blatantly obvious when you know how a certain editor behaves, but it's wiser not to explain how. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Why are open proxies able to edit Wikipedia?

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

---

According to User talk:137.132.250.12, this is an open proxy. However, this IP can still edit. Per WP:PROXY, use of open proxies is banned with no room for negotiation, and users who rely on open proxies to access the internet from behind restrictive governments are required to create an account and apply for ip-block-exempt. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• whatismyaddress confirms that this IP is presently a proxy server. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Because a proxy can be created or destroyed at any time and there is no way to know other than to constantly test every IPv4 and IPv6 address one at a time to discover them and it's a process that is slow even for bots?--v/r - TP 07:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The link says it is a "confirmed proxy" ie "the public IP address of a proxy server" but not a open proxy, that "can be used by anyone". Maybe they got their act together since 2009. IT departments are slow, but 5 years should be enaugh to patch blatant security holes. Agathoclea (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Where in WP:PROXY is "the use of open proxies banned with no room for negotiation?" Yes, that is the usual result, but it is because of abuse. If somehow magically an open proxy only contributed good edits, I see no policy that would require blocking it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• You have look beyond the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some constructive Wikipedia editors are forced by circumstance to use open proxies. Such proxies may be "blocked on sight" but only if there is abuse. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a few points here from one of the more active contributors to WP:OP.

• whatismyipaddress.com is full of... it. I can't recall how many alleged proxies that they have confirmed that clearly aren't proxies.
• Generally, we don't actively seek out web proxies, except ones known for repeated abuse (newipnow.com would be one such example). If found, they are usually blocked, though. Usually they are found through someone abusing it.
• Transparent proxies are generally blocked automatically by ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) (though it doesn't catch all of them).
• Wikipedia editors who need to edit through proxies may be given the ip block exemption, but the existence of such editors is not generally seen as an excuse for leaving proxies unblocked if discovered.
• Many open proxies are blocked globally at meta.

Now in this particular case,the IP is a web-caching proxy for the National University of Singapore. It is not currently an open proxy, though it was several years ago. Blocking it would probably block many potentially productive editors at that university, and therefore shouldn't be done unless it becomes open again. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

M:NOP has the global proxy policy, which is basically what I was summarizing above. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So if someone wants to edit through an open proxy from a geolocation where emails are intercepted by a repressive government and edits can very quickly become unhealthy, let me get this straight, they can send an *EMAIL* to the wikipedia linking their user name with their IP? Thanks, but no thanks. An open proxy can be used for disruption, sure, but so can an IP or a logged-in user. That should be the sole criteria. Users do not usually have control over their institution's proxies. —Neotarf (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed proxies and VPN's are still allowed. If you want to debate the proxy policy, take it up with meta. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

151.66.113.53

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

---

151.66.113.53 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly deleting sourced material without explanation from the article, Rolf Furuli.

• [110]
• [111]
• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]

There is another edit by 151.66.40.171 (talk · contribs) which is evidently the same individual.

• [116]

He has been warned repeatedly at his User Talk page by me[117], User:Flyer22[118] and User:Donner60[119].

Since it is evident that the user is on a dynamic IP, it may be necessary to temporarily range block 151.66.x.x.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

it looks to me there is method in the madness. While 151 seems not to understand the finer points of wikipolicy, it looks like he tries to fix what he thinks is a deliberate and undue attempt to discredit Rolf Furuli. That brings it into the realms of BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of BLP policies for an article to report that the subject of the article is a proponent of a fringe view. In any case, the editor has made no case to discuss the article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

He has deleted material from the article a further two times after this complaint was lodged, still with no explanation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually counted 21 reverts of the same material from April 1-3. I reported them at WP:ANEW and they were reported for vandalism and so are blocked for 3 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Banc De Binary

There appears to be a sudden, orchestrated whitewashing of Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are five newly autoconfirmed editors with about ten edits made before they began editing Banc De Binary. Requests have been made to discuss in talk:Banc De Binary, but seems to have been met with demands and no real discussion. One of these editors was blocked per NLT. In one case an edit summary was "removed whitewashing" when in fact appeared to be performing whitewashing. Not sure what to do about this. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There's enough to say a very high likelihood of meatpuppetry going on if not outright sockpuppetry. Time for an SPI methinks. Blackmane (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Followup comment. I've left notifications on all the editors' talk pages based, hopefully I haven't missed any. Also, @Pinkbeast: has raised an SPI for all the accounts Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the consensus version (I can't see anything that is contentious and unsourced in that version - let me know if I am wrong) and fully protected for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Odds are likely this is meat puppetry and maybe some sock puppetry. Style comparisons tell me you have two or more people involved. A CU might or might not be useful for some of these as they may be in different cities. I'm guessing much of the blocking will have to be done the old fashioned way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sockdrawer: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros, which was originally opened as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Webgrasp, but moved when it appeared Notsosoros was the oldest account. This SPI has already been checkusered and closed, with a very long list of socks, about forty, blocked and tagged. Ironically the originally supposed sockmaster, Webgrasp, turned out to be unrelated. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Banc De Binary was fully protected because of this sockfarm. Maybe someone can lift the protection now?--Atlan (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've restored the previous semiprotection. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm a bit surprised about Webgrasp. Checkuser may not have turned anything up, but they sure quack like a duck, grinding exactly the same axe as all the others. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Compare WP:MEAT. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

WT:Article titles uninvolved admin assistance needed

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

---

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Tweak to recognizability criterion about whether a recent discussion established consensus to change the policy. Since this topic is under discretionary sanctions, it would be good if an uninvolved admin could chime in and settle this. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Commented there. Dpmuk (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Glpuk (talk · contribs): self-promotion, shared account, advertising

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

---

This user is operating a shared account (representing a company); their user page contains self-promoting material for said business; and their latest edit (for which I talked to them, before realising the greater rule violation) inserted advertising material into a good article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Already handled by Orangemike--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Katieh5584

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

---

Note: archive top by User:King of Hearts was WP:BOOMERANG. Doctornickel will be blocked if he makes another frivolous deletion request. I'm reopening this thread because I have something pending re this user; please don't archive it until I have time to post. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

I've had a problem with User:Katieh5584. This user posted a comment on my talk page saying that i "vandalized" the article Henrik Norby when all I did was put a request for proposed deletion on it. The reason for the proposed deletion request was that the person was un-notable. Doctornickel (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You also put a deletion template on Dolly Parton, claiming she wasn't notable.Katieh5584 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

She's right. He did[120]. I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head!  :) — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Doctornickel is clearly making disruptive edits, which a quick glance of their contributions and talkpage will confirm. I hope that boomerang doesn't smack you in your face. Shame. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

On the reported issue, Katieh5584 has apologized for the errant warning, so no administrative action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• • It isn't often I say this, but Doctornickel simply needs to be indef blocked, now. I don't have time to block and follow up as I'm walking out the door, but his edits need a complete nuking. Look at the contribs. Call it CIR or trolling, I don't care which, but my money is on trolling. Tons of PRODs for reasons that are obviously invalid, etc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've reopened this closed thread because I found something. Looking around Doctornickel's disruptive carousel of moves and redirects (I must be losing it, I couldn't even understand what was going on in these three edits, all made in the same minute), I saw the suggestive trail of a previous account, Nascarman1 (talk · contribs). Nascarman had exactly the same interests and habits as Doctornickel, and made many of the very same creations and redirects in the mere 8 hours back in January before he was blocked by Bbb23. He left a trail of disruption, in that short time, that must have cost a good deal of time to clean up. After arguing about his block, Nascarman posted this last comment on his page: i will be creating a new account on a different computer at a different location with a different IP address. I have removed everything from this talk page, if anything is added than it will be deleted until I get my new account and start fresh. I am NOT going to tell anyone what my new account is and it is going to be a relaunch.

I think it's obvious that he did what he said he would, create a new account, whose contributions show the very same interests and idiosyncrasies, the same frantic bursts of speed, etc. I've indeffed Doctornickel per WP:DUCK. I'm sort of unhappy about it, noting the pathos of his userpage: "I am a good editor" (compare "it is going to be a relaunch"). :-( My theory, Dennis, is that the user is not trying to harm Wikipedia, but is so far from WP:COMPETENCE that it's completely no go, Wikipedia not being therapy. And of course there's the block evasion. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

Excellent sleuthing on the sock call. Obviously, I support the block (and respect why you wanted to delay). I had researched enough to know this was an extraordinary case, I just didn't know it was a repeat performance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Help help

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

---

I just noticed that the "Help" link under "interaction" in the left sidebar, which used to take readers to Help:Contents, has suddenly begun taking them to this MediaWiki page. I'm sure someone made this change intentionally, but it seems to me a disimprovement (no links to the Help desk or the Teahouse there, for one thing). Since changing the sidebar must require (at least) admin privileges, I figured this would be an appropriate place to bring the matter up. Does this appear to be a useful change? Deor (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Sidebar_.22Help.22_link_broken. Bovlb (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Nicolescherzingerfan removing/changing material without explanations

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

---

User:Nicolescherzingerfan is constantly removing material from articles without explanations in edit summaries. I have warned him/her three times in a row to not remove content from Wikipedia without explaining why ([121], [122], [123]), but the user ignores them. The user changed an infobox picture without discussion on the article's talk page, changed perfectly summarized text without edit summary, removed album information without edit summary, removed a section picture without edit summary, changed an infobox picture again without discussion on that article's talk page, and even changed an infobox without any consensus. If these warnings do not continue to work, maybe a block will.--IPadPerson (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Douglas Cotton

Douglas Cotton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor's actions make it appear that they represent a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. From their user page being an ad for their self-published book, to edits such as this and this and this, to their short-lived DRN and Arbitration requests, it is clear that they are only editing as part of as they say, a "publicity campaign" to disprove global warming. Requesting an indefinite topic ban for this user from any original research or POV pushing (broadly construed), in any namespace.

Notified: [124] VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:PROMO, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DISRUPTION and WP:TENDENTIOUS (on article talk pages), ultimately WP:CIR when one considers the editor's inability or unwillingness to understand basic policies like WP:V and WP:RS. There's no possible way that if the editor continues on the same arc he's on right now that the ultimate result won't be an indef block, but a topic ban is, I suppose, worth trying. It needs, however, to include all aspects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as well as the Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change/Global Warming. BMK (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in delaying the inevitable. support community ban, second choice topic ban. The user basically came here because he's been banned from half the climate blogs, and wants a new forum to discuss his pet theories, which most charitably would be called WP:FRINGE (honestly, they're a bit beyond the fringe – he's been banned from both Skeptical Science and Watts Up With That? which aren't really known for agreeing on much). Not remotely here to build an encyclopedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. It seems readily apparent that Douglas Cotton has failed to understand a single word regarding WP:PROMO, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTAFORUM, etc, etc, despite multiple attempts to explain what Wikipedia is for, and why he isn't under any circumstances going to be allowed to use it to promote his theories. I cannot imagine that anyone this incapable of understanding elementary policy would be of the slightest use editing on other topics, and see no point whatsoever in delaying the inevitable. Block indefinitely, and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Related:

User talk:Douglas Cotton#Areas of expertise,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greenhouse effect,

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Venus.

I agree that Douglas Cotton is WP:NOTHERE and has a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. I do not agree that an indefinite block is the solution. There is no reason why the usual method of applying blocks with escalating duration should not be applied here. The only downside is a little more work. The upside is that, when the inevitable "Wikipedia is oppressing me" webpage is created, we will be able to say with a clear conscience that we gave him several warnings and several chances to stop being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is yet another site where he has been pushing his so-called theories. According to this thread he has been making use of sockpuppets on their forum to promote his ideas and has subsequently been banned and a filter put in place to deal with him. I had a look at a recent Watts Up With That? thread and it's apparent that what we're dealing with here is not just your run of the mill fringe theory pusher. He's very determined and I expect that there will be sockpuppets on the horizon. WP is one of the highest, if not the highest, profile sites and will largely come up number 1 on Google. I highly doubt a topic ban will deter him. I know that off-wiki evidence is unusual but this might need to be an IAR exception. Blackmane (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that off-topic evidence is really necessary - it is absolutely clear that Douglas Cotton's only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote his theories, and it is likewise clear that he is incapable of complying with our policies. As for using 'escalating blocks' providing a 'clear conscience' for us, I have to say that I fail to see the logic of this. If we know what the end result is going to be, all such blocks will achieve is more disruption, while giving Cotton false hope that he might be allowed to continue with his promotional activities. Ultimately, it isn't doing him any favours at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Consider the case, as often happens, where someone who is blocked starts making a lot of noise about it off-wiki. Such cases are sometimes picked up by journalists, and are almost certain to get a write up on The Wiki That Shall Not Be Named. When that happens, do we really want the reader to hear that we went nuclear on the first offense? Or that someone with "Grump" in their username decided that "we know what the end result is going to be"?

Besides, we don't know what the end result is going to be, The odds are high that he won't listen, but it is possible that he will. He already stopped editing articles and started editing talk pages, so he has shown that he can adapt to our rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think that worrying about what Wikipediocracy might have to say about this is something we should start taking into account here, and secondly, if you have a problem with my username, I suggest you raise it in an appropriate place. As for 'adopting our rules', I don't see this [125] post as evidence for that - on the contrary, he seems to be trying to insert his own fringe theories into articles by subterfuge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, Guy, we don't actually know what's gonna happen, but we've all been around WP long enough that we've seen this before and really kinda know what the end result will be.

As for his change to talk pages, I don't see that as much of an improvement, more a lateral move on his part -- he's still trying to promote his OR, but he's now using a different methodology that he thinks is going to keep him out of trouble. There's been absolutely no forward motion on his part (as you know from your conversation with him) in acknowledging what the purpose of an encyclopedia is, and what the specific policies of this encyclopedia are, not to mention any declaration of intent to follow those policies. He's just churning water, waiting for things to calm down a bit so he can take up the banner again. BMK (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope Colton comes to AN/I and we hear his take on these accusations. It seems odd to talk about a person without them participating in the discussion. I know that can't be forced, but I hope he posts here before any proposed topic ban goes into effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

There is only one way this can go. Policy has been patiently explained, Cotton isn't listening. He has a theory which he wants to being to prominence and mainstream acceptance, but by its foundational policies, Wikipedia is not the place to do that. When his theory becomes accepted by the scientific community then we will cover it as he wishes us to, and not before. In the mean time, constantly explaining why he can't have what he wants represents a drain on people's time. The list of policies and guidelines he's violating is prettt impressive: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SOAP and others, and given his recent request to ArbCom, I would argue also WP:NCR. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I could get behind a topic ban on physics (of which astronomy and astrophysics are a subset) and climate change, broadly construed. That way, if Cotton is interested in editing, maybe we might see a change in behavior. If he fails to understand and/or follow the topic ban, then escalating blocks. While the site ban I feel is inevitable given behavior on previous sites, I can see how a topic ban with escalating blocks wouldn't require too much more effort than just a straight up site ban while allowing for the possibility of productive editing. Sailsbystars (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• A topic ban seems like the least drastic thing we can do. I suspect this will either end in a site ban, or a voluntary complete withdrawal (if I can't edit these subjects I won't edit at all), but - call me crazy - I think we can at this point give the benefit of the doubt, and go for a topic ban. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Topic ban seems better than an absolute ban. You don't hunt a duck with a cannon. Howunusual (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done about the editor, so even though I think an indef block or community ban would be the least disruptive thing to do, I will support the broadest possible topic ban that everyone agrees on. Having shown no understanding off our policies about scientific material, that ban could be for all of science, it could be for physics, it could be for anything connected to thermodynamics, the greenhouse effect and climate change (broadly construed). Anyone closing this discussion should take this as a !vote for any broad topic ban. BMK (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a discretionary-sanctions notice on his talk page (for climate change), and support a topic ban on physics and climate change, broadly construed. Miniapolis 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed my notice, which duplicated Steven Zhang's earlier one :-). Miniapolis 21:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. In view of the language that can be read as a legal threat, would also support a community ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Suspended topic ban. Since there is enough consensus for a topic ban, we can let Cotton know that the topic ban will go into effect in, say, a week from now unless he changes his behavior. Here on Wikipedia we have User:Brian Josephson who takes a contrarian position on Cold Fusion, but he is able to make his points in a non-disruptive way. So, it should be possible for Cotton to change his behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The ink on the arbcom decline is barely dry, let's get the editor time to reassess their approach -- perhaps they can find some sources. NE Ent 03:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a condition of any potential unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Threatening WP:DRN volunteer?

From User talk:Steven Zhang#Complaint and potential action pertaining to an unresolved dispute:

"A complaint was in progress on DRN pertaining to the obvious fact that there is no valid physics which can confirm any possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect on Venus. That complaint was terminated without any response based on valid physics, and I am assuming that the real reason is that no one has a valid response.

If this complaint is not re-opened and appropriate scientific discussion ensues, then please understand that I am an active author through other media and will cite and discuss this draconian action by a WP committee in a fashion which would inevitably be detrimental to any reputation WP may have for presenting valid science."[126]

That's a rather nasty threat. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be, if there was any evidence that Cotton has any credibility beyond Wikipedia. There isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Credible or not, while that's not a legal threat it's clearly intended to cause a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep...they just threatened to write "in a fashion which would inevitably be detrimental to any reputation WP may have for presenting valid science". To me that states clearly this editor does not know how to work together and seems to NEED to have their way or else. Not appropriate and blockable in my view. Perhaps it really isn't...and if not, it should be.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't read it. Nor does it bother me. It's well known I edit with my real name. I'm a big boy. I can look after myself. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you've always had the ability to take care of yourself, but that really isn't the point here. Other's reading it may avoid the topic if the feel they'd be the subject of off wiki attacks and this seems to be a threat of that nature.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, someone on the Internet might say Wikipedia isn't reliable???? That's not a threat, that's a joke. (It's been done before). Best ignored. NE Ent 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The threat is, of course, not credible, yet its intent is clearly to have a WP:CHILLING EFFECT, which is within the penumbra of WP:NLT. It's easy to say "ignore the guy", but he won't shut up (see below), and is basically smearing his refusal to understand Wikipedia policies and processes in our faces, daring us to do something about it. That puts us on the slippery slope, because if we don't do something about this person, we open the door wide to all the other Douglas Cottons out there who would be overjoyed to use WP to promote their unaccepted "theories." That argues for not ignoring, but doing something. Topic ban, indef block, community ban, we just cannot turn our backs and expect this person to go away. BMK (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Site Ban

I don't like community site bans. The "community" is not an effective mechanism for getting rid of disruptive editors. It would be better if we had an Arbitration Committee that could ban them. However, it appears that our Arbitration Committee doesn't act. Support a site ban due to a combination of WP:NOTHERE, frivolous use of arbitration, which should boomerang, and threats that may or may not be legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, as I've already made clear - though the long screed below where Cotton demonstrates yet again that he entirely fails to understand the purpose of Wikipedia would surely have convinced me if I hadn't already formed that opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Response

from Douglas J Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin. (winner of physics scholarship awarded by Prof Harry Messel and his team

Yes perhaps it is time to "brag" a little about my credentials in physics and the five decades I have spent helping university physics (and mathematics) students, and also being the author of mathematics software covering all 12 years of school mathematics, and having sold over a thousand copies of such throughout Australia. (I also won three other academic scholarships.) I have in recent years studied extensively in the field of climatology and post-graduate level physics, specializing in radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics, publishing two years ago a peer-reviewed paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Yes I do understand what an encyclopedia ought to be, and the lack of bias that it ought to display. Bias can be exercised through general policies pertaining to "reliable sources" which, when it really comes down to it, no one is in a position to judge. Was Loschmidt's original paper (putting forward a hypothesis that gravity acts on molecules and forms both a density gradient and a temperature gradient) not even worth a mention in his biography on WP, let alone in an article on the gravito-thermal effect? Of course not, you would say, because you know full well that it explains the Venus dilemma, which cannot be explained with a radiative greenhouse hypothesis. Was Dr Hans Jelbring's peer-reviewed paper on the gravito-thermal effect (which he studied for his PhD in climatology) not reliable just because it was published in "Energy and Environment" which you no doubt consider to be an unreliable source? Is the comprehensive research of the research carried out by the Life Extension Foundation (since 1980) unreliable? Or is the real issue the fact that it poses a threat to the medical profession, just like the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect poses a threat to climatology research grants, as does my peer-reviewed paper, which you no doubt claim was reviewed by unreliable sources from among the hundreds of scientists who have joined Principia Scientific International because they know the greenhouse conjecture is false?

Outside of its encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes article "talk" pages, and such are indeed an appropriate venue for anyone with suitable knowledge to suggest improvements to the article. Improvements can surely entail the removal of errors, and many such errors are clearly wrong because they are in disagreement with the very physics which Wikipedia documents. For example, the statement in vortex tube that the high temperature is due to the high pressure cannot be supported by the ideal gas law or any valid physics. What physics tells us (as a corollary of the second law of thermodynamics) is that a state of maximum entropy evolves. There is no way that there can be a relationship with pressure causing temperature for the obvious reason that gravity does not act on "pressure" but it acts on molecules, causing the state of maximum entropy to evolve. That state, according to valid physics, is isentropic and thus has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. Then we derive pressure, because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature. But the Vortex tube supports Loschmidt's hypothesis, so it is against Wikipedia's agenda to allow my hypothesis to appear in among the other incorrect ones. Nobody pulls wool over Cotton's eyes.

Now, I have given an undertaking not to edit articles. So you can ban me from editing articles if you wish, because I won't even attempt to do so. I have explained that, when I first did so, I didn't even notice the link to article talk pages. These talk pages could potentially help editors to sort out what is a theory and what is merely a hypothesis. But neither a theory or a hypothesis can be valid if it is clearly in violation of the laws of physics. Sadly the greenhouse conjecture is not built upon the maximum entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and its inventors lacked an understanding of when radiation transfers thermal energy and when it does not, as in explained in my peer-reviewed paper mentioned above.

Be that as it may, Wikipedia editors ought to look into situations where anyone, myself included, points out in talk pages that there are statements in articles which run contrary to the laws of physics. These laws won't go away: they are the foundation of the universe, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics "controls" all natural thermodynamic processes, not just those involving heat transfer.

I have no "theory" of my own. I would not dare to call my "hypothesis" a theory. But you don't understand that there are two quite separate arenas in my agenda. One is explaining why the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was correct about the gravito-thermal effect (and all attempts to rebuke it - including Verkley's - have inherent fallacies in their arguments) and the other is my hypothesis (built upon the Second Law) that convection can indeed move from the cooler regions of tropospheres to the warmer surfaces, because the process is one in which maximum entropy is evolving following a disruption to thermodynamic equilibrium. I agree that this hypothesis has no part yet in Wikipedia, but the former issue of the gravito-thermal effect ought to be the subject of an unbiased article (that I'd be happy to write) which points out viewpoints and arguments on both sides. But, anticipating your refusal to publish any such article by anyone, I still maintain that it will potentially improve the integrity of WP if you allow comments from myself (and other physicists now joining my group) in relevant talk pages.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What you can do is argue on the talk page based on the notability of a particular point of view. What you cannot do is argue on the basis of correctness of some approach if this is not sufficiently notable. What the article will say should reflect what the prevailing point of view in the scientific community is, even if that view is not correct. If indeed it is not correct and a small mionority of scientists know the truth about that issue, then Wikipedia will have to wait until the prevailing view changes to reflect that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But the laws of physics are also the "prevailing view" and I suggest it is not appropriate to have self-contradiction within WP. Hence if someone implies something like the high temperature in a vortex tube is due to high pressure, it serves no purpose other than to confuse society. The greenhouse conjecture does enough of that confusing anyway. I'm sure the aim of any encyclopedia is not to confuse readers with internal conflict. That is where informed comment in the talk pages (by those with appropriate knowledge, as is stated in WP guidelines) can potentially improve WP, and no doubt has in many cases. But for WP editors to single out some contributor because his overall agenda is to reveal the truth to the public about the greenhouse conjecture, then that action is questionable and not in the interests of science. My point is that "sufficiently notable" becomes nothing but a viewpoint of WP.

Footnote: Maybe you don't realize it, but "Count Iblis" (in your link) does in fact make a valid point about vitamin D - something about which I have read many scientific studies. The studies are there for WP to report upon, and some are from government authorities which I consider sufficiently notable. But just because I have studied such matters, and clearly slowed down my own rate of aging quite significantly, does not mean WP has to discuss the rate of human aging - but I suggest they should discuss valid scientific research carried out with the same precision as the best of research associated with pharmaceutical drugs.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't care. All models are wrong, some models are useful George Box. Physics has one way of determining truth (experimental) and Wikipedia has another way of determining what gets put into articles (reliable sources). To come into a different society (Wikipedia) and attempt to reach a goal not understanding its rules isn't wise, regardless of how many letters one can put after one's name NE Ent (B.S. MIT, LMNOPQRST) (Okay I made the LMNOPRST part up.) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Cotton continues to use his talk page as a platform for nonsense about "a huge class action law suit". [127] Since he clearly isn't using it for any useful purpose, I suggest that blocking talk page access would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeff'ed

NOTHERE, gone. Any admin who believes I overreached, or that they have reformed, may unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Does this justify revocation of talk page access? VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it probably does (it's not a legal threat, but it is inappropriate use of the talk page while blocked). Also, good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good block, thanks for cutting to the chase. BMK (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone hasn't noticed, he's continuing his soapboxing on his talk page. Thrub (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, and he's repeating the legal warning thing too Thrub (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good block. Although I personally prefer escalating blocks, that's a judgement call. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems as if talk page access should be cut-off as well, since he seems intent on using the page to promote his theories. He can request an unblock through ArbCom or BASC. BMK (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We care why? No one is required to read a blocked user's talk page and unless one is an admin evaluating an unblock, or a good faith user, such as Liz, trying to convert the editor into a productive Wikipedian [128], it's hard to see a good reason for other editors to be posting there. NE Ent 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a bad block, and here's why. Since the editor had stopped mucking up articles, he was clearly responsive, to some extent, regarding concerns expressed to him about WP policy. There was some small, non-zero chance -- say between 1 (pessimist) and 3 (optimistic) percent -- they could be converted to a productive editor. Given that there are a quarter million [129] unreferenced articles, and the number of articles (6,828,953) to active editors (120,065) ratio is 56.877133219506, we really do need all the editors we can get. Given the indef block, plus false accusations of legal threats -- [130] note the phrase "I am not threatening any such action initiated by myself" -- that probabability is now effectively zero. Of course, no one is going to burn political capital reversing a block or protesting against a singular block that, 97% of the time, would have eventually been needed anyway, so it has the appearance of a "good block." But one hundred such blocks could result in the loss of one to three sorely needed editors. NE Ent 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

...but will definitely result in numerous already-here, already-productive editors not wasting time putting out fires while Herr Doktor Professor Dip.Bus.Admin (Winner of Physics Scholarship Awarded By Prof Harry Messel And His Team, with Silver Star Cluster, Oak Leaves, and Good Posture Tiara), and the other 99 you postulate, finally -- perhaps -- learn that they too must not play with matches. EEng (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Issue seems kind of over, but I agree with EEng - while potential productive editors should not be discouraged, existing productive editors shouldn't be asked to spend increasing amounts of time cleaning up after others in the 1-3% hope that those others might stop disrupting Wikipedia. There comes a point of diminishing returns in trying to assist an unproductive contributor, and I think we may have reached it in this case. Euryalus (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Similar case

There is a mostly IP editing user, claiming to be Friedwardt Winterberg who thinks he is being denied credit for inventing the concepts of Firewall (physics) and Black hole information paradox. There may or may not be truth to his claim that he came up with these concepts and due to some politics in the physics community is being denied the credit, but there are no reliable sources linking his research to these concepts (with the exception of one footnote in the more famous Firewall paper). I came to this topic through being the closer at an RFC, where Winterberg supporters were involved in heavy socking Talk:Firewall_(physics)#RfC:_What_mention.2C_if_any.2C_should_be_made_of_Friedwardt_Winterberg.27s_2001_paper.3F Since the closer the IPs have been on repeated diatribes accusing the wiki WP:CABAL of being part of a physics conspiracy to deny him credit. (his being shunned in the physics community may be due to the fact that he famously accused Einstein of plagiarism) Also, apparently, I personally am a sock of Jimbo Wales. Not sure what should be done here, but its a persistent problem.

Diatribe diffs [131] [132] [133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140]

due to repeated insertion of credit/priority claims for Winterberg, Both articles are now semi protected, (although they will expire in a while) limiting this disruption to the talk pages for now, but its gone on for quite a while now.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The user is continuing with his personal attacks [141] [142] He is bearing the WP:TRUTH Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban request

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

---

I would like to propose an interaction ban between myself and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

First off, I will state right away that I am a fan of pornography (but if anyone thinks I think anything porn-related should stay on Wikipedia, this should change your mind). In several AfDs for pornography-related subjects, HW has !voted delete, which certainly isn’t against policy, but the thing about it is, whenever I try to challenge his (I remember him saying a while ago that he is male) viewpoint, he responds in the meanest way possible. Initially, he started by calling my viewpoints “purposefully obtuse” ([143] [144]…and I’m still not sure what that means, btw), but then he moved over to accusations of me personalizing things in discussions ([145] [146] [147]). Now he calls my disagreements with him disruptive and tells me to “stop casting aspersions” when people disagree with me (when it’s really the other way around: [148][149] (also [150], which indicates how long this nonsense has been going on)). Also, notice that he even posts in all bold text like he’s chastising me or something.

Also, I mentioned here that HW banned me from his talk page, and that stemmed from an entirely different subject where I made an edit and then he reverted it with a very rude edit summary (I then calmly reverted it again and even suggested that we discuss it, but do you think he was as calm?). I then suggested that he learn how to talk to people, and that’s what made me “unwelcome on his talk page”? That’s actually laughable…as is the idea of “commandeering a shortcut”. (SN: I also told him in the past that given that he tends to behave that way toward others as well, he doesn’t get to bully his way around Wikipedia, nor is he in charge of things around here: [151] [152]) BTW, my calling attention to his wikihounding of me is disruptive? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

Basically, I still like Wikipedia and I will continue to edit (in fact, most of the articles I created in the past few months are music-related), but I want nothing to do with him. I shouldn’t have to put up with his behavior when I’m trying to edit. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You want dispute resolution, down the hall, second door on your left. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously not neutral here but none of your diffs are very recent. In fact, the most recent appears to be 4 months ago. Do you have any curent examples of misconduct as this otherwise looks rather stale. It does have to be said that you do have form for casting aspersions tpwards your opponants. Only yesterday you banned me from your talk page after I asked you to explain a post where you accused me of bragging after an article was deleted at AFD [153]. The Irony being that all I had done was ask the deleting admin to post a rationale to the deletion. I can find dozens of diffs of other editors taking you to task for casting aspersions so why does it bother you so much when HW does? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for anyone else looking at this, you might find it useful to look at the interaction tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

[154] seems in some cases to provide more complete results, and less in others :(. Collect (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I clicked the first "purposefully obtuse" link (a diff to this AfD). Two points: it's from 2011, and HW deserves a medal if he is still trying to deal with the lack of understanding shown there. The second link is a diff to this AfD which shows that HW was again exactly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Johnuniq. I won't claim to have made any exhaustive study of this situation, but I do get the overall impression that HW is generally in the right in those interactions. We can hardly sanction an editor for being correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I am not an administrator so please feel free to remove my comment if I am not eligible to post here. I want to make a comment on our friend Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's nomination of porn related articles. I don't think he is exactly correct in all cases particularly for nominating Skweez Media and Customs4U under CSD A7 criteria when a simple google search would return mainstream media coverage. Talpatra (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll admit that I've had my fair share of disagreements with HW and will admit that he does make some good catches on edits, but the latter seems more of an exception than a norm from my dealings with this User. He very much seems to operate with an "I don't like it" editing style especially with regard to porn related articles that are for U.S. based actors and actresses (he is in the U.K.) and then makes every effort to justify it by citing a strict adherence to his understanding/interpretation of BLP policy. The list of porn articles alone that HW has posted on this Users Talk page is some indication of his attitudes or at least the focus of his efforts. I don't believe that HW needs to be sanctioned, but his attitude towards others could use some softening. In all fairness, the worst thing I can accuse him of is being victim to Systemic Bias. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• If an editor follows another editor from a disputed topic area into a topic wholly unrelated, then that is a problem. Otherwise, one has to accept that there are certain issues that are very divisive within this project. Not real-world mirrors like the Occupied Territories or abortion, but rather issues internal to the project such as our scope of coverage and what we should nor should not be extending coverage to. As far as I am aware, no one on the "delete the porn fluff!" side is a moral crusader in the (sizable) mold of an Andrea Dworkin; rather, they are those who oppose on notability grounds, that the threshold for porn actors was far, far too low and needs to be cleaned up. Not everyone has to like each other, or even always play nice. I know they teach that in public school these days, but the reality of the world is that people butt heads. Deal with it, or move on. My personal observation here is that Erpert is losing the porn war, esp in the wake of the removal of "has been nominated" from WP:PORNBIO recently, and is getting a tad bit frustrated. Asking for i-bans is just a way to throw red tape at a problem, making everyone else's job that much harder to sort out idiotic "I was here first and now he's posting next to me, MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!" ANI reports every other week. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You're incorrect about that, Tarc; if I felt I was "losing the porn war", why would I have started an AfD on one of my favorite porn actresses? (Incidentally, since WP:PORNBIO has been changed, I rarely create anything porn-related anymore; the only subjects I can think of recently are Shyla Jennings, Skow for Girlfriends Films and Me and My Girlfriend, because those subjects actually won awards.) But back to the topic at hand, I'm hardly the first person who has ever asked for an IBAN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• The issue here isn't whether or not HW is right when he interacts with someone. The issue is how and how did they get to the point where interaction occurred. For example, if I suddenly had a falling out with Tarc (to randomly pick the person above me), and then started going to every single topic area where Tarc edits and start picking on their edits and nomming articles, I'm clearly being harassing. The "contribs" list is there for a reason - and there's a fine line between monitoring and stalking ES&L 17:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @JzG (Guy): I was told that I could indeed make an interaction ban request here.

@Spartaz: This isn't even about you, so why are you bringing yourself up? And where are these "dozens of diffs"? You haven't provided any.

IP 86.5.93.42 (a DRV regular); IP 74.74.150.139 (another DRV regular); me (these 3 all from same DRV; Both Hullabaloo Wolfovitz and myself in this discussion; This ANI thread - Hobit says you are a badgerer, S Marshall asks you to consider your own behavior part of the problem and uninvolved admin Jreferee refers to the leveling of unsupported accusations; In this ANI thread Hut8.5 says you were partially responsible for the personaliation of a discussion, UltraExactZZ also says you were partially to blame and again says that you made a personal comment about another editor attacking their motives, late on in the same thread UltraExactZZ calls you out again for making another personal comment, Hobit says you personalised it at both DRV and this ANI. I could probably find more if I could be bothered to search for more but I think this rather makes the point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are all people who have disagreed with me, sure, but none of them have actually followed me around like HW has (and interestingly, he hasn't even commented here). I also find it interesting that many of those diffs come from a complaint I made about you...and like I said before, this isn't about you at all (although this recent comment doesn't make you look good...still, I addressed the accusation). But can we keep things on track, please? (SN: That interaction tool you linked to above doesn't necessarily indicate when HW and I actually interacted, just where we both happened to post in the same place.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that HW is following you around. His AFD nominations are based on article content not who created it. You are not the only editor whose articles are being nominated. The proof of the pudding is that they are uniformly being deleted. Again, your editing style is to accuse people who disagree with you. No-one is buying your conspiracy theories. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The reason some of the diffs are old is because only recently had I learned that an interaction ban was even possible; in addition, it also helps to beg the question why he has been allowed to behave this way for so long. And true, one of the diffs is from 2011, but HW kept bringing that discussion up in the subsequent diffs I listed (I even told him several times to stop bringing that up). And if he was correct about Dylan Ryan, why is that article still there? But if you want a more recent diff, here's one that I forgot. Also notice this, where he even claims that I think BLP requirements are "all about me". I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean.

I'm not seeing any issues with either of those diffs. Deletion discussions can be very robust and you are hardly a shrinking violet yourself when it comes to the way you engage with other editors. I can't help feeling we have a case of a mote in someone's eye while ignoring a beam in yours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Starblind: I understand that I posted a lot of diffs, but if you didn't study the whole thing, are you going to honestly say that he was correct in addressing me the way he did? It's fine for him to not be civil?

@Talpatra: This thread isn't about pornography in itself; it's about my being mistreated in discussions stemming from discussions about pornography. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets cut to the chase

What is really happening here is that having lost the argument over PORNBIO Erpert has created a lot of content that is no longer suitable for inclusion. Rather then accept this, he is continuing to try to retain it come what may. This IBAN request is nothing more then a cynical attempt to prevent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz from taking these articles to AFD, where they are being deleted despite the most outrageously specious arguments. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to knock it off, Spartaz. I don't recall stating anywhere in this thread that I'm mad that HW is nominating articles I created for deletion, and I clearly explained that this is about his behavior toward me in general (an issue that is understood). Why are you even so upset that I'm asking for an IBAN against someone else? (BTW, I don't know what "a case of a mote in someone's eye while ignoring a beam in yours" is supposed to mean.) Speaking of that, what still makes you think you can bully me? I'm not putting up with your behavior either. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

It appears that this article is under attack by POV pushers who often resort to edit-warring instead of discussing (some are suspected sockpuppets). This is somehow disruptive so can someone please take a look and do something about it? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. There's been active edit-warring of the same revision repeatedly for the last ten hours or so. There's been a lot of disruption in this article (and the talk page - it was briefly semi-ed) for the last couple of weeks. Intervention is needed at this point. (I was on my way to ANEW and RPP with this but spotted this first.) --ElHef (Meep?) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:GottiQuotes SPA

I'd like to get a few eyes on this account, it's an odd SPA. It may not be good faith to say so but the additions, using references from youtube and smoking gun seems to be more of a trivia account than anything. I've never came across an account like this and something seems just a little fishy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are videos taken in a Federal Prison that have both audio and video. They sure seem reliable and notable. I guess people don't like them as they want them taken down. They also claim John Gotti speaking on video (that he knew he was be recorded) is not a good source. GottiQuotes (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The source is legit, as the videos are authentic and clearly taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which would even make them Public Domain per {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}. However, the portions that GottiQuotes are selecting from the source seem undue to me. I think it's more notable from watching the videos that he didn't want to see his own daughter. Sensationalizing that he used racial slurs... not especially notable. Doc talk 14:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a big article, it lists all kind of not so notable things. There are only 2 brief racial slurs in the whole article. Although the quotes may not be notable to white people, they are very notable if you are African American.

--GottiQuotes (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in adding things outside of gotti quotes? If I'm offbase any non connected editor can close this down it's just a darn unusual thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't close this just yet. edit and one are quite "questionable". The ultimately originally researched "irony" of an African-American rapper styling his stage name after a gangster that was really prejudiced against African-Americans is clearly not within the scope of the articles. To me it seems like part of an agenda being pushed using the provided source. And the username is really quite shady. Doc talk 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To me its either promoting http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/blowing-gotti, or trying to provoke a response by posting controversial information out of context and hiding behind a source. The user page carries on the theme. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am commenting here because I have been received a request to review the discussion and comment on it.

1. I have no wish to get involved in discussions about notability and weight, which in any case are not administrative issues, and do not belong here.
2. I doubt the accuracy of "taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which would even make them Public Domain". While the videos were apparently made by a US government agency, the content of those videos appears to be one or more private conversations, and unless there is some special provision of US copyright law that I am unaware of, the copyright of that content by default belongs to the participants in those conversations. In addition to any copyright issue, it seems likely that the videos have been made public without consent of the participants, which is a violation of privacy. The links must therefore not be used. Revision-deletion of the links to the videos might even be worth considering.
3. The editing history, combined with the username, indicate that the account User:GottiQuotes exists purely for the purpose of publicising particular videos, and particular remarks by John Gotti, probably in order to give greater exposure to facts about Gotti's opinions which GottiQuotes wishes to make better known. GottiQuotes should be aware that an account which exists purely or principally for the purpose of promoting or publicising anything is liable to be blocked.
4. GottiQuotes has repeated the same, or essentially the same, editing on at least a couple of articles, and on one article has done so three times. This is not enough on its own to warrant a block, but GottiQuotes should read Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, which states that an editor who persistently repeats the same edits can be blocked. For some reason that I have never understood, a large number of editors are able to read that policy and come away with the idea that edit warring is acceptable as long as one does not breach the so-called "three revert rule". Just in case GottiQuotes might make that mistake, I emphasise that the policy explicitly states that that is not so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

RevDelete summary request

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

---

I know RevDelete requests are discouraged on ANI, however it is a nuisance. Over at 2014 Winter Olympics, 68.225.81.151 is vandalizing, both on the article itself and in the edit summary. If an administrator can RevDelete the edit summaries for that IP, that would be great. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a day or two (possibly a little soon, but it didn't look as though he planned on doing anything else), but there's nothing in those edits that would merit a revdel, so I've left them be. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit summaries are a pain because, at least for my computer, it extends past the border and is just a pain to look at the article history. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House

• Summary - Since December 2012 Pigsonthewing has been persistently restoring {{disputed}} to Sydney Opera House despite having no support for this from other editors and without explaining what his actual problems are despite numerous requests from editors to specifically explain his issues. Several editors have removed the tag and/or engaged in discussion and the agreement is that there is no need for such a tag. Pigsonthewing refuses to allow the tag to be removed despite this, but will not actively engage in proposing specific edits that will address his concerns. This is more than a content dispute, it is a pattern of disruptive editing ignoring the opinions of other editors and insisting on his unexplained resolution without compromise.
• Background - On 3 December 2012 HubbleConstant, a new editor, made his only ever edits to Wikipedia, all at Sydney Opera House. The first completely removed an entire section,[155] and was appropriately reverted by Tbhotch. The second added content not supported by inline citations, which also partially removed a substantial amount of valid content, effectively "breaking" the article (as I later had to explain to Pigsonthewing),[156] and this was subsequently reverted by Ian Rose as uncited.[157] HubbleConstant made his third and final edit, an inappropriate date change,[158] which was also reverted by Ian Rose. Several hours later, Pigsonthewing restored HubbleConstant's edits, including his removal of the substantial amount of text.[159] An hour after that, I reverted Pigsonthewing's change, explaining in my edit summary, "Edit broke section, which is about the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beg" (the end was lost as the edit summary was too long but should have been "beginning in the 1990s".[160] Pigsonthewing reverted that, with his edit summary saying, "see talk; and WP:SOFIXIT". He also started a discussion on the talk page that continues to this day, as well as on my talk page. That discussion is now archived at User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 14#Sydney Opera House.

The problem with HubbleConstant's edits are several, as I explained to Pigsonthewing in the discussion on my talk page. In the first place, they broke the article, inserting a substantial amount of text in the middle of a section, while removing most of a sentence, specifically "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" leaving only "s a design consultant for future work", the final section of the sentence. Secondly, at least some of the sources are invalid. For example, I could not find a copy of the June 1978 Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary, or determine in which of 5 possible copies of The Weekend Australian printed in December 1983 "a major interview" appeared. Thirdly, and probably most significantly, the section of the article that was edited, currently titled Reconciliation with Utzon; building refurbishment, deals with the 1990s attempts at reconciliation with the building's designer in the leadup to significant rfurbishments of the building's interior spaces. This is supported by all of the content in the section, which deals only with the late 1990s and beyond. It does not deal with earlier events; these are dealt with earlier in the article. This was explained to Pigsonthewing very early on.[161][162] However, Pigsonthewing fails to get the point, despite comments by other editors, dismissing their comments and refusing to respond to requests.

Initial discussion ended after my last post on 4 December 2012,[163] so I was surprised on 27 December when I noticed that Pigsonthewing had added the {{disputed}} tag,[164] without further comment. Since then it has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time.[165][166][167][168] Each time though, Pigsonthewing has restored it,[169][170][171][172] restarting discussion, but without any progress as Pigsonthewing refuses to respond after a few posts. Editors have explained on the talk page why they see no need for the tag and attempted to engage Pigsonthewing in further discussion but his responses have been vague. For example, recently Bjenks asked Pigsonthewing "to clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed." His response was, at best, unhelpful,[173] and a subsequent response was almost cryptic.[174] Bjensks' next request was completely ignored. After a week of no further input I removed the tag again and left a note explaining why this can't continue.[175] Naturally, Pigsonthewing restored the tag yet again. His following comments on the talk page demonstrate why this issue is still unable to be put to bed. "I did not respond to your last post, because you've resorted to simply repeating earlier statements and already-answered questions" was his opening salvo. As I explained in my subsequent reply,[176] it is necessary to repeat things because he does not listen to what he is told. In 3 December 2012, at the very beginning of the discussion, I suggested rewriting the edits and placing them in a more appropriate section,[177] something also suggested by Bjenks recently.[178] I've even specifically said "If you wish to reintroduce the edits in the appropriate section, properly referenced and without breaking the article then please do so",[179] but Pigsonthewing still argues that nobody will "propose or accept a way forward that does not deny these facts".[180] Clearly, there is no way forward if Pigsonthewing refuses to acknowledge the suggestions that people have made and simply refuses to respond when he doesn't want to. His unwillingness to engage in a collaborative effort to address his perceived problems is not justification for retention of the {{disputed}} tag. Previous comments indicate that he apparently wants other editors, not him, to fix the problems but since he won't specify what the problems are (vague responses are no help) we don't know how to fix his problems. His most recent post is no less vague than previous posts.[181] It seems his aim is prolong the discussion so as to ensure his tag remains in the article, which is disruptive. In the last bout of discussion on the matter, which started on 26 March 2014, another 3,000 words have been added without any progress whatsoever. It is really time that this ended and Pigsonthewing needs appropriate "counselling" (again). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Send back to talk: This seems like overkill and scapegoating of an individual, targeting someone personally instead of trying to sort out the issue. Because I view myself as being able to be fair to everyone involved—I am one of the people who have had positive interactions with Pigsonthewing, and I don't know AussieLegend or the other actively involved editors, to the best of my knowledge, but they seem like good folks too. I have asked everyone over there to kindly put the past behind them and help me to tease out the threads of the actual current dispute, and in particular, I am asking everyone to clarify if they view the problem as content, sourcing or formatting. If the issue actually is whether to include currently omitted material that the other editors of the article want to keep out, then I am hoping that each side will clearly (and BRIEFLY) line out their main arguments. If the dispute is over sources, then let's discuss the sources, and if it's a formatting problem, well, let's just fix that. To be honest, I am not entirely sure precisely what everyone is so worked up about over there other than past mistakes and past disputes seem to have taken on a life of their own that has gotten into personality disputes and has nothing to do with any actual issues. If permitted, I would be glad to attempt to mediate this dispute further at talk. Montanabw^(talk) 16:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not scapegoating at all. Pigsonthewing has persistently restored the tag but refuses to specify why the tag is appropriate. His only suggestion has been to move the tag to the top of the article, where it is just as disruptive because he still hasn't explained exactly what his issues are, something I've been trying to get him to do for well over a year now. This is actually "standard Pigsonthewing". He nominates templates for deletion on a regular basis, generally as redundant to another template but whenever another editor asks him to demonstrate how the template actually is redundant, he refuses to do so. Recently, he added fields to {{Infobox television episode}} and in the discussion, he was asked by several editors to give examples of where the parameters would be used.[182][183][184][185][186] The most he ever gave were vague replies.[187] Admittedly, that was more than the response I got to my question of where the consensus was that was used to justify restoration of the parameters.[188][189] I'm still waiting for a response to that question.[190] It's not that your offer is not appreciated, it's that the discussion has been going on (and off and on) for 16 months now and the responses at Sydney Opera House, along with the evidence of Pigsonthewing's disturbing attitude to discussions makes it clear that we're not going to resolve this at the article. Pigsonthewing is not a new editor, he's experienced and should know by now how to respond to polite requests by other editors. He just doesn't seem to want to. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute. A few questions:

• How did this edit "break" the article? It looks quite unbroken to me.
• Does the opening section of Wikipedia:Citing sources not say: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed."?
• Did this edit by HubbleConstant not indicate his/her sources ("an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978", "subsequent, often very witty interviews to the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary and a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983" and "interview, by Ava Hubble, followed publication of her book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983)"?
• Wasn't the correct action to have helped HubbleConstant to learn about inline citations and any possibility of CoI, rather than BITE and ABF?
• Did the communications "with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building" begin in 1990 or 1978? If the latter, then isn't current section Reconciliation with Utzon; building refurbishment factually incorrect? --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Content dispute" - Is it? We've asked Pigsonthewing to specify his problem but he refuses to specify.
• As I explained above, the edit broke the article by removing a substantial portion of text, leaving only a portion of a sentence, broken in the middle of a word. The error is obvious at the end of the new text. What was "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work" became "But this is not the case.... he gave m s a design consultant for future work".
• "Does the opening section of Wikipedia:Citing sources not say" - The edit didn't "provide enough information to identify the source[s]" sufficiently enough to allow inline citations to be created. In effect, what he did was no different to specifying the maximum number of CPUs supported by Windows 8.1 sourced to Microsoft. "He gave subsequent, often very witty interviews to the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary" certainly wasn't cited. As I explained above, I tried to source a copy of the June 1978 Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary (through the local library system) and couldn't get one. A search for the alleged interview was fruitless. "He gave ... a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983" is vague at best. Was the interview given in December 1983 printed in December 1983? In December 1983 there were 5 weekends. Assuming that the interview might have been held over until January 1984 I checked the first two weekends from that month as well and found nothing. The Weekend Australian is a big newspaper so I might have missed it but I don't think I did. There is much more information in the text that is unverifiable, so much so that it simply wasn't worth keeping, although I suggested to Pigsonthewing that if he wanted the text he could source it himself. WP:V says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." That wasn't done and apparently Pigsonthewing didn't want to do it.
• "Wasn't the correct action to have helped HubbleConstant to learn about inline citations" - That was the point of the post on his talk page. Unfortunately it was given after his third and final post and he has never returned.
• "Did the communications "with Jørn Utzon in an attempt" (etc) - Attempts to communicate with Utzon were made sporadically after his resignation but, quite understandably, he rejected them. However, it was not until the 1990s that attempts to reconcile with him were made in order to secure his involvement in the upcoming building refurbishments. So no, the section isn't factually incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's a content dispute. You insist on 1990. Other editors claim 1978. You're simply trying to remove someone who disagrees with you from the dispute.

"he gave m s a design consultant for future work" breaks the article??? You never made typos when you started editing? You're perfectly capable of fixing such a small glitch - yet you want to call this "breaking the article"? What's your agenda here?

The edit did provide enough information to identify the sources. This is someone making their first posts to Wikipedia and you expect them to understand what "inline citations" involve. WP:CITE does not demand such a level of understanding from newcomers - and for good reason.

I sympathise with your frustration over the vagueness of the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary/Weekend Australian. New editors often do that sort of thing. But were you also unable to find the book HubbleConstant referred to? I found it in two seconds: here, (More Than an Opera House), for example.

"Please do not add or change content, as you did to Sydney Opera House, without verifying it by citing reliable sources." is your idea of helping HubbleConstant understand? Did you ever read WP:BITE?

So communications with Utzon did begin 'sporadically' in 1978. So saying that the communications began in 1990 is factually incorrect, isn't it? --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"You insist on 1990. Other editors claim 1978." - No, that's not correct. You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of events. The building refurbishments carried out in the 2000s weren't an issue in 1978. There were no plans at that time to refurbish the building interiors so the efforts in 1978 could not have been with an aim to effect the 2000s building refurbishments. Note that "1990" is not mentioned, we're talking about the 1990s, specifically the late 1990s. HubbleConstant was correct regarding efforts in 1978, that is not disputed and never was,[191][192] but he was incorrect in saying that the efforts in 1978 were about a project that had not yet been conceived.

"You're perfectly capable of fixing such a small glitch" - This was but one small part of larger group of errors. It wasn't a small problem to fix when you consider the other errors.

"The edit did provide enough information to identify the sources." - No it didn't. As I've already indicated, it was not stated whether the "major interview" was in fact printed in December or just given in that month. As I also indicated, I DID check 7 newspapers in the time period covered by the claim and could not find anything to support the claim so clearly the edits did not provide enough information.

"you expect them to understand what "inline citations" involve" - No I do not, which is why I left the note on their talk page. That note includes links to the appropriate pages. Remember too, I never reverted HubbleConstant, just Pigsonthewing who should know better.

"were you also unable to find the book HubbleConstant referred to" - In December 2012, yes I was unable to find it.

"So communications with Utzon did begin 'sporadically' in 1978. So saying that the communications began in 1990 is factually incorrect, isn't it?" - No it's not. The communications that began in the late 1990s (not 1990!) were specifically aimed at involving Utzon in the proposed building refurbishments. The 1978 communications were aimed at mending fences. They didn't start in 1978 either, there were attempts to communicate with him before then. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, this is NOT a content dispute. The problematic content that was removed from the article has not been discussed since 4 December 2012. Pigsonthewing abandoned discussion on 3 December 2012.[193] The issue here is the persistent restoration of the tag every time an editor removes it, without making any reasonable attempt to explain why the tag has been restored. Pigsonthewing only engages in discussion when the tag is restored and only for a short time, after which he disappears until the next time an editor removes the tag. Repeated requests to explain why the tag is appropriate have met with vague, unhelpful and often dismissive responses. I've only been assuming that Pigsonthewing wants the content back in the article, because that's all I have to work with as he refuses to elaborate. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course it is a CONTENT DISPUTE (don't those bold italic capitals make your message so much more convincing). You claim that communications with Utzon began in 1990; and HubbleConstant was claiming that they began in 1978. That's a content dispute by anybody's definition and your response is classic IDHT again. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. At the risk of repeating myself:
      • "You claim that communications with Utzon began in 1990" - Incorrect. Communications with Utzon with a view to involving him in the 2000s building refurbishment began in the late 1990s, not the year 1990. There were no communications with him about this project prior to then because the project didn't exist. Communications aimed at mending fences with Utzon actually began before 1978, but they were nothing to do with the not-yet-conceived late 1990s project. And please, don't accuse me of IDHT when you've talked about 1990 when that year was not mentioned and you've asked questions about issues that have already been explained before you even posted. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. There is a dispute over what the dispute is about. OK. So why is this at ANI again? Seems to me that it should go back to talk. Once we know what folks are even arguing about (and the generalized rant about templates in general isn't at all appropriate here, nor are personalizing the issues, by the way) then we can solve. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• What a fun meta discussion. Anywayz, this is about a "disputed" tag, where one would expect an editor who's been maintaining the tag (not, apparently, the article) to make a clear argument as to why the tag should be there. The only comment that I can see where Andy discusses actual content is this one here. That's not a lot of commenting for a lot of tagging and re-tagging. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• sigh* Just sit on Pigs and remove the tag every time he re-adds it then take him to the edit-warring noticeboard. Edit-warring against consensus does not require 3rr. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Huggle Reverts

Resolved

Could someone please take a look at the history of Santiago de Surco? There's a fellow IP trying to add something that looks constructive, and an idiot equipped with more tools than they know how to handle blindly reverting and accusing the IP of vandalism. They have completely ignored the IP's polite attempts at discussion. I think the IP deserves some backup from someone with a username tbh. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that they are questioning the changes to the article which seem to be unexplained. Post the rationale on the talkpage, I'll lend a hand. Please note WP:NPA Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because the previous map and information was correct. I can't find any sources for the IP's claims.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, take it to the talkpage. I am reluctant to say this is vandalism because it looks like they be trying to correct the info just not in the correct way. I would suggest discussing it a little further but remember that it is still edit warring unless it's blatant vandalism. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have posted to the talkpage and won't revert the article again.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Katieh5584, normally what happens is when you remove or challenge unsourced material the onus is on the person adding it to justify. If they don't ask wait a period of time than remove. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the OP (in the article; I am of this thread) and I don't actually know if the edits are correct. So I am not trying to reinstate them. My objection was to the threats and refusal to discuss. Since Katieh5584 still has not removed their threats from the OP's page, I did it for them. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Katieh5584 has made no "threats" - the standardised templates used were inappropriate, but are not threats. However, Katieh5584 did wildly exceed WP:3RR - and so did the IP, for that matter - as they've stated that they won't revert further, I won't block, but they're both warned that edit-warring is not acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It also looks like Katieh5584 has been using Huggle to revert large numbers of edits, where many are vandalism, some are arguably good faith attempts at editing, and a few are definitely good faith edits. I think Huggle shouldn't be used for these even if there's a good case for reverting to the earlier text with a suitable edit summary or discussion. --Amble (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't make reverts maliciously, I realise that I don't get It right all the time. I will stick to reverting obvious vandalism. However, I don't understand why the above IP decided to make a complaint when it doesn't involve them.Katieh5584 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of your edits are great. There are just a few where you might consider not using Huggle, and discussing a bit. From what I've seen you're probably right on the content and style in those cases, too. --Amble (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Katieh5584 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The above IP is still being rude to me on their talk page.Katieh5584 (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry if you were offended. I stand by my points but maybe my language was too blunt. You still haven't apologised for your carelessness though. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You reap what you sow -- if you start a post on a user's talk page with "If you bothered to read the WP:AN/I ..." you're not going to get warm and fuzzy back. The big picture here is that while reverting vandalism is good (thanks!) it's important to try to separate the wheat from the chaff and not inappropriately bite good faith editors. NE Ent 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I only said that because the IP has been accusing me of making threats.Katieh5584 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making excuses for my behaviour, but I'm autistic and my people skills aren't very good.Katieh5584 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban Between Ryulong and Nug

User:Ryulong and User:Nug are at it again at Talk:Soviet Union. These are two editors who cannot leave each other alone. They have edit-warred in the past, and are now name-calling. An interaction ban is requested.

The diffs are:

Ryulong restores 15-state infobox on 22 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=596596315&oldid=596547221

Nug restores 1-11-3 state infobox on 21 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=596547221&oldid=596004922

Ryulong restores 15-state infobox on 11 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=595039113&oldid=594563073

Ryulong insults Nug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602437442&oldid=602436264

Nug insults Ryulong using a barnyard term https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602616533&oldid=602465678

Nug tightens the insult https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602616756&oldid=602616533

Nug piles it on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602618559&oldid=602616756

Ryulong insults Nug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602621160&oldid=602618691

Nug returns the insults https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602637297&oldid=602621160

For a change, Ryulong is just barely civil https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602683008&oldid=602637297

Nug won't drop it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602701273&oldid=602690484

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed the commentary. — lfddersmitten 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Can we discuss this, as well as dumping on and defending an editor who quarrels a lot, is often uncivil, and is usually right? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's time for Ryulong to go

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's clear that this flew like a lead balloon. I will propose an alternative below. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Claim of disruptive behavior in Sept. 2013
• Civility issue in Oct. 2013
• Withdrawn 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013
• Another 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013
• 3RR thread from Nov. 2013
• Misc. complaint from Jan. 2014
• Edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014
• A second, unrelated edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014
• Page ownership and hostility in Mar. 2014
• Thread on failing to use AGF and calling accounts SOCKs from Mar. 2014

I've really had enough of this. Just looking at the last six, seven months, it's clear that there is a pattern of edit warring, page ownership, and incivility on the part of Ryulong. These are just what I could find in the time frame from the first two pages of the AN archives. There are dozens of other threads on Ryulong stretching back all the way to 2009, and possibly earlier. Every time that Ryulong makes peace with one user (after many months of fighting with User:ChrisGualtieri, they appear to have made peace earlier this year), Ryulong picks up fighting with other users. It's clear that the issue is Ryulong, and that the most sensible course of action is to cut ties with the user. It's sad when we have to ask productive content creators to leave, but Ryulong has had plenty of chances to change his behavior and has failed to do so.

In short, I am proposing an indefinite block of Ryulong, with an indefinite 1RR restriction on him as a condition for any future unblock. I don't see any other answers that could possibly work. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef ban, disruptive to the community for years, I'm surprised it took this long for a ban to be proposed. Secret ^account 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, while not always a shining example of civility Ryulong is still a net positive to the site. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Hell in a Bucket (god I love that user name), plus...I still feel many are over reacting.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Ryulong feels like a failure now. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Booo, booo on the h8ers. Ryulong gets in trouble cuz of his big mouth sometimes, but he doesn't need to be blocked, just spanked. Mindy Dirt (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I support an indefinite 1RR restriction and a good long block (1 month at least) for Ryulong. The amount of disruption he causes is just way too much over a long time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Dicklyon that some sanctions might be warranted, but imposing what's functionally a siteban is a bad idea unless lesser sanctions (interaction bans, topic bans, something else) have been attempted without success. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban is inappropriate to say the least. As HiaB says R is a net positive for the project. MarnetteD | Talk 03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point. We need to consider the impact of banning a consistent content creator — someone who's actively developing content needs to be given a lot more leeway than someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. Bans can be appropriate for people who are adding good content, but we need to be more hesitant and try a lot more other approaches. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some kind of sanction seems to be needed, perhaps what Dickylon suggested, perhaps something lesser than that, but an indef block does not seem to be called for. How about 1RR and what used to be called a "civility restriction", i.e. a hair-trigger on anything that's even remotely impolite or uncivil. BMK (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While Ryulong does have a bit of a block log, I don't think jumping straight to an indef block is appropriate unless more reasonable and moderate restrictions have been considered first, especially given Mark Miller's analysis of the diffs below. - Aoidh (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See withdraw message at the bottom of this box. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

@Secret, Hell in a Bucket, Mark Miller, Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever, Mindy Dirt, Dicklyon, and MarnetteD:@Nyttend, Beyond My Ken, Aoidh, and Georgewilliamherbert: - Based on the feedback from the above section, I have proposed an alternative below. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Place Ryulong under a 1RR restriction

Based on the conversation above, it looks unlikely that there will be a consensus for blocking Ryulong. There are several people in support of a 1RR restriction, however. Ryulong has nine blocks for 3RR violations, 10 if you count the 4 February 2014 block. Three (four if you count the 4 February 2014) have come in the last six months. It has been a recurring problem since 2006, and tends to come in waves of several violations and blocks over a few months, followed by no blocks for a year or so. In addition to the 3RR complaints that have resulted in blocks, there have been numerous additional complaints of edit warring - some more valid than others - stretching over several years. As such, I propose the following:

Ryulong is placed under an indefinite 1RR restriction. He may appeal it (with the expectation that it will be lifted, barring other serious concerns) after one year without a block for edit warring or disruptive/battleground editing (blocks that are overturned don't count against him in one year period). If Ryulong receives three additional blocks for edit warring or disruptive/battleground editing before this restriction is vacated, it automatically becomes a 0RR restriction (again, overturned blocks don't count against him).

While I personally believe that this is perhaps too lenient for the amount of disruption Ryulong has caused, I feel that it is more in line with what the community would support; progressively escalating sanctions aimed at preventing recurring edit war issues.

• Support as proposer. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I was too late to add my strong oppose to the proposed ban. Site bans are for the most egregious vandals and and sockpuppeteers, and those whose potential positives are far outweighed by demonstrated negatives. Ryulong is none of those things.

He has seriously annoyed an awful lot of people, but there appears a lack of evidence of malice in his behaviour: he appears not to be able to help himself. As Sven points out, this has been a problem for years. Ryulong is a valued content contributor, but appears to be unable to change his behavior to consistently match community norms. If he cannot change himself, then the solution is to make him change.

As evidenced above, the problem here is edit warring. The solution is to reduce his ability to edit war. (Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me, but I thinks this is a secondary issue. It will be difficult to be rude when you are under a 1RR restriction at the same time. There is also a pragmatic reason to concentrate only on edit warring: civility is hard to define, let alone agree what is a breach of it; edit warring is obvious.) If he can contribute under this restriction, it's a win win-situation for all involved. If he cannot contribute under the restriction, then the blocks will get longer and longer, and he will effectively ban himself. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So is this like a last chance thing then? When's the last time that worked for anyone, I wonder? It seems pretty obvious to me he can't be disciplined on this, so if we'd like for him to stay, we ought to try a different approach and/or put up with it (i.e. give him the customary 24h block when he edit wars). — lfdder 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The point of a 3RR block is to force the parties involved in a revert war to de-escalate. The point of a 1RR restriction is to prevent the escalation in the first place, or at least attempt that. De-escalation is what happens every time someone takes a dispute to the talk page, solicits a third opinion, or simply walks away, and if someone is unwilling or unable to do those things, 1RR is a way of pushing them towards the goal of not escalating into a revert war. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• So if 9 blocks didn't do a thing, why will this change anything? You know, other than getting him blocked more easily next time? What's your aim here? — lfdder 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Two months later and you want a community sanction for edit warring. Some may say that last edit warring issue is stale after that long and the editor was already sanctioned for it. What is the specific reason here? Because the first proposal failed? This has no better basis for this sanction than the above proposal. This begins to sound more and more like a punitive action.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • lfdder and Mark Miller: 1RR breaks the feedback loop. The longer someone remains in a contentious debate (reverts are an abstract form of debate), the more likely that person is to start taking the disagreement personally, becoming emotionally invested in the outcome. When that happens, incivility and revert wars can be quick to follow. 1RR changes how a person is involved in a debate, from being able to go back and forth to only being able to say your piece once before moving on. Obviously talk page discussions are still an option with 1RR, but when someone is no longer able to contest the article itself, the urgency of making the change dissipates somewhat. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that, but I doubt that it'll work out in the form of a restriction. — lfdder 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't. There has been no attempt to address my concern that there is currently no issue to sanction over and this seems rather random and punitive at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support That's a need for Ryulong because of his ongoing violation of Wikipedia rules. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like the fact that many people don't want an indefinite block on Ryulong, but that block is neccessary. More people would like this 1RR restriction than the block. If either don't gain big support, then it's failure. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose seems like this would just pad out his block log and make the work he does in already difficult areas even harder, since the opposition would automatically have the upper hand. We should be applauding editors willing to take on such unpleasant tasks, not crippling them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment did not please me, because it sounds like support for a failing user because he causes damage. "We should be applauding editors willing to take on such unpleasant tasks" means supporting a user whose edits are disruptive and controversial. Anyone opposing either the indef ban and/or the 1RR restriction is making Ryulong worse. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The AN/I discussion was started because of recent perceived incivility issues (which I won't comment on one way or the other), while also mentioning the edit-warring. However, the aforementioned edit-warring shown in the diffs last took place in February, and it's April. Civility was the recent concern, and a 1RR wouldn't address that. The edit-warring can be addressed if it continues to be a problem. I don't see a pressing need for that right now, especially if Ryulong is aware that continued edit-warring in that manner would result in, at minimum, a 1RR restriction (and Ryulong I have no doubt that's what would happen if it continued). But for now, a 1RR restriction seems like an odd response for civility concerns, since that seems to be the recent activity causing concern (though I do thank Sven for the notification, not everyone would be that courteous). - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Aoidh points out, the edit-warring is a past issue. Sanctions, like blocks, should whenever possible be preventiative, not punitive, and imposting a 1RR sanction in April for edit-warring in February is punitive. There may or may not be problems with this editor, but if there are, this is not the solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I regret my support of the 1RR restriction, so I ultimately oppose it. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for 1RR proposal

Can someone please explain WHY we are proposing this right now? What is the reasoning to hand out a 1RR restriction to this editor at the moment. What is the spark or the driving force....in other words, what was the "incident"?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community did not support an indefinite block on Ryulong. The decision to not block him was bad since it creates more destruction from Ryulong, and I was annoyed in my mind by the support for Ryulong (and not that restriction) because Sven wanted an indef block. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...OK, but what is the specific incident bringing this to the community now?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The incident was Ryulong continuing to make edit wars and disruptive edits on articles like Attack on Titan days after an innocent user was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation because he edited Soviet Union hours before the time another user edited it. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Because anybody whose name shows up at ANI more than x number of times is apparently a bad guy and needs some kind of sanctions. It doesn't matter if they're usually right and/or that the complainer is often found to have done worse things than what they're complaining about. And it certainly doesn't matter if the person being complained about is a valuable content contributor working in areas many hardened Wikipedians wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Anybody who gets mentioned that much must surely be guilty of something or other, right? Right? Right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Any opposition to the indef block and 1RR restriction is actually wrong because they did not pay enough attention to every single Wikipedia rule violation Ryulong ever made during September 2013 — present. Everyone must stop supporting him because he is getting worse. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction proposal recieved 3 supports and 2 opposes. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I realized he actually made (slightly) more good edits than bad edits, considering Special:Contributions/Ryulong for evidence. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, this has been open for one hour - assuming it doesn't get speedy closed, these discussions last at least a day. Also, your replying to every oppose making bad faith comments about the opposers does not help your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Bushranger, I actually realized that compared to the opposition, I was more harmful than them. I regret supporting the indef block because Ryulong is actually still good. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This has an air of accusations of "Witch"!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific impetus for all of this was seeing the "Proposed Interaction Ban Between Ryulong and Nug" thread above, which caused me to remember all of the other proposed interaction bans and complaints of battleground behavior (incl. edit warring) that I've seen on AN/ pages about Ryulong lately. I made the mistake of listing all of them, instead of listing only the ones that gained traction, and clearly that has undercut my argument.

Andrew Lenahan points out Ryulong's work in areas that most users "wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole", but Ryulong has historically been one of the major causes for areas becoming untenable to work in. Anime and manga has been a mess for years, and Ryulong was a major part of that. I stepped in to try to resolve what had been a long-running dispute between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, which resulted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC. Before I stepped in and suggested the RfC, the community was rapidly approaching a long-term block of both parties. I ultimately backed out after Ryulong started edit warring with someone else and after an IRC conversation with ChrisGualtieri that did not go well. Once I pulled out, the two got spooked an worked out their differences in private, but "worked out their differences" just ended up being ChrisGualtieri leaving the area of anime and manga. That's not a solution, that's one user poisoning the atmosphere of a topic area so badly that other users leave it.

Since that RfC, Ryulong has been blocked three times for edit warring. The thread above, while primarily a civility issue, is also about revert warring. Ultimately, while many people here draw distinctions between edit warring and civility issues, they both come down to battleground behavior. Ryulong's editing, both the way that he treats editors he disagrees with and the way he exerts ownership over articles he is interested in, is a source of recurring problems. My proposing a block came from the belief that the rest of the community was as fed up with his as I was, something that appeared to hold true at the end of last year, in the midst of the Ryulong/ChrisGualtieri flare up, but doesn't seem to be the case now. My proposing the 1RR is a next best attempt at trying to force Ryulong to stop engaging in battleground behavior. It is clear that short blocks do not deter him, and it is also clear that administrators are not willing to give blocks in increasing lengths, something that normally happens for repeat offenses. Aside from blocks and 1RR, there aren't any options I can see for preventing incidents from flaring up month after month after month.

Ultimately, it's clear that I jumped too far on too weak a triggering incident, but I remain convinced that some sort of action is needed regarding Ryulong, for the reasons I outlined above. I fear that we will eventually be discussing all of this again, either here or at ArbCom, a few months down the line. While I understand the community's reluctance to place sanctions on Ryulong in this case, I find it troubling that despite nine blocks and well over a dozen serious reports at AN/I and AN/3RR, some people aren't even willing to acknowledge that this is a symptom of a larger, recurring behavioral issue.

My proposal is withdrawn. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion for indefinite block

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

---

• Mark Miller: There has been a thread on Ryulong at either AN/I or AN/3RR, on average, once a month every month for at least a year. Does this one incident justify an indefinate block? No. The monthly AN threads and the five blocks in the past six months for disruptive editing and edit warring do demonstrate, however, that Ryulong is repeatedly breaking our editing policies, and is ill inclined to change. I could be talked down to a block for six months, even a block for three months, but Ryulong already has a dozen blocks for 3RR and disruptive editing, and continues to do so. Avoiding 3RR really isn't that hard. If a user refuses to stop engaging in battleground behavior, he has to be removed from the battleground. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't need to be talked down...you need to gain a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • By talked down, I mean talked into supporting a lesser sanction. It there was a developing consensus for a three or six month block, I would support it, even though I believe that as soon as the block expires, we'll be back at AN/I and AN/3RR again. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I simply meant that regardless of what you desire you still need the consensus of the general community unless there is an admin willing to block regardless of the outcome of this community discussion. That's all.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets take the diffs one by one shall we?

• Claim of disruptive behavior in Sept. 2013

• This thread simply states there was a claim. A claim is not sufficient reason to ask for a block especially when it ended with the editor staing: "I get it. I will cease relying on WP:ROLLBACK and stick with WP:UNDO and WP:TWINKLE and curb my language to be more approachable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility issue in Oct. 2013

• Ok, now this was a simple mistake that was immediately rectified without almost any recognition to it. This is what the editor said there: "I realized my errors regarding the accusations of WP:GAME and retracted them and apologized." But there is more, if we are to rehash all of this, than let us rehash ALL of it and remember that others held some blame in this interaction such as per Hateur's comment: "A Pox on both (or all) your houses ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and another editor who has been previously sanctioned (with respect to the other 2) have constantly been bickering back and forth across multiple venues (DRN,AN*,VP*). At this time I consider the net good you may have as been completely overshadowed by the eruptions of drama-bickering that require well trained (and thick skinned) volunteers to take their time way from productive ventures to extricate the combatants. I seem to recall that the riot act has been read in relation to these editors before, so I assumed that they would have behaved themselves. I guess I was wrong. I am deliberately being obtuse regarding the third editor because I don't want to inject any further drama into the issue by giving notice to them and opening the door for them to comment here. If others disagree, please feel free to notify the user in question Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)" And then there is the last comment by the OP which seems to indicate there was nothing there to begin with: "I request the closure of this thread. It has gone off topic, no admin action is necessary. Also, this needs to be closed for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawn 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013

• This entire thread was closed as : "ChrisGualtieri (t c) has requested to withdraw the report, and there was no particular consensus to take action among the admins who commented. —Darkwind (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013

• The report ended with "No action".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR thread from Nov. 2013

• This one gained a sanction. Ryulong blocked for 24 hours.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misc. complaint from Jan. 2014

• Closed as: "Any editors that feel the dispute is stuck should proceed with the steps at WP:DR. Claims about revert warring are handled at WP:AN3. Sancho 16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014

• Closed per: "This has been overcome by events as Ryulong has been blocked 72h for an entirely different matter. The SPI on the other side of the issue is here, so it seems there's nothing left for ANI at the moment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• A second, unrelated edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014

• Wow....just...wow. This one is rather ridiculous. It gained no consensus and clearly shows that others behavior was not to snuff either.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page ownership and hostility in Mar. 2014

• This to me...was just a complaint fest and really achieved nothing but making editors look bad all around.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thread on failing to use AGF and calling accounts SOCKs from Mar. 2014

• I don't see failing to AGF as a violation that is block worthy but this one is where Dennis brown at least informed the editor that accusations of Sock Puppetry without an SPI report is a personal attack. I see this often and when I mention this people really laugh...but it is true and I see that Ryūlóng simply did not understand that as many do not.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, of the ten diffs Sven linked only one garnered a sanction and one other was closed do to sanctions already imposed. As we can see there have been some blocks, but I also see a lot of over reaction and exaggeration here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As of this edit, there are 3 supports and 3 opposes to the proposal by Sven. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia we call that "no consensus". But the most important part of any discussion is whether or not the original complaint is legitimate enough to be going this route. Frankly...it doesn't appear so to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said that all of the threads were valid. Some of them were, and some of them were not. What I said was that Ryulong constantly gets brought to AN/I and AN/3RR. The frequency of the complaints against him is higher than almost any other user I can think of, and that's because he has a pattern of aggressive page ownership and overt hostility. If I wanted to, I could have gone back several years and pulled a dozen really nasty incidents. I don't believe, however, that what someone did in 2009 should be held against them today, at least in most cases. Instead I pulled the most recent discussions I could find, to illustrate that the user is rather consistantly at the center of disputes, and seems incapable of avoiding them for any real length of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has been controversial for some time, but simply counting ANI appearances is deceiving, as has been noted. R is super active, and in some areas that attract less experienced users. R is generally looking to do the right thing for the encyclopedia, not just have his way. The times he goes overboard he gets sanctioned and the times he's warned it usually makes appropriate changes in his behavior, other than perhaps not generally having mellowed out overall that much. I think the appropriate questions are, do questions about Ryulong's conduct come up a lot (yes), does Ryulong generally take input from uninvolved admins and editors (mostly), does Ryulong contribute positively to the encyclopedia (mostly, and voluminously). Lacking any particular huge feuds or horrible incidents, a ban seems way out of proportion. Even if the behavior has crossed some new threshold, and needs to be walked back, proposing a ban without having worked with the editor directly or with a RfC is counterproductive.

I encourage direct feedback... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible sockpuppetry and OWNing at Tao Lin

I recently brought up an issue regarding an anonymous editor repeatedly adding hoax information with a citation pointing to a 4chan archive and engaging in other such disruptive editing. After receiving a final warning on their talk page, another anonymous editor with no other editing history picked up where the previous one left off in inserting the same information. Though I would like to assume good faith, I believe it is reasonable to assume these editors are connected. I would also believe it's quite plausible these edits are being made by the article's subject himself, who, according to the associated talk page, has a history of attempting to control his page. However, unlike previous related cases I've looked into, Tao (assuming these edits are in fact being made by him) doesn't seem to have a clear agenda with what he is trying to push off or onto his article.

I posted a brief message regarding this issue to the requests for protection noticeboard and was told that disruptive editing was not occurring frequently enough to warrant protection. However, after reviewing the page history, I believe Tao is religiously watching the page and using various sockpuppet accounts/anonymous (likely proxy) IPs to control the page's content.

I'm here asking for an opinion from the community on what should be done in this situation. felt_friend 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I want Tao Lin to be semi-protected because 85.69.198.194 made poor hoax information edits to that article. I want that editor and 78.250.153.235 to be blocked as well. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week, which will prevent these IPs from editing it. If the problem resumes when the protection wears off, please file a report at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anupan and TheMesquito

These admins have misused their rollback privileges to restore vanity content to the article phi1 Ceti. Lots of unofficial companies will name a star for anyone for a price. It's pure vanity but these folks have used their rollback privileges to keep it. Help me to remove this garbage and prevent these users from misusing their privileges again. 24.7.178.138 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User did not include anything in the edit summery when I reverted (see here) and all i saw was a revert of a Unexplained removal with no reason why, so I also reverted, also user made very little effort to inform me, as he posted that he thought i was misusing my Rollback right and then reported me before I could even respond on my talk page. TheMesquito (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I used an edit summary you didn't read it. How could u conclude my edit was vandalism which is your only right to use rollback and not bother to read it??? This is the kind of excuses misusing your powers shows you cannot be trusted with them. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking at the link I posted? All I saw was a reverted message with no reason why the edit was reverted, and you assumed immediately that I was doing it in bad faith and reported me before I could even respond on my talk page to your message. You should always assume WP:GOODFAITH and not immediately report someone to the admins without them being able to respond to you. I will undo the edit now, since it is such a big deal to you, just add a edit summery next time on your revert message. TheMesquito (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use rollback to revert edits just because the edit summary is missing. It says so in WP:Rollback in the first couple of paragraphs. Moreover I did use a written edit summary in the edit rolled back by Anupan what'll be his excuse? 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The power users need to be reminded that use of rollback is PROHIBITED for reverting good faith edits. So the use of rollback is the assumption of bad faith on the editor you're reverting. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, 24*, you're the one mistaken here - WP:ROLLBACK was not used. WP:TWINKLE was, and Twinkle's rollback function can be used for reverting any edit, not just vandalism (indeed, there's even a "Rollback (AGF)" button in Twinkle). While the reverts may or may not have been appropriate, this is a content dispute, not a case of rollback abuse, and should be closed accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use twinkle rollback without rollback rights those were misused. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC) also u cannot use twinkle against good faith edits. Read the sbuse section on WP:twinkle

I agree that Anupam had no reason to revert, but I do not understand the reason I am included in this ANI, as all i saw was a edit revert without a reason why the edit was reverted and unexplained removal content without a proper edit summery. The user could have easily put "I removed the vanity in this article." on the revert but did not, assumed bad faith and did not let me properly respond to him/her on my talk page before I was reported for abuse of rollback privileges. TheMesquito (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

U have assumed bad faith on my part otherwise you were forbidden from using either twinkle or rollback. The only basis is that I used no edit summary on reverting Anupam unwarranted reversion. That's all bad faith requires around here? 24.7.178.138 (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Er...if you "can't use Twinkle against good faith edits", then having a Revert (AGF) button on Twinkle would be rather hypocritical. This is not rollback abuse. This is not Twinkle abuse. This is a content dispute, and as such the underlying dispute (such as it is) is not an AN/I matter. Also, 24*, please properly indent your replies so the conversation can be followed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So is this good? If I did anything wrong, please tell me, but I just did not understand why I was reported. I assumed good faith and checked edit summery before i did anything, and was reported to the admins without a chance to explain to the editor why I did it.TheMesquito (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not good, and the problem was caused by User:Anupam reverting, without an edit summary, the IP's edit, which did have an edit summary. If you'd looked at the article history, you would have seen this. Since I'm now going to go to Anupam's talk page and tell them my opinions about their poor editing, there's no administrator action required here. (Unless I end up expressing my opinions unduly harshly, or someone can point out other examples of problematic editing of this nature from Anupam in the past.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if i did anything wrong, I do try to use rollback rights correctly, and will make sure to take better care to not do this again. 15:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMesquito (talk • contribs)

Agreed - that is a problem, but that's a "not leaving an edit summary while reverting" problem, as opposed to an "abuse of rollback" probelm. I agree that it seems we're done here now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Long term sockpuppeter back

If anyone is interested, puppeteer Princeneil (talk · contribs) appears to be back as James Mich (talk · contribs), recreating recent AfD Asif Ali Laghari as Asif Ali LEghari. I have CSD'd the page and added the suspected sock to the SPI page. 220 of ^Borg 08:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. As soon as I saw the first two edits by Bordan man (now both deleted), I thought "sockpuppet", but waited for a few more edits until it became a total DUCK case before blocking. Then I saw James Mich, and that was obviously the same person again, so I blocked that too. I have also requested a CheckUser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil for sleepers. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. A ridiculous amount of time has been spent chasing 'Asif Ali Laghari' and his many alter-egos. A real WT&! moment when I saw that name in the New Pages again. I wonder if they realise the damage to their academic career that could result from acting like a complete twit, as they have been? 220 of ^Borg 13:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Perhaps it is time to add an "edit filter" entry trigger whenever anyone adds text that is common to and unique to the pages he likes to create. If nothing else, "if text matches and editor has fewer that X edits or is not yet autoconfirmed then log it somewhere that will get attention and if possible make the editor "not eligible to become autoconfirmed" until 90 days and 100 edits (just like IPBE TOR editors). If this sock is rarely waiting to become autoconfirmed before creating the page, the rule can be "if not autoconfirmed and if the text matches, then raise an alarm. In addition, if edit is to a non-discussion page (for simplicity's sake, treat all of WP: as if it was a discussion page) then block edit." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes davidwr, that would be a good idea. The less they know what we are doing, the better though so, shhh! ;-) The sock I noted above did create the page with their first edit. Nb. Apparently there is a genuine academic by the name Asif Ali Laghari, who I feel rather sorry for. No guarantee that the person whose picture is being used is really the person claimed, coming from Facebook.- 220 of ^Borg 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Eddaido

Further eyes needed here, please. A while back I blocked this editor for harassment of another editor, User:SamBlob - the proceedings can be seen at User_talk:Eddaido#Edit_summaries_used_for_personal_attacks (note the final sentence - post-block - where Eddaido clearly promises not to change their behaviour). Now, Eddaido has been reverting their edits on another article with uncollaborative summaries here. This issue was flagged up on Eddaido's talkpage at User_talk:Eddaido#Yet_more_problems_with_your_edit_summaries.

Whilst these are not actually personal attacks, they are clearly not optimal, especially as the edits that Eddaido was restoring are not even particularly good; this, for example, is ungrammatical and confusing to the reader. I do not believe that SamBlob should be on the receiving end of this nonsense for improving an article. I am hesitant to block again (though I wouldn't object to it), but am wondering if a one-way IBAN or similar might be the way of fixing this problem. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see IBAN as the way to go here, because Eddaido's behaviour is his problem, not SamBlob's – nor is it limited to SamBlob. It's long term, it's childish and a competent editor can work out that it's not acceptable in this community, to the point that it's solved by removal of either the behaviour or the editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I suggested a one-way IBAN; i.e. Eddaido should would be prevented from reverting SamBlob's edits, using edit summaries to belittle, etc. I'm thinking WP:ROPE here, but it is fairly clear that Eddaido does not grasp the concept of collaborative editing. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Having dealt with Eddaido a lot in the past, I value his knowledge and often ask him questions. Even then, he's often extremely rude and shows very little understanding for any viewpoint than his own. SamBlob just happens to have a little less patience with Eddaido's behavioral issues. I don't want to see a permanent block but I can't fathom how to better his editing style since he solidly rejects any input.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Eddaido loosed off the latest volley at SamBlob in response to corrective, constructive, and collaborative edits by SamBlob (prior to which the text, shaped by Eddaido, contained an inadvertent error which SamBlob corrected). IIRC, Eddaido has shown ownership tendencies in the past, and if WP:BATTLE continues to be the default response when users Eddaido happens to dislike attempt active collaboration instead of leaving whatever Eddaido writes untouched, that's a problem. Like Mr.choppers I'd rather not see Eddaido blocked again. I think they're a valuable contributor insofar as they do grunt work on articles about such as old cars and planes. I favour whatever would be the minimum action for the desired effect on Eddaido. The one-way IBAN is a good suggestion if Eddaido's behaviour has been confined to interactions with SamBlob. My sole reservation: articles of the kind both Eddaido and SamBlob seem drawn to would be deprived of Eddaido's knowledgeable input.

@Andy: If the behaviour is long-term and also relates to users other than SamBlob, diffs would help here. Writegeist (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User: Pdheg

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

Please consider the editing and conduct of User: Pdheg (was PuttuHegde). He has been renaming multiple places in Karnataka, India without discussion. The one move that was taken to Requested moves and discussed was not successful – see Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka. He was then asked to discuss moves before he made them, and has refused to do so on the grounds that it his names are ‘Government of India names’ [194]. This is a position he has maintained since, despite the fact that there is no government policy on names and spellings in Roman script. After the Sagara incident, a general discussion of his actions was raised at the Noticeboard for India related topics. On the basis of this discussion I and some other editors moved back some of the unilateral renames pending case by case discussion, but they have only been reverted again with no attempt at further discussion. Thus the move / revert / discuss cycle does not work with this editor – requests to raise a discussion and get consensus are not heeded by him. Reversions of his work have been reverted back, his reasons being typically 1. he has been there and knows that he is correct, 2. quotes of cherry picked government websites which he then asserts are an official name, 3. some confused and unreferenced assertions as to what local pronunciation is. All this is done with little reference to wikipedia policies and practices including WP:Name. His last comments to me on my talk page indicate that he continues to believe he is justified and has no need for consensus or discussion.

The move of the former Ramanagara to the current Ramanagar, Karnataka was made with the claim that Ramanagar was the ‘official name’ [195]. In the following edit, he removed the reference to the district government website http://www.ramanagara.nic.in in which both the district and the town are referred to as Ramanagara (and he marked it as a minor edit, as he has done for many of his other arguable moves). The move of Kundapura to Kundapur, Karnataka with an unnecessary disambiguation was probably made because he could not move it to Kundapur.

Most of the renaming he has made have been dropping of the final ‘a’ in place names to correspond to Hindi pronunciation. In Kannada, unlike Hindi, most names end in a vowel, usually ‘a’. The other group of his changes, of the sound written as ‘th’ in south India to the ‘t’ of north India, again brings it in line with Hindi (e.g. at Amaravati_River). The reasons he gives for his preferred names are variable, but none are in accordance with WP policy; examples can be seen in this message diff after one of his reverts to a page move, and a different reason on this talk page after its last revert [196] . His statement at Talk: Sagara that the Kannada name ‘ಸಾಗರ' is pronounced ‘Sagar’ suggests a major lack of knowledge of the language and of the region he is working on, and confusion with Hindi.

Messages to him can be seen on his current talk page [197] and there are also redacted comments made prior to this, at [198]. Some other relevant messages are at [User_talk:Imc] and later.

I understand that this may be referred back as a content dispute, but in light of Pdheg’s unwillingness to provide useful evidence why his views should stand, while still reverting instead of discussing, as for instance at Talk: Kundapura, I’m raising it here first, since he is quite willing to revert without attempting to reach a consensus. Imc (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (first added at the time given previously on this line, then overwritten by User:AutosohdohmeeLives! at 14:18, then copied in again by Imc (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

The final “a” in place names is added only in the southern few districts of Karnataka, which were under Madras Presidency. For example, these districts use “Madhavapura” instead of “Madhavapur”. This pattern is not seen in rest of Karnataka state, contrary to what user Imc claims as Kannada names. User Imc is trying to push this pattern to rest of Karnataka towns and cities, which is incorrect. The whole of India(as well as Northern Karnataka and Coastal Karnataka) uses “pur” as in Kolhapur,Haldipur, Sultanpur, Hamidpur, Berhampur, Bijapur etc. and “nagar” as in Ahmednagar, Itanagar, Gandhinagar etc. As I mentioned earlier the pattern of using “pura”, “nagara” instead of “pur” and “nagar” is limited to a handful of southern districts of Karnataka. It is definitely not applicable to the rest of the Karnataka state, which was not part of Madras Presidency. Moreover, under Common Name policy of Wikipedia, to bring these places in accordance with naming patterns of India my actions are justified. User Imc is selectively considering a few websites as officlal websites and does not what to consider central government websites for official reference. Pdheg (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Pdheg, any reason you didn't respond to Imc's queries on your talk page?

Secondly, your understanding of common name isn't quite correct -- Bearcat explained it well at Talk:Bangalore#Its_not_Bangalore_anymore -- you might want to review that and, if you have more questions, I'd suggest asking at the teahouse. NE Ent 18:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, I have responded to Imc's queries on his/her talk page. Though I might have been on the wrong side in some instances, my moves on most accounts have conformed with common name. User Imc's claims do not apply evenly to the entire state of Karnataka as it has diversity. What may be applicable to Imc's region of Karnataka may not be applicable to my region of the state and the same cannot be addressed under common name simply because a few editors from Imc's region work in unison to influence the decision on Wikipedia. When a place is spelled differently by people of two different regions, which spelling do we consider on Wikipedia? The one used locally or the one used by people outside the region (with more wiki editors to vote for)? common name does not address this situation effectively. The page moves initiated by me are as per the spelling used locally and by state/federal governments. Now, Imc has reservations against the moves because the user thinks that the way names of places are spelled in his/her region is the standard for Karnataka state, which is incorrect. Pdheg (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Sorry about the first question, forgot to to check for that style of interaction. To answer the second question, what governments use is not the basis on Wikipedia works, it's what English language reliable sources use most frequently. NE Ent 20:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved only those pages of places that I belong to and I am sure about how they are spelled by people from that region. Northern and Coastal regions of Karnataka state use naming patterns identical to that of rest of India. While user Imc's claims are pertinent to the English usage of the user's region, those claims in no way hold good for English usage in rest of the India. In one other discussion with user Imc, I have pointed out that we cannot consider the majority opinion as the right opinion on Wikipedia. Since any editor is able to edit articles, a coordinated move by a set of editors has the potential to entirely change content of articles and dump the true information. Pdheg (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding a few fundamental points regarding how Wikipedia works. "What may be applicable to Imc's region of Karnataka may not be applicable to my region of the state...When a place is spelled differently by people of two different regions, which spelling do we consider on Wikipedia?" WP:COMMONNAME actually does make this quite clear: the "common name in English". It might not be yours, it might not be his, and it might not be the "official" name, but the most commonly used name in English sources as a whole is the one that is used. "we cannot consider the majority opinion as the right opinion on Wikipedia" - No, we use WP:CONSENSUS, and we spell out how consensus works in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - including WP:COMMONNAME. If a majority of sources say the name of X is X, then Wikipedia must describe X as being named X, even if the people of X prefer to call if Y. "a coordinated move by a set of editors has the potential to entirely change content of articles and dump the true information" - "True information" is not what Wikipedia is about. Verfiable information is. The standard of inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If everyone knows X is true, and even if X is actually true, if the sources describe it as Y, then Wikipedia must describe it as Y. In this particular case, even though (to use an example already used here) the official name of a certain city is Bengaluru, and the people there call it Bengaluru, since the majority of English sources call the city Bangalore, Wikipedia must title the article as Bangalore. That's simply the way Wikipedia works, and that is the correct way for Wikipedia to work (indeed, unless the encyclopedia is to descend into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH-laden chaos, it's the only way Wikipedia can work). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war at Young Earth creationism

There is a slow-motion multi-editor edit war going on at Young Earth creationism. All of the editors are experienced and have not hit 3RR, and some of them have simply made a single good-faith revert, but together they are reverting at a rate of about ten per day.

I have created a timeline below in the hopes that an administrator will look it over and at least give a few warnings instead of the usual minimum-effort solution of protecting the page without addressing the behavior. some of these editors are involved in similar disputes on other pages, and IMO the problem will start up as soon as the page protection expires. This isn't just a content dispute. It is an ideology dispute.

Here is the timeline:

• 22:55, 3 April 2014[199] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV changed "The scientific consensus is that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years" to "The measurements show that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years"

Note that "measurements show" still links to scientific consensus"

Edit Summary: (these are measurements, not opinions.)

• 23:13, 3 April 2014[200] GDallimore reverted it to "scientific consensus" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (not possible to measure directly, or it would be easy...)

• 13:17, 4 April 2014[201] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reverted it back to "measurements show" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (Reverted good faith edits by GDallimore: This is what I study for a living and I can tell you, it is possible to measure this directly as any other measurement. Just because there are people that don't like the measurement doesn't mean it's...)

• 14:06, 4 April 2014[202] Wdanwatts reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (Undid revision 602721910 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)Measurements ONLY "show" if there is a theory to interpret them. Measurements are neutral.)

• 17:00, 4 April 2014[203] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reverted it back to "measurements show" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (Reverted 1 edit by Wdanwatts (talk): Advocacy of creationism is prima facie evidence of lack of WP:COMPETENCE. (TW))

• 17:31, 4 April 2014[204] GDallimore reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (neutrality doesn't require attacking creationism at every opportunity. Take it to talk)

• 20:10, 4 April 2014[205] Ronz reverted it back to "measurements show" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (Undid revision 602751349 by GDallimore (talk) per FRINGE, NPOV, SOAP)

• 20:26, 4 April 2014[206] Gandalf61 reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (1RR)

Edit Summary: (rv - previous version is better, clearer, more accurate)

• 20:27, 4 April 2014[207] Ronz reverted it back to "measurements show" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (Undid revision 602773083 by Gandalf61 (talk) soapboxing nonsense isn't logical)

• 21:31, 4 April 2014[208] Jojalozzo changed "measurements show" to "multiple scientific disciplines supporting the conclusion"

Edit Summary: (top: copy edit)

• 22:55, 4 April 2014 QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV drops from 2RR to 1RR (24 hour rule)

• 23:13, 4 April 2014 GDallimore drops from 2RR to 1RR (24 hour rule)

• 10:10, 5 April 2014[209] Gandalf61 reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (2RR)

Edit Summary: (more precise)

• 14:34, 5 April 2014[210] QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reverted it to "measurements" (2RR, 3rd revert)

Edit Summary: (young earth creationism itself isn't "contradicted". Only the distinguishing beliefs.)

• 15:32, 5 April 2014[211] GDallimore reverted it back to "scientific consensus" (2RR, 3rd revert)

Edit Summary: (previous version was better written, accurate and represented the source better. Triple whammy of reasons for reverting.)

(Notifications sent using Template:ANI-notice) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I am actually pretty pleased with how things have progressed in this issue. Maybe I'm naive, but I think we're reaching a point where GDallimore and myself and the others active at the article and talkpage (note that Guy Macon is not really making any meaningful proposals that I can see) might be ready to reach a working compromise. But maybe not. I'd be inclined to beg you all to let us see what develops. There is, for example, ongoing activity at the talkpage and we've got some good people at WP:FTN helping (not withstanding protestations that you can't measure the age of the Earth). What has really not helped matters is Guy Macon's hyperventilating over the issue:

• Claiming I'm inserting lies
• Insulting me in edit summaries

I get it, Guy doesn't like me. Why he's dragging a crowd to drama boards over this rather than allowing the users to resolve this amongst ourselves is beyond me. Also, wouldn't WP:3RRN be a more appropriate venue? or WP:RPP?

jps (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is edit warring, it can be easily reported at WP:ANEW. But while there is debate about the exact wording, this seems like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. jps believes there is progress being made on the article talk page so I don't know what actions you are looking for, Guy, and against which editors they should be taken. I agree there is a problem but it seems like it's being handled like other disputes are handled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's editing, not an edit war. Wiki is supposed to be fast / quick (hence the name). Participants are communicating on talk page just fine. NE Ent 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

An edit war is when an article see-saws between competing versions. That was the case yesterday, but now it seems to be converging on a consensus version. There's nothing to do here. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If the edit war dies down by itself, I am happy. But going back and forth between "scientific consensus" and "measurements show" ten times in a day is not what I would consider normal editing. The fact that I think that one of those two is not supported by the sources is beside the point -- I have not edited the page. Nor is 3RRNB appropriate; should I roll a die and pick one user to report even though no individual user has gone past 2RR? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please also include [212] in this discussion, and thereby reopen the discussion there.  It is a report from the Edit warring noticeboard that is less than 1 week old, at which no action was taken regarding QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (jps).  At Ken Ham a week ago, as soon as page protection was lifted, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV five times put an idea he/she proposed on the page.  The four restorations of the idea were each added in from 2 to 11 minutes.  This is a talk page with more than a dozen editors involved.  Here is a perm link that includes the talk page discussion.  The part of the talk page discussion regarding the proposed idea occurs between 20:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC) and 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC).  QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV could not or would not defend his/her edits against questions about the sourcing, or the acceptance of any other editors to add the content.  Once the page was protected, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV lost interest in discussing the proposed idea on the talk page, which is part of why the 3RR should be reopened, as this is new evidence that the edits were edit warring.  In the edit warring report User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV explains that only two editors were involved, "He and I came to what I thought was a good compromise and then I tried to implement it in article space."  Actually, that 2nd editor was stating, "I don't recall other editors in the thread above expressing support for adding material like that...22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)".  FYI, here is the block log for this editor, the most recent block being dated 2014-03-06.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth saying, but I might as well explain my side. As I view it, it's not really a content dispute, but stylistic. jps and Ronz seem to me to be agressively anti-creationist in a way that is neither helpful nor encyclopedic and have been making contributions that are poor english and/or style. Phrases like "the facts are" and "Young Earth creationism is flatly contradicted by the scientific evidence" are things which need reverting on sight in my view.

On the talk page, though, both these editors claim they're correcting "errors" and fixing NPOV, but one of jps' few talk page contributions that "errors" needed fixing has not yet been followed up with an explanation as to what those alleged errors are.

Currently edit warring over whether the paragraph should be three sentences or two and WP:Easter egg links... GDallimore (Talk) 22:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This was somewhat useful. I didn't realize that GDallimore was not aware of my concern over WP:ASSERT. I have stated it explicitly on the talkpage now. I am wondering still what the concerns over poor English are. Is this a two people separated by a common language thing? Anyway, I wouldn't describe the current editing as "edit warring" in the classic sense because I don't see myself as battling anyone. I'm just trying to get the prose to work so that everyone is happy. jps (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

additional editor listed

• As per the edit warring report of last Sunday, [213] and the related talk page at [214] I am also listing gaba_p as part of a POV effort involved here.  On the edit warring report, gaba_p volunteers to support User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV; and on the talk page at Ken Ham these two editors repeatedly use WP:COMPETENCE as a tool to disparage those with whom they disagree.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the protocol here but this seems like a separate incident involving one of the editors in the case posted here. I'd create a new section and make your case or file a notice at WP:ANEW if that seems more appropriate to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor listed here has no history of edit warring, so I see no foundation for your suggestion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• I thought the same thing -- that QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV has a suspicious number of editors who support him and use similar language -- but when I looked into it I decided that it is just a coincidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

current Flag of Russia is false it needs to be restored to the original

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

---

can someone please restore the original colours of the flag per http://www.constitution.ru/symbols/flag.htm (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/f3/20120812153730%21Flag_of_Russia.svg) see official server of russia http://xn--h1alffa9f.xn--p1ai/main/symbols/gsrf3_2.html http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d2904109f3781c14d6.jpg

from kremlin http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d2904109f3781c14d6.jpg

from kremlin http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d290410ca3621bd47e.jpg

i tried taking up at the talkpage but a user said it does not belong there, the flag is here at wikipedia not at commons! and the commons version i tried to set up a rfc but after two months, it not getting much attention. 95.199.198.62 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article here seems to have the right colors, so there isn't anything to "fix" here. As for Commons, that isn't our concern and we have no authority to tell them what to do. They may also have old and new versions for all I know. Most important, if there is an RFC there, then that is the venue you need to pursue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

the file used on english wikipedia is on english wikipedia NOT COMMONS ! and the shade of colours are wrong, not the coulours, you misunderstood me

i also proved several sources for the original shades, which the current shade of colours lack 95.199.198.62 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Then upload a better version. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We do have a version of File:Flag of Russia.svg on en.wikipedia; it's a mirror of the image from Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

yes well they do not use the commons image at english wikipedia they use the "mirror" or whatever, and i cannot "do have a version of" because it is "one of the 100 most-used files on the English Wikipedia"

and policy FORBIDS overwritting the original file ! 95.199.198.62 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you just give it a different title? I'm no expert on uploading files (obviously). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As i said a new file will hardly replace the original, "one of the 100 most-used files on the English Wikipedia"

and admins should do their job and follow wikipedia policy which states that it is FORBIDEN to overwrite the original file,

so what we need here is to restore the original ( see File history and click revert, am unable to do that myself) 95.199.198.62 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the links with the flag of Russia in it and found all of them containing all the right colors. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 22:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what would need to be done here is to continue the discussion on the talk page on Commons (presumably started by you) if there is a legitimate concern about the current colors being incorrect. There appears to be significant discussion prior to the change to the current version in August 2012; your proposed revert does not appear to have support. An administrator here won't unilaterally change the local copy here to a version that is different than the Commons version, especially if there isn't any apparent consensus to do so. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start it, an IP did so. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 22:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment was directed to the IP. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kinu! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 22:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone changed the colors months ago after finding an official document, see Commons:File_talk:Flag_of_Russia.svg#Found_official_colors. The IP complains at end of that same page. This looks like a content issue, with most sources completely in Russian language. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User editing my comments.

User:Lugnuts has over and over edited my comments, admittedly they are my comments on his talk page, but I do not believe it is right or within policy for him to edit my comments even on his page. I have asked nicely [215], removed my comments [216], and added a note saying I was not the one that edited them [217] but every time User:Lugnuts has reverted me. I did revert him once [218] but realised to do it again would approach edit warring. Can someone please tell me what I can do to keep my comments from being edited? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• You left a comment, he hatted it, it is his talk page. I'm getting the feeling he is saying "Please stay off my talk page" and you aren't getting the hint. If he is striking and hatting your comments on his talk page, the solution would simply be to stay off his talk page. Otherwise, it would just look like you are stirring the pot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I went to YOUR talk page and Lugnut has made it pretty clear that he doesn't want you on his talk page. We give a lot of flexibility as to how someone uses their user talk page, as long as it doesn't directly violate BLP or similar policies. In this case, his use looks fine. He has made it clear he doesn't want you to use his talk page, so stop it or you will end up getting blocked for hounding. If you have to put an official notice on his page, like you did for this ANI discussion, that is fine (notice he didn't protest?). Otherwise, just stay away. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to stay away, and I did after he asked, except for him editing my comments, I am not OK with him editing what I said, I am fine with him deleting it, but I am not OK with being misrepresented. Also why would he do this revert [219]? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what happened. You say he edited your comments. He did not edit your comments, he struck them out. Those are two different things, and have different implications on Wikipedia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

He might have reverted back to maintain the continuity of the discussion, but even then he said stay away from his talk page. What he DIDN'T do is refactor your comments. You just need to stay away and the problem is solved in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)CombatWombat42, as the others have mentioned, Lugnuts is not editing your comments. He is striking them out because he does not want you posting on his talk page. You are not being misrepesented, you are edit-warring over his, entirely appropriately, striking your comments after asking you not to post on his talk page and you did so anyway. The only action needed here is for you to back away from Lugnuts before this ANI backfires on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, erratic behavior, and being overall disruptive

This IP address: User:68.231.15.56 has been extremely disruptive to the 2014 in the United States article and has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks upon me and other users. He has been blocked before due to similar behavior and I request an administrator to look into this matter. He is not working collaboratively and thinks that he is acting as a 'good shepard' by removing any entry that he happens to disagree with and verbally attacking users, accusing them with slander and pushing agendas. It's quite aggravating, but I've been patient, giving him warnings about being a bully, but it's just going over his head. He continues to be disruptive. I don't know what else to do, but to request some kind of intervention. (Tigerghost (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

• Their edits make it pretty clear this is User:S-d n r, based on the IP trying to remove a tag on the registered users talk page. Not saying it is socking, but it may help to establish previous issues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)