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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry

The caller refused to identify himself, but "just wanted to let me know" that legal action would proceed tomorrow. I directed him to the Wikipedia legal department, but he insisted that it would be directed toward editors. - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• A recent SPA
• A slightly less recent SPA

Neither of them seem to be on the verge of throwing around legal threats, though.

If you should get any more phone calls, do also let them know about the talk page or about OTRS (not in those words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also let them know that editing to balance the article properly continues - I've just blanked large parts of it per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was undue weight, and use of primary sources, but some of the information removed appeared to be properly sourced - mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers - including one described as a newspaper of record, and was relevant to the article. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No good being appeared to be properly sourced. Get it right, then include it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're asserting that it was "not properly sourced", but not getting into specifics. How is it not properly sourced? The sources look fine to me and to multiple other editors. Almost none of the text removed by you was added by me, by the way. - Richfife (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to notify the WMF legal department at legalwikimedia.org or, if you feel it is urgent, at emergencywikimedia.org where someone will make sure the right people see it. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: please do not contact emergencywikimedia.org except to report serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc. We cannot help with legal threats. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Struck. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Richfife, have you ever put your phone number on Wikipedia as a contact number? I ask because if you haven't, something is seriously wrong here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not. However, as a personal point, I make sure I am easy to contact. I'm in the phone book, etc. As I mentioned though, there was no caller ID and the caller refused to identify themselves. So far, just a single data point. An attempt at a chilling effect, I assume. - Richfife (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Has there been any particularly belligerent users or IPs editing about Yank Barry as of late? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could be, could be - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You might do some Googling on your name and phone number. Someone out there might be bragging about having heckled you.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Let 'em heckle. - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "User:Richfife encouraged people to "heckle" him in person, and then they did so". Excuse me? Since when is having a listed phone number an invitation to heckle? All I said was I didn't care, not that I was encouraging it. Is there any actual evidence that I'm being heckled? I just checked and came up with nothing. Yank Barry has a history of attempting to shut down criticism and there's no evidence that this isn't more the same. - Richfife (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess what, buddy. Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy... we don't care about your cause any more than anyone else does. Begone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that this was an off Wikipedia legal threat directed at multiple editors and needs to be taken seriously, right? - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am taking it hugely seriously. Just look at my face. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the deletions made by Demiurge1000 [1] being overreaction to the threat. It's well cited that the subject of the article was convicted of extortion. The Texas prison deal is also well cited. That deletion should have been discussed on Talk first. This article has been the subject of massive COI editing, extensive sockpuppeting, and is about someone who is heavily into self-promotion (he has a PR agency and is having a movie made about himself) and multi-level marketing. It was originally created by an SPA as a promotional piece, mentioned as such on the COI board, and then a number of experienced editors started finding more info about the article's subject. That's how we got here. John Nagle (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly in regards to this edit, you've been repeatedly nakedly asserting that the sourcing isn't good enough and not responding to people pointing out that the sourcing seems fine and asking for more detail. Are you too busy in real life right now? What's going on? - Richfife (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above brief "No" could use some expansion. Let's discuss the content issues on Talk:Yank Barry. Thanks. As for the threat, I've edited the Yank Barry article, I edit under my own name and am easy to contact, and haven't received any threats. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what Demiurge1000 means to say is WP:COATRACK. We have a BLP subject here where 85% of the article is negative. Per WP:UNDUE, the article needs to be balanced. The negative info needs to be rewritten in the way that it doesn't hijack the article disproportionate to this person's life.--v/r - TP 06:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If ~85% of media coverage of the subject is negative, "balancing" the article would be what would make it POV/UNDUE. (Not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular case, but an "85% negative article" is not, necessarily, automatically UNDUE.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had much the same concerns as TParis since I first got involved at the article. It used to be more blatant, the article was using the "criminal" infobox and the lead focused more heavily on his legal problems. The difficulty we keep running into is that there are two kinds of sources for Yank Barry. There are independent sources which are overwhelmingly negative, and there are press releases (or news articles that cite press releases) that are positive. It's difficult to get a balanced article when the press is focused on the problems he's had, and when there is a very blatant PR campaign to improve his image (a PR campaign that extends to Wikipedia; the article has been hit multiple times by sockpuppets connected to his organization as well as this recent personal threat against Richfife). I first got involved in the article from a request at WP:COIN because of those problems. I wish there was reliable coverage of such basic biographical information as his childhood and family, his marital history, even his musical and business career. Maybe someone with better resources and/or research skills can help out. -- Atama頭 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To help illustrate how widespread the problem at the article has been, here is a list of single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article or edited other articles related to Yank Barry, just in 2014 (there were more in the past):

• Gogvc (talk · contribs) - Since blocked for being a promotional account, username matches the domain name of Yank Barry's charity organization web site.
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs) - A CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Gogvc, also blocked.
• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) - The original creator of the article, now blocked for "editing against consensus, likely COI, plugging of one subject, etc.".
• Fmrjournalist (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973.
• Npl10 (talk · contribs) - Not blocked, and admittedly not editing promotionally, has only edited to remove information about an upcoming film Barry is allegedly producing.
• Bestmomever (talk · contribs) - A suspected sock puppet of Gogvc, CU says it is a "likely" match to Gogvc, the SPI case is awaiting administration.
• BeadCatz (talk · contribs) - Just showed up today, editing in a very promotional manner and without sources.

Again, this is just since January of this year. And this only includes the accounts, there have been numerous IPs making such edits, and there have been similar SPAs editing since the article's creation in 2010, including those whose usernames blatantly connected them to Barry's organization. -- Atama頭 17:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and new SPA BeadCatz (talk · contribs) just re-inserted the bogus info which Atama had just deleted. [2] The subject of the article employs a PR agency ("The Publicity Agency", Tampa, FL)[3] to polish his image, and that does seem to extend to Wikipedia. We've been to COIN twice, AN/I three times, and sockpuppet investigations as listed above. The edits driven by the PR effort are so inept and heavy-handed that they're more annoying than effective. Kind of like the anonymous phone threat. It may be time for semi-protection, just to reduce the noise level. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I warned BeadCatz after they violated WP:3RR at the article (they have reverted 4 other editors today). Another revert and I'll report at WP:ANEW (I won't bother to report someone for violating it if they hadn't been alerted to the rule first, especially a new editor - I assume they are new). Having SPAs show up to edit war and insert promotion isn't unusual at this article, unfortunately, and it's one reason why it has been a challenge to constructively develop it. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, BeadCatz, with a Wikipedia career of 2 hours, just hit 4RR at Yank Barry.[4]. They've been reverted by three different editors, and given multiple warnings. Please pull their plug, and I'd suggest a week of semi-protection so we can do something else for a while. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the account was created in 2012. Are we dealing with a marketing firm sock farm?--v/r - TP 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the other possible socks listed above. All the others were newly registered, except for the one that created the Yank Barry article four years ago. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs). It's like drinking from an SPA firehose. - Richfife (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the Dr did make two other edits prior to posting to the Yank Barry talk page, to unrelated articles (the biographies of a professional wrestler and an American football player). So this doesn't fit the pattern of previous SPAs. Though it does seem odd to show up out of nowhere to make practically the same argument of older SPAs. Also, I checked the creation log and the new account was created 4 hours before the block of BeadCatz so that doesn't suggest block evasion to me. -- Atama頭 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the possibility they learnt the trick many SPAs learn of at least trying to appear interested in other stuff can't be ruled out. The account creation is interesting. Creating before a block isn't a definite sign that it isn't block evasion since it isn't uncommon among block evaders, particularly persistent ones, to create and perhaps even start using a sleeper before they are blocked. Particularly if it's clear they are likely to be blocked. However it seems BeadCatz only had one edit, to their sandbox, when the new account was created so it doesn't seem it was obvious they would be blocked, unless perhaps they'd been around long enough to recognise that there's a fair chance the BeadCatz would be quickly blocked. Alternatively, they may have been hoping for multiple simultaenous socks. Another possibility is there's some degree of meatpuppetry and the SPAs actually belong to at least 2 different people. In which case the BeadCatz and Dr could be different editors. Either way while it may be premature to block, I think the Dr account should be carefully monitored, although I also wonder if it will stay around anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards meatpuppetry right now, but the fairly advanced level of the edits (properly formatted external link summaries for instance) makes me wonder. - Richfife (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The new "Dr Gonzo5269" editor is commenting on the talk page, not editing the article. We can try to communicate with them. That's progress. I put a note to the Yank Barry PR operation on User_talk:BeadCatz#Promotional_editing, pointing out that what they're doing is counterproductive. Maybe they'll engage more. Note to Barry's PR operation, if you're reading this: Get one account, make it clear you represent Barry, and discuss what you want to say on Talk before editing the article. You might get somewhere. Using lots of new accounts making hit and run edits is not going to get you anywhere. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out I am a new account so I'm not totally clear what the issue is here but I do not appreciate my name being thrown around in this manner. I have many interests on Wikipedia. I am a fan of Steve Van Zandt and it was through following him I heard of Yank Barry. I remembered liking the song "Louie Louie" as a kid. I began to do some research and it was from that I learned of the multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations which I happen to find rather impressive. Any info I post about Yank Barry will be something that has been reported in the past. I do know the Richfife account replied to my post in a heartbeat. Does he have something against Yank Barry? From my limited initial research I have found mostly positive information about Yank Barry. He seems to be genuinely helping the refugees from Syria. I will continue my research as I am now thoroughly intrigued by this whole ordeal. I do not see why there is a fight here or why some editors are against Yank Barry. Having said that I am not a meat puppet, a sock puppet, and I certainly didn't call anyone. As long as I cite my sources I don't see any problem with having a positive opinion about Yank Barry, Stephen Neal, Ben Askren, or anyone else I decide to take an interest in. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richfife continues adding unsourced material on BLP Yank_Barry

This user is clearly violating BLP rules and directly going against WP BLP rules. He has made a claim that the subject filed bankruptcy. This is a serious accusation on a BLP page. It must be backed up with actual and real court documents of the bankruptcy filing and charge off. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. But USer:Richfife continues to ignore this. This is not the first instance of his complete disregard for the serious nature of such actions on a BLP. There is a zero tolerance policy on this matter as outlined by Jimmy Wales policy here: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

This page has seen so much negative and clearly biased postings aimed at causing financial harm to the subject. I went through the entire Talk:Yank_Barry#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee and was shocked to see this statement by User:Richfife, Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. on 03:59, 14 April 2014. This user should be blocked immediately to maintain the integrity of WP. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

And how do we know you're not hired by Yank Barry to whitewash his article, hm? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Same way I might ask, Jeske, why I should trust you to be balanced and neutral about a topic of this nature? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC to Demiurge) Ganberreh has, including this An/I post, 6 edits to his name, all about or on the talk page of Yank Barry, all made today despite the account being made on 23 May. If you've read the above thread, then you should know that there is a serious concern that that article is the centre of a concerted PR campaign, so a new editor coming on and joining the debate pro-Barry should be put under more scrutiny than normal. I suspect Ganberreh is associated with the PR campaign. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[5] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The material on the bankruptcu is sourced, is sourced to a reliable source (the Montreal Gazette), and has been since it was added. The claim that we need court documents rather than newspaper coverage is a call for primary sources over secondary one, which flies right in the face of WP:SECONDARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Gazette is not reliable until you can proof it. That is a basic common need for all editors to be comfortable with the accuracy of the information. Unless you can get a copy of it an upload for reading, it is not reliable. If we accept this, there will be no end to editors say, "trust me" I have the backup. the burden is on you to backup your content, not the other way around. That is a basic requirement, you know that. Then ArtNews, if that one passing statement is accepted, then all passing statements on all the other articles written in so many articles I have found on CNN should be admitted. But those have been struck out claiming them to be not well sourced. We cannot have double standards and selective here. The standards of source acceptance need to apply to keep this page neutral. (Ganbarreh (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

from WP:OFFLINE "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline." If you want to confirm an offline source, then you should be the one that looks through the Montreal Gazette's news archives. To claim that a source is not reliable because it is not online is complete WP:BULLOCKS. —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is the burden of the editor who posted it to back up and confirm the source. (Ganbarreh (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

No it's not, Ganbarreh, please read WP:BURDEN. Per the footnote there, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)." At this point, you are the one with the obligation, per our verifiability policy. And you have two different sources to dispute now. -- Atama頭 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As Atama has stated, Richfife has met his end of WP:BURDEN by providing a reference to a reference to a reliable, third-party source. You, however, are not assuming good faith by claiming that because the source is not online, it must be "fake" without providing any evidence to support your argument. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We are threatening his livelihood and rightly so

That's a quote. Is that what Wikipedia is for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is a partial quote, missing an opening parenthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a reliable source for Barry's sources of income being somewhat sketchy, a CTV expose from 2002.[6] Excerpt: "Barry then went after the better life with a vengeance. Today as a member of the ultra-exclusive Ocean View Golf Club, Barry claims he makes his money from VitaPro and managing offshore investments. But many people say that's just a cover. They think Yank Barry is just a smooth talker with questionable business practices. Investigative journalist David Marchant is one of the few reporters keeping an eye on the world of offshore banking...". The details follow at the link given. That CTV article is far, far more negative on Barry than the Wikipedia article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: It was a wildly inappropriate comment on my part and I admit it. What I wanted was to point out was that this was a situation that was likely to spin out of control and I semi-consciously resorted to overheated language to make my point. I wound up making rather more points that I intended to. That being said, this is not a case where I'm standing on the mountaintop crusading solo against Barry. Many, many people are watching the article from both sides and I hope that we are all watching each other's backs to make sure we don't go over the line when it comes to the article itself. - Richfife (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with SPAs at that article. Agreed? There's also a problem with SPAs getting riled up to participate there because they think people biased against them are dominating the discussion there.

Did you give them a very good reason to think that? Yes.

Is there a lack of people willing and able to deal with the SPA problem there? No.

Richfife, would it hurt you a great deal to take a break from that article for a month or two?

The same question for the other accounts that have made a very large number of edits there recently.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And you think that the endless stream of pro-Berry SPAs is going to take a break from the article because you ask then to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help. Since I'm not obsessed with the topic (and really don't care about it at all), I quite frankly have absolutely no objection to it being full protected until the SPAs (and other obsessives) get bored enough to either go away or discuss it properly on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to think about it for a bit, but I'm leaning towards no for a number of reasons. First, whether you want to take it seriously or not, there was an effort to scare both myself and a number of other unnamed editors off the article IRL in the form of a threatening phone call. This brings things perilously close to negotiating with terrorists. Second, given the suspicion of of sockpuppetry, it's not clear who the editors with large numbers of edits actually are. Third, comment on the edits, not the editor. As of late, the majority of my edits to the article proper have been either obviously neutral or positive in nature. Fourth, lets call another spade a spade, I don't think you're particularly objective about me either. "Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy" doesn't exactly line up with the changes I've made to the page. I hadn't even heard of him until a routine run of edits to remove non-notable Nobel peace prize nominations sparked an explosion. - Richfife (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've only made three edits on Yank Barry during May 2014. I'd been looking at business-related COI problems from WP:COIN, such as Banc de Binary, Riak, and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, where, like Yank Barry, there's heavy promotional editing. I've made lots of comments on the Yank Barry talk page after finding sources, and I've been on WP:COIN, WP:ANI, and WP:BLPN due to the COI/SPA/sock problems. I'd never heard of Yank Barry until the article popped up on WP:COIN. There's general consensus from the editors involved who have a track record on Wikipedia outside Yank Barry articles. Disagreements are hammered out on talk. There's no edit warring going on between any non-SPA accounts. All the trouble is coming from editors with very narrow editing interests. It's not clear how those editors are connected, but it's clear that as soon as one is blocked, another pops up. Admins, figure out a way to get us out of whack-a-mole mode. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that Richfife currently faces bullying in the form of legal threats, I support his brave decision to stay with the article. We should stand against such attempts to control who is involved in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I seem to possibly be among the group mentioned in a post above, I will respond. I only care about the verifiable facts on any article I edit on Wikipedia. I only care about how articles reflect on Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia. Sometimes when I find articles that are not as good as they could be, then I'll try to fix the issues whatever they are - that's what I'm here for...to edit. If other editors misinterpret my efforts to source statements, to keep a dispassionate tone, to maintain a neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, as being either for or against any issue or person, that has not ever been nor ever will be my intent. I have attempted to discuss my edits on Yank Barry on its associated talk page. I have attempted to place Welcome templates on any new editor's talk page who edits the article. I have done nothing on the Yank Barry article that would necessitate my having to take a break from editing it, I have done nothing there that I need to apologize for. Shearonink (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Progress

There's been a little progress. We have some new editors working on the article, Editingisthegame (talk · contribs) (5 days on Wikipedia, made a few edits on other articles before focusing on Barry-related articles) and Ganbarreh (talk · contribs) (4 days on Wikipedia, Barry-related articles only). These new editors write on talk pages and can be argued with. This is an improvement over the previous long string of rather inept SPAs and socks. The new editors demonstrate some expertise with Wikipedia, so they're probably not really new. We'll see what happens next. It looks like we don't need admin intervention right now, but please keep watching the article. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Ganbarreh reminds me so very, very much of Accurateinfo973, who also argued extensively on the article talk page. In particular, this comment to me smells fishy, with the phrase "malicious campaign" reminding me of this comment from Accurateinfo973 talking about a "smear campaign". The tendentious repetition of the same argument is also similar. I've been debating whether or not to make another entry at the SPI, I'm thinking I will now.

In the case of Editingisthegame, though, I don't feel like this editor is the same. They're new, yes, but they aren't focused on Yank Barry, nor are their edits promotional; to the contrary they've been arguing against Ganberreh too. They've been pretty even-handed both on the discussion page and on the main article, and I welcome their input. -- Atama頭 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have written my comment above too soon. Today we have new EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), editing only the talk page of Yank Barry. The general editing trend of the SPAs is 1) insist that Barry was a member of The Kingsmen, and 2) keep the "Nobel peace prize nomination" in the article. It's going to be a long summer. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As a relatively new person, I knew I would be open to suspicion the moment I posted something into the Yank Barry page. I read through the history of this page in all of the forms. My goal is to bring in honest, credible information to all the posts I am apart of on this website. These biography pages will be most people's first stop when researching people, so the information should not be full of promotional content and uncheck facts. My intent was not to rock any sort of boat. I do not mean to insist anything out of my discussions on the talk page other than facts that have sources. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Editingisthegame: I appreciate your contributions and I hope you continue your participation at the article, we can use your help. :) -- Atama頭 15:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Posts like this one[7] shows that @Ganbarreh: is not showing any form of good faith relating to editors adding sources mentioning Barry's court case. Not sure what remedy there is for this short of blocking. But he has been told repeatedly in multiple venues by multiple editors now that sources don't have to be online to be reliable. But instead, he goes WP:IDHT.[8][9] —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Ganbarreh and sleeper account BlyMyShy (talk · contribs) as  Confirmed socks of Accurateinfo973.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo you are again my hero. :) I was in the middle of doing SPI and gathering up evidence for Ganberrah when I noticed that you'd already blocked them for being a sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973. Thanks again! -- Atama頭 15:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're doing all the heavy-lifting in actually dealing with all of these sock farms and COI editors, I'm just pushing some buttons.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

May want to look at EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), another SPA that suddenly got involved in the Yank Barry article making the same exact arguments as Ganbarreh. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs) may also be another sock as they are making the same WP:QUACKing sounds as the other two. —Farix (t | c) 21:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! Can you check for socks one more time as of now? I'm really making an effort to keep my paranoia to a minimum. Honest. - Richfife (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the Yank Berry article is that it is replete with SPAs that are likely being canvassed offline; in other words, more WP:MEAT than WP:SOCK. The two accounts I named above are the only two socks explicitly tied to the Accurateinfo973 account. Remember, you don't need a positive CU results to block accounts for being disruptive SPAs. It may make the determination to block easier, but it's certainly not necessary.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is a case of WP:MEATpuppetry, wouldn't it be better to place the article under semi-protection? —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It is already. The article itself is fairly quiet. The talk page and legal front less so. - Richfife (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sick to death of being called a meat or sock puppet. I have nothing to do with any other account on Wikipedia, this is my first one. I have nothing to do with Yank Barry and have not met him or any other living person who's page I have contributed. I went to school and studied research and writing. I happen to have an opinion that differs from another editor and that means I must be a sock? I have done nothing that hasn't been sourced and cited. I simply do not understand why if an editor supports anything positive about Yank Barry the reaction is to run to admin and try to get that editor blocked. What have I posted anywhere that is disruptive? I have posted nothing but opinions based on factual research and because it is positive I must be a puppet? That is ridiculous! How about having a discussion about why your opinion differs from mine as opposed to running and telling mom the socks are on the loose? I have posted zero fluff. I have not been on any sort of campaign for information that is not factual. This is absurd. I've contributed to several other living person's pages with positive, factual information and had no issues. I've repeatedly stated that I don't know what went on with this page in the past, but in the present I have done nothing to suggest fluff, socks, or meat. Can editors really not have differing thoughts on this topic? Absolutely ridiculous. I'll ask again, please refrain from dragging my username into this nonsense. I have posted nothing that is disruptive or not backed up by sourced, factual information. It was my understanding that editors were to assume good faith and I do not feel I've been given that benefit of the doubt. I've had to respond to my username being thrown around in this matter three times and that is silly on an encyclopedia page when I've posted nothing that is not cited or sourced. I've made zero arguments for any point that is not cited or sourced.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: To my knowledge nobody has directly accused you of anything yet. Here are the facts: we have an ongoing problem at the Yank Barry article where a series of accounts have been pushing a particular positive point of view, with the intention of removing any negative information about Mr. Barry and inserting positive propaganda generated by his public relations people. You should be well aware of this fact, it has been repeated to you more than once. So when a new account appears at that article (yet one more out of what is approaching at least a dozen such accounts) we are going to be suspicious. It would be foolish not to be.

My initial involvement with the article was to make it more positive (after I removed some bogus awards that his PR folks had inserted into the article that don't seem to exist), see here. The article initially had more of an emphasis on his criminal activity which I felt was overly negative. I didn't get any real resistance from my suggestions to change that. I then altered the infobox myself from "criminal" to "musician", and removed the info about his 10 months in prison from the infobox, because it was too negative. On the talk page, I've cautioned people about making the article too negative, and worked to include positive information. You can see here where I support including information about the play he produced in the 70s (and finding another source to support it). I argued that we should not have an entire section of the article devoted to an extortion conviction, and I lamented our lack of basic personal information about him.

My goal, and the goal of most editors at the article, is to make this into a good biography that is solidly sourced with interesting information. That has been repeatedly frustrated by the disruption caused by editors with the clear goal of promoting Mr. Barry. Maybe you aren't a member of that group of editors, but when you support their viewpoints and begin escalating your rhetoric by making some of the same accusations they have about other editors having a "negative agenda", yes, you are going to be poorly received. At this point you've given us reason to begin assuming poor faith on your part, if you want to be viewed differently then give us a reason. Stop lashing out as you have been and start trying to cooperate. Disagreeing is fine, it's how you disagree that matters. -- Atama頭 20:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Atama, let me apologize. The problem is I have sourced and cited everything I've said. I have not argued for anything that is untrue to be added. Anything I add get's deleted. That is very frustrating. What gives one person the overall say over what goes in and what does not? I am a little angry that editors do not assume good faith when I am not saying anything that isn't sourced! I have provided links to support my case. I am not running around posting fluff or absolutely anything that is untrue. It is very frustrating to be ratted out to admin (this is the 3rd time now) just because you happen to have a positive opinion about information that is easily cited. I'm going to keep trying to improve the page with positive, factual information that is cited and let editors keep deleting it. I am doing absolutely nothing wrong. If I say or post anything that is not fact then please, please call me out on it, but to this point I have done no such thing.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal theat, round 2

I have received a letter from Philip D. Dapeer, an attorney in the Los Angeles area. He writes "I write at the request of Mr. Yank Barry who has retained my law firm with respect to the negative and defamatory postings and edits you have made to Mr. Barry's web page on Wikipedia". ... "Mr. Barry is prepared to proceed forthwith with the filing of an appropriate action for defamation ..." Amusingly, Dapeer claims "Mr. Barry is not a public figure". The letter is addressed to three other persons besides myself, but I won't list them here due to Wikipedia's "outing" policy. More later. A copy of the letter has also supposedly been sent to the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. This is going to be interesting. John Nagle (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also received that letter. The letter does indeed claim he's not a public figure, which is followed by a list of celebrities who might also be harmed, somehow. Kinda a mixed message there. Irritatingly, I have not linked my username with my real name, and I appreciate User:Nagle not outing me. I'm not naive enough to think that's any sort of protection from this silliness, but I'd still rather keep it that way. I've made a whopping 5 edits to the page itself, 2 being minor, none of which seem all that contentious. Most of my contributions have been to the talk page, most of which can be boiled down to "better sources should be found". I don't express a lot of patience for the parade of SPAs, but most of my comments have been part of an ongoing dialog with many other editors, so I'm frustrated that I've been singled out like this. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to imply that the other editors do deserve to be singled out! Sorry, that didn't come out right. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've sent a note off to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, with an image of the threatening letter. This is going to take some coordination, because four editors are named. That makes it important for the Foundation to be involved, because this isn't about one person doing something - it's about the overall operation of Wikipedia when faced by an aggressive PR push. Meanwhile, there's yet another brand-new Barry-only editor, Booknona (talk · contribs), but he's only editing on the talk page so far. I suggest semi-protection on the article while the legal dispute proceeds, as an appropriate interpretation of WP:NLT in the presence of heavy sockpuppeting. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already been semi-protected through August.--v/r - TP 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Should probably be locked completely for editor's protection at this point. Since every time an editor edits the page they are republishing the info, its the individual editors who are liable should the lawyers decide to get more serious. Its one thing denying threats of legal action, its another when they are clearly preparing to take it further. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's up to individual editors to determine if they are going to take that risk. If we lock a page for every legal threat, we're going to create a system where folks can get articles locked at will by paying a $20 court fee in the right district. Besides, Wikipedians don't need admin-type nannys telling them where they can or cannot edit for their own good.--v/r - TP 18:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, so perhaps sticking a disclaimer at the top of the article/talk/edit page 'edit and be warned lawyers are afoot'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Little help

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

---

Hi people, I would like your help in this rather confusing issue. Telangana is a new state of India which came into existence today seceding from Andhra Pradesh. Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh is a city actually located in Telangana. Now that the state is divided, the article must be renamed to Nizamabad, Telangana..But a patriot happily copy pasted all the content from Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh and made a new article at Nizamabad,Telangana which doesn't have the previous edit history. Since we always follow this naming convention of having a space after the comma, I hereby request you to

• Delete Nizamabad, Telangana
• Move Nizamabad,Telangana to Nizamabad, Telangana...

That's it folks...thanks in advance ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Support, I have requested move at admin page, but don;t know who copied it.--Vin09 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just made a WP:RM request, filed as technically uncontroversial. Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably there are some other articles about nearby places where similar changes need to be made?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

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

---

In a span of a few minutes 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has managed to call me a prick, a twat, and a piece of shit. I had previously warned him not to be uncivil in his edit summaries, a tosser. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's no good. Calidum, I'd suggest you use edit summaries when reverting. It's not like you were reverting vandalism when, for instance, you restored an unsourced (though probably true) assertion about what an article subject is best known for. Anyway, given this editor has received an only warning for NPA in the last 24 hours and persisted in making personal attacks (as well as edit warring warnings, which seem to have been disregarded), a short block is probably appropriate to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Block away. I could not care less. Personally I consider that stalking someone's edits, reverting repeatedly without giving a reason, and going out of one's way to be obnoxious and provocative is a much more damaging thing than responding angrily to such behaviour. If the insulting behaviour of reverting without having the courtesy to explain why resulted in editors getting blocked, this place would improve rather dramatically. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, KOH. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

====He's back====

See more personal attacks below. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Shashini12311

Shashini12311 (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppets (Shashini123 (talk · contribs) and 61.245.172.23 (talk · contribs)) have repeatedly been adding content in the lede saying that Canadian Tamil Congress is a terrorist entity, usually the first sentence of the lede. The have added the same information to a number of other articles as well. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and they have been warned several times on their talk page by myself and another editor. They have ignored the warnings.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note, it probably would have been good to notify the other two users even though you suspect that they are socks. G S Palmer (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on the other cases, but I don't see that the Canadian Tamil Congress article example has been handled well. Yes, the wording was misleading as it was a listing by the Sri Lankan government but the wording concentrated on the UN resolution the listing was said by the government to be under. And yes, it probably doesn't belong in the LEDE. And yes it needs a secondary source, preferably multiple.

But the listing of an organisation as a financier of terrorism by any government, no matter how questionable that listing may be according to others, surely belongs in the article. And while it may technically be the responsibility of people trying to add information to get the sourcing, wording and position right, continually reverting because it's wrong surely helps no one. In some cases even if not here, it may even stop the edit war.

I would note that the wording used here [10] is almost fair. It's still in the LEDE, but far down enough that it's a more minor issue which really should have been corrected rather than reverted. It also lacked a secondary source which is unfortunate, but does anyone really think no secondary source noticed/commented on such a controversial listing? (I definitely didn't and found a secondary source in 30 seconds.)

To be fair, the reversion came here [11] after the claim had been added for a second time, so there may have been some confusion, but User:70.29.181.53 who modified and moved the claim was clearly trying to fix the problem and improve the article, so they deserved to be helped not lumped in with the other editor. (The fact that the other editor added the claim a second time when it was already in the same paragraph in the LEDE suggests to me they weren't going to stop hence why I was careful with my wording earlier.)

In other words, rather than simply looking at bad edits as something to be reverted, people should remember to work out if there's actually something there which definitely should be in the article since the goal should always be to improve wikipedia. Particularly in a case like this where the addition is small, it's surely easy to see that there is actually something there that does belong in the article.

P.S. Despite being a strong defender of BLP, I would also object to any universal application of BLP to this article. Obviously people are involved in this organisation, as they are in any organisation, but it's large enough that issues which affect the organisation can't be said to directly affect individuals. Heck the only people currently named in the article (discounting sources) are a judge, a person the CTC sued and someone they gave an award to. This doesn't of course mean we shouldn't get things right, but we also shouldn't be applying the high standards which BLP rightly requires to large organisations, otherwise we might as just as well apply them to everything. (Of course BLP can still apply to stuff in the article. For example clearly there are possible BLP issues for anyone directly named in the article and we should make sure the stuff about them is correct and that it's worth mentioning them in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I know this isn't really a ANI issue, but is there any general coverage about the recent listings. Not necessarily an article specific to the listings, perhaps coverage in a more general one like 'List of organisations banned by the Government of Sri Lanka'? It seems to me there's great coverage of the listings [12] but because so many organisations were listed at one time and many of the listings are controversial there often isn't specific discussion or even mention of the actual organisation. It may help to have a general article for coverage of the listings where such issues can be covered (probably linked as a 'main article' in the specific organisation articles where the listing is mentioned). Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This ANI notice isn't about the validity of mentioning the "ban", merely the actions of Shashini12311 which are a violation of core content policies. The fact that Shashini12311 has reinserted the same content even after your edits is evidence that they are here to make a point. Unless Shashini12311 is dealt with they are going to continue with their POV edits and waste other editors' time. Five editors have already waster their time on Shashini12311.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Shashini12311 has reinserted the content again, ignoring NeilN's advice.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave them a final warning a few hours ago after that insertion, indicating further attempts would be reported here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A certain user has stepped up their childish, vindictive nature

A certain user must think I'm an idiot and can't see what they are trying to do. They changed their tactics. They know very well that the "Results and schedule" box, separate from the other thing we've disputed over, has been unhidden each week to reveal what's underneath it, the next race. Isn't it funny how last week, when SOMEONE else unhid the FedEx 400 box, this certain user didn't say anything? But when I MYSELF unhide this week's race in the same fashion that the other user did last week, SUDDENLY the user in question has a problem with it? Also, isn't odd how they just NOW suddenly decided that they don't like the un-hiding of that box, when, after all these months, they NEVER had a problem with it? Seems fishy to me. Sounds like they know they've lost on the other thing, so they are now trying to stick it to me wherever they think they can, no matter how lame the reason. Let me ask, why last week did they NOT revert the OTHER editor who un-hid the box for the FedEx 400? It's because there's nothing there was wrong with it; the only thing wrong with it THIS time is the fact that it was ME who un-hid it. That's the vindictive nature of the person in question, and it's not fooling anyone.

This is the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man

This is what the box is meant to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=prev&oldid=611353692 As you can see, that displays how the box indicates the upcoming race (which is a totally different section than the one being disputed a few weeks ago). This box has, by other editors as well as myself, been revealed each week using the un-hide feature in the editing process, to show the race valid for that week, and it's been done that way for quite some time. But, suddenly now, the user in question decided that they don't like it very much because they saw that this time it was ME who revealed it, and decided to use it as an opportunity to try to get under my skin. Why didn't the user in question revert it last week when it was some OTHER editor who un-hid the box? Funny how that works, isn't it? This is what it currently looks like, and as you can see, the box is missing now that the user in question hid it only for personally vindictive purposes, something they didn't do when it was another editor who made the same kind of edit last week that I made this week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=611384932

And while I'm here, I may as well go ahead and let you know about another situation. Since clearly the user in question keeps an eye on what I do, they saw today an article for deletion conversation that I'm involved in, and decided to put their two cents in merely for the purpose of opposing me on it, again to try to stick it to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Brickyard_400

As you can see, all of it, the new tactics change to try to bother me, plus the butting into the deletion article conversation just to oppose me out of spite, has gotten to the point of nuttiness. I don't go around reverting other editors' edits out spite or for any other reason, I keep to myself. But the user in question not only does it, but also makes a habit out of it, even stooping to changing tactics when something else wasn't working for them. And who knows how many other users out there that they have done it too, especially the ones who maybe didn't take the time and effort to rightfully complain about it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you please actually talk to the user you're in conflict with rather than coming to ANI straight off? This is about the fourth time in the last few weeks you have come here with the same issue (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Like we said before in those discussions, WP:DISCUSS with USM what their issue is and work it out between yourselves rather than coming to ANI every single time you think they're in the wrong. You're fighting about an infobox and the timing to reveal the results of a race not run yet, not actual article content. We're not under a WP:DEADLINE to have the edit show up or not until after the race, and does it really matter for an upcoming race? Also, anyone can comment on an AfD, and they only said they were going with article creation MO for arguing deletion, not some kind of vendetta. Someone interested in NASCAR racing and editing in the subject is going to comment in an NASCAR AfD; you can't get around that. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, I'd like to make a suggestion. Two, actually. First, read WP:TLDR: Nobody's going to be predisposed to listen to you if they think that you're ranting. Second, could you stop using URL's and use regular links instead? If you need to link to someone's contributions, it can be produced by typing [[Special:Contributions/Example]], which will render as Special:Contributions/Example. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said a few weeks ago, trying to communicate with them has proved fruitless, that's why I'm here. I don't come here because I like to. And anyway, when you have someone whose mission it is to maliciously target one single editor with new tactics because the old ones didn't work, there is no getting through to them anyway. Although in the past I tried. That person likes to leave messages on people's pages basically getting across the idea that they have the last say on everything, no matter how ridiculous. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Johnsmith2116? Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You have been told by multiple people (in fact, as I recall, by everyone other than you) that your earlier claims of being hounded/attacked/battled against were spurious and that you, not them, were the cause of the issue. Your continued claims that USM is being "vindictive" have crossed into personal attack territory - I would strongly suggest you strike this comment, especially, as it is a blatant and egrerious personal attack - consider this a warning that if you make any such further attacks you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, you need to review the WP:FIVEPILLARS, especially regarding assuming good faith. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are trying to "spite" you. Conflict happens on Wikipedia all of the time and the right response is to talk it out. As I think I suggested earlier, go to WikiProject NASCAR to hear the views of other editors if you feel like it is a him vs. you situation. It always helps to include other editors in the discussion if you are finding it difficult to communicate with a specific editor. But you have to try to talk it out and stop coming to AN/I over what is, essentially, a content dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit and Ta-Nehisi Coates - request for topic ban

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

---

As of a half hour ago, User:Useitorloseit has made 310 edits to Wikipedia. The account has made only 33 edits to article space, 20 of them to a BLP article, Ta-Nehisi Coates. 19 of those 20 have been to insert disputed material about the juvenile arrest record of the subject of the article. With 310 edits, this user could have brought the article up to FA status, but instead the vast majority of those 310 edits have been to talk and project space, including multiple threads here and on WP:BLPN, arguing about this disputed material. Along the way this editor has been belligerent and accused other editors like myself and User:NorthBySouthBaranof of all manner of nonsense. It is clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and worse, has wasted the time of one or two dozen productive editors since February. This user should be topic banned this article and its talk page and can revisit this article and topic ban after he or she proves him or herself to be a productive Wikipedia editor and not an SPA. Enough is enough. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Enough is enough indeed. This editor's privileges should be constrained to anything but that BLP (at a minimum). Total time waster. Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban regarding all aspects of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Viewing all of Useitorloseit's contributions confirms that this is an SPA wanting to add negativity to a BLP. Their agenda was clearly stated in the first edit which has edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This issue involves disputes over changing consensus and the quality of arguments for deciding consensus. I request RfC be allowed to run its course, due to repeated prior attempts to block discussion.

Content: An explanation of the disputed content is inside collapsed box:

Collapsing for the moment to stop edit war, leave it alone for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the content dispute: Ta-Nehisi Coates is a blogger for the Atlantic magazine who focuses on issues of African-Americans, race relations, crime, young black males, inner city schools, etc. (Reparations for slavery and Shooting of Trayvon Martin are two examples of issues where he has had an impact). He has written about his discipline issues in high school over the years, and I want to include a mention of that. The proposed edit is this: "Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School."

The edit meets Wikipedia's content requirements: it is verifiable, based on the author's own repeated discussion of the incidents over the years. WP policy allows such self-referential sources. There is no original research: these links are written by the author, not me, and they are being used to support only one thing: the straight fact of the incidents, nothing else. Lastly, this is a neutral point of view: it doesn't obscure the existence of these incidents, nor does it emphasize them. I believe this edit should be added to the article.

Conduct: I definitely edit-warred in the beginning, but that is long past and I have addressed other concerns such as being an SPA here under "I don't edit Wikipedia often" [[14]]. Other users have abused the Noticeboard process to shut down debate: My first RfC was immediately deleted by an involved user, TheRedPenOfDoom, who then warned me on my Talk page. When I deleted [[15]] the warning, he reported me to the Obvious Vandalism [[16]] page. My edit was obviously not vandalism, and TheRedPenOfDoom deserves sanctions for misuse of the vandalism board to close down debate. The next edit [[17]] had 2-1 supporting, with 1 ambiguous. The 1 opposed, NorthBySouthBaranof, reverted it 3 times, then reported [[18]] me to the BLP board. The next edit [[19]] had a 3-3 split supporting/opposing. NorthBySouthBaranof talked about reverting to the last uncontroversial version due to no consensus [[20]], then IN HIS VERY NEXT POST, tried to have me topic banned [[21]]. He deserves sanctions for making false statements about the state of consensus at BLP & ANI noticeboards. There's more. When he reopened the 2nd RfC when it was closed minutes after I started it, he didn't include [[22]] the RfC tag, so it wouldn't attract other editors who might disagree with him. He harassed [[23]] or tried to prevent [24]] other editors who might support me from joining in. I am asking the RfC to be allowed to remain for 2 weeks to draw comment, then we can close it and I will accept consensus and move on. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What possible difference could the RFC make? You haven't taken no for an answer since February, and you've done it at the top of your lungs. Assuming the RFC does stay open, which I have zero objection to, why would we possibly believe that would be the end of it, since you've given no indication that you've ever been willing to drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple: because no discussion has ever been allowed to play out. Try me. Delete this topic ban, allow the RfC to stay for 2 weeks, and if I start again I'll support your topic ban. You don't have a clue about me and you've been wrong from the start. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's been months and hundreds of edits of discussion already. You will apparently never be satisfied. I say leave the RFC open for two weeks and topic ban you. If you truly will be satisfied by the two week RFC, after all these months and hundreds of edits of complaining, then the topic ban will have no effect on you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links on how many times debate has been disrupted by opposing editors. If you choose to ignore that, don't blame me. I stand by my request. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

References
References

Disagreement is not disruption. You've had ample opportunity to be heard. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One edit had 2-1 support; another had 3-3. So who says it was so clear-cut? Useitorloseit (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Ta-Nehisi Coates and all other BLPs, as well as 1RR on other pages as someone completely uninvolved, I had been considering leaving him a message about WP:Forum shopping after seeing him raise the issue repeatedly over the past week on different WP: pages I watch, but got the impression that would only get him to try and draw me into an article issue I'm completely apathetic toward. Clear WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC) -- EDIT: After further discussion with Useitorloseit (see below), I'm seeing severe WP:CIR, WP:TEND, and WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor, and do not think he should be near any BLP and should be restricted to 1RR on other pages to mitigate potential uncooperative behavior. This is if if we continue to let him edit at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Thomson, one editor said there was no consensus[[25]], then 20 minutes later claimed on ANI that consensus was clearly against me[[26]] and I should be topic-banned. You cannot work out consensus if people will openly lie like that and poison the well against you. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-read what NorthBySouthBaranof actually posted before a month of dealing with your arguing. He said that there was no consensus to include your addition, that your addition was controversial, and that the last non-controversial version did not have your addition. He never said what you said he said. There is no hypocrisy in what actions of his you've presented. Honestly, that you failed to get that from the post you linked to me (assuming you weren't hoping that I would just take your word for it) only reinforces my views on the matter. In fact, it leaves me worried. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote: "If you believe that there is no consensus, then we will have to revert back to a version before you began introducing the issue, removing any and all mention of the incident until such time as a consensus is further developed." He even suggested which edit to revert back to. Sounds like he was saying "we need to work it out", but then he suddenly went to ANI so he wouldn't have to bother. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And I quote: "there has never been a consensus developed that any mention of the incident belongs in the article". Also, what you're selectively quoting is, even not in the proper context, saying that your controversial addition to the article should not be included until and unless there is an actual consensus to include it. It does not preclude (but definitely includes) the possibility that a consensus to not include it would develop, as has happened. Consensus is not created, changed, reversed, or otherwise affected by one editor refusing to get the point or drop the stick and back away from the horse. A consensus has developed since then, and you are the only person who doesn't see that. And a month is not "suddenly," it is plenty of time to work plenty out. It just didn't work out the way you wanted. If you continue to fail to get this, I'm bumping my vote to a topic ban on all WP:BLPs and a WP:1RR restriction. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, "suddenly" referred to his posting on ANI 20 minutes after talking about reverting on the talk page. I never said it was a month. I will accept consensus; I just expect to be allowed to have an RfC without having it deleted for once. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Which ANI report? Because the link you've provided was for over a month ago, and this ANI report is from today. Doing your job for you and searching NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions to find out what you should have linked, I see that you've generally not gotten it through your skull that the work is DONE, and that your addition lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The link you say I "should have linked" is the same one I did link, in my post at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The one you linked to at :28 after, this link, is from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It is not the other ANI report you kept talking about. You said that he went from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates to ANI in the span of 20 minutes, and provided no evidence. You kept discussing some ANI report without clarifying that you were not talking about this one, but an earlier one. You could/should have linked to him filing the report as well as proof and clarification, and so that your claim that he went to ANI 20 minutes later (as if it's relevant) was proven, and so that people new to this conversation would not think that you're talking about this ANI report from a month later. Without that link, the only conclusion that was possible to draw was that you were talking about this ANI thread we're in now, instead of the one from earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I proved links and therefore evidence for both in my first reply to your comment, at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

After double checking, I'm still seeing an irrelevant case of WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, merely to attempt to drag a living person through the mud through a unbroken obsession about a single minor incident. support topic ban . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per TRPoD. — goethean 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, and, believe it or not, support including the information. Here is the point. This is the article, by Coates himself. Clearly he doesn't see writing about details of his troubled history as a personal attack. And the reason for that is that it gives him credibility. Coates, as best I can tell from a quick skim (I don't think I'd ever heard of him before today) seems to be notable for writing and speaking to and about a young black audience that contains many of what we call "at risk youth". The fact that he had a tough childhood himself makes a big difference, if he mentions that it doesn't seem as if he's talking down to them from a pedestal, but that he has been there too. And that we write just how tough is important, it's not the "Frank Capra" overly idealistic tough kids with dirty faces that we sneer about; he assaulted a teacher, possibly twice, and got expelled from school for it. We really should write that in his article, and not because it makes him look bad, though it does - and not even because it makes him look good for overcoming it, though it does - but because it seems vitally relevant to the rest of his career and to the reason for his notability. --GRuban (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be possible to have a reasonable discussion concerning what material should be included after an SPA editor with a clear agenda is topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If, as it seems here, the main reason to ban him is that he wants to include this one sentence, and we can have a reasonable discussion about including that one sentence, I don't think we need to ban him. After all, it's not as if he's vandalizing the article, he started an RfC. We've got noticeably ruder editors still editing constructively here. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • 1) the content is included and 2) Coates has described numerous OTHER events in his life that have had a far greater impact. The editor's single minded focus on bloating this single factor is a core issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • A reasonable case can be made for inclusion. The reason to ban him is not because of the sentence, but because that sentence is basically his only contribution to Wikipedia. The reason to ban him is that he's an SPA engaging in forum shopping, dead horse beating, and belligerent behavior. How much more time must we waste on a user who has made next to no positive contributions in four months and 310 edits? Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I unblocked Useitorloseit on 23 April after he'd been blocked for edit warring. The unblock included a one-month 1RR restriction to the Ta-Nehisi Coates article. He'd been sporadically active until 23 May; that day, he both removed the sanction notice on his talk page and archived Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It's hard to interpret as anything other than an attempt to conceal the prior debate and have another go at getting the material included.

I haven't written him off as a user. However, I feel that his fixation with this topic is impeding his growth as an editor. Thus, the topic ban seems the best way to encourage him to grow as an editor and gain experience in the editing process without spending copious amounts of his time (and other users' time) on iterations of the same debate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with the prevailing view on Wikipedia that the only way to be judged a legitimate user is to edit lots of articles. I am a low-volume editor who doesn't have an interest to contribute as often. But my contributions should be judged by their content, not my edit count. I've gotten enough support for my edit to show it's not so outrageous or biased. Did everyone forget this RfC is due to the 3-3 deadlock? Why doesn't that matter to anyone? All I want is ONE RfC that doesn't devolve into flame wars over blocks or speedy closes. That's the real reason my nonarticle edits are so high. Then I can rest knowing I had a chance to make my case and be heard on the content, not insinuations about me. The only fixation I have is becoming interested in the process of dispute resolution. It's not based on quality of argument; it's whoever will stay and revert. In the ensuing mess, quality of argument is just another contender. By the way, I archived that stuff to try to draw a line behind it and focus on content. Fat lot of good that did. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit, I know what it's like. I too am a part time editor who doesn't average 100 edits per day, nor get paid for them. Unfortunately, when editors who are very active decide they want to make mischief for others for seemingly no reason, and then we complain about it, it tends to fall on deaf ears. I noticed that an editor who has been trying to stick it to me from some time also reverted one of your edits on this very page a few hours ago. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not what anyone is saying at all. This has nothing to do with however many edits you made. An editor with 100,000,000 edits would be getting in trouble for your behavior (and would have probably just been indefinitely blocked by now because there would be absolutely no reason to give them near the benefit of the doubt you've been given). You have made a lot of edits in a short amount of time, but almost all of them have been focused on only one thing that almost everyone has told you to stop pushing. The issue is that you're a single purpose account that refuses to listen to acknowledge any consensus that isn't exactly what you want. There are some possibilities for good single purpose accounts (User:Giraffedata's project is an example), but your actions do not mark you as a beneficial SPA. That you refuse to get that no one condones your behavior for a reason and that you continue to lie to yourself (and others) about the situation makes me doubt you'll be of benefit to the site, even with a topic ban. I have seen plenty of editors blocked (not banned from a single article, but blocked from the whole site) for far fewer problems in much less time, so you should be grateful that every admin who has passed through here is open to the possibility that you'll grow up, get over your mistakes, and do something productive instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor (I have never edited the article in question or its talk page), I was alerted to this dispute by Useitorloseit's attempts at forum shopping. At that point, I read the talk page, and this page, and noticed that Ian.thomson had the same experience as me. I am inclined to say "well, dang": Useitorloseit's actions are so egregious that [at least] two entirely uninvolved editors have noticed and come here to say "yes, this user should be banned from this topic". This is a clear case of a single-purpose account that is not here to work collaboratively. -sche (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite topic ban regarding Ta-Nehisi Coates. This editor's first edit summary characterized the BLP subject as "criminal" based on a juvenile arrest without any evidence of a conviction. For four months, the editor has been completely obsessed with only a single thing - sustained, compulsive efforts to insert material about the subject's juvenile scrapes with the law into the article. Repeated pleas asking the editor to expand and improve other aspects of the biography, or to work on improving other articles, have been rebuffed or ignored. As this is an enormous project, there may well have been examples of worse SPA behavior. But this is pretty bad and I am convinced that this editor's behavior amply justifies an indefinite topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I reached out and offered to “talk it over” [[27]] with this user, but instead of working with me, he just demanded I accept his position [[28]] and then stopped replying. He previously lectured a supporter of the edit to “withdraw those words”, adding “I will be waiting.” [[29]] That is a clear case of failure to work toward consensus in good faith.

• Oppose This is a request that is opened precisely as an RfC is running its course! I've been randomly invited to contribute to the RfC, and tried to contribute, but through this nomination the whole process is being disregarded. Moreover, the substance of the dispute is laughably minor: It revolves around whether to include or not in a person's Wikipedia entry the fact that he had been expelled from high school! Cause for satire. -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The user in question is a single-purpose account who has no intention of contributing to the development of a better article about Ta-Nehisi Coates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Reply I want to make sure it's clear to the powers that be that there was a legitimate split over consensus, and that very few people actually joined in. My last 2 edits [[30]] [[31]], which were different, had a combined total of only 6 editors who commented, and they split 3-3. Aside from those 6 editors, NONE of the people in the current survey had EVER commented or even participated in the discussions, with the sole exception of Gamaliel (who started this ANI post and who once voted “Opposed – DEADHORSE” with no further comment[[32]]). Again, the idea that discussion has been clearcut is a fiction created by opposing editors. Consensus can only be worked out by good-faith discussion, not repeatedly posting on noticeboards and poisoning the well against people, as has been done here. Several of the survey votes are traceable to noticeboard watchers who’ve seen these complaints raised over and over and are voting based solely on that. I renew my request for the RfC to run its course – the article is untouched and there’s no harm being done. I also believe making false statements on ANI ought to have some consequences. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and 1RR. Useitorloseit is obviously a single-purpose account. And he's just breached 3RR right here on this very page, trying to remove Floquenbeam's description of the content under one of the hats further up this thread. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Block Request: User Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

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.

Bad-faith request, asking for sanctions against editors because they were doing the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Update: I first requested intervention about editors reverting my own reply to an ANI discussion. The editor ian.thomson has gotten very combative and disruptive, starting a 3RR violation complaint about me and accusing me of "personal attacks" for labeling his reverts vandalism. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom has persisted in his reverts despite being asked not to. I am asking for a block for both of them for at least 1 day. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom keep editing my reply [[33]] [[34]] to the Topic Ban discussion listed several topics above this one. I believe I am entitled to write my own replies, without having people edit them against my will. Both editors oppose my edit and this amounts to nothing more than vandalism. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe this edit is what the OP is referring to. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, when you keep attempting to continue your smear of a living person by plastering the same content you have been overwhelmingly told REPEATEDLY in MULTIPLE FORUMS is not appropriate onto multiple pages; it will continue to be removed per our WP:BLP policies and your insistence on attempting to restore it merely reinforces the obvious: that you have an unhealthy obsession and must be topic banned to prevent further disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Note, OP has been reported for edit warring over the BLP violating material being inserted into the near-unanimous topic-ban discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's a smear or a legitimate edit is up to discussion to decide, not for you to just delete unilaterally. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism by involved, opposed editors. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTVAND. And technically, we could go and revert more since it falls under WP:BLP. Meanwhile, the edit report against you stands since it is not vandalism according to site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OP is now making personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, let's see what an admin says. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Does the Guinness Book of Records contain an entry for "most times dragged to ANI for utterly invalid reasons"? If so, TRPoD must surely hold it. Reyk _YO! 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Reyk just summed up my thoughts there, insofar as this is an "utterly invalid" ANI report, and frankly, I am tempted to boldly close it, but will wait to see if any other administrators or commentators view the situation differently. No admin action required, in my opinion. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Except maybe on Useitorloseit. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I would need to see a separate pile of evidence for that. Go Phightins! 02:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... You're changing this to a block request, even though you're only purpose here is to WP:TENDentiously WP:Edit war to violate WP:BLP against consensus, making personal attacks on those who stop you by calling them vandals? Are you even capable of acknowledging that ya done messed up? I mean, the multiple topic ban discussions over a few months are plenty of proof you don't understand what cooperation is, but that combined with not being able to acknowledge when you've made a mistake makes you someone this site doesn't need. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Everyone take a deep breath. Stop reverting. Stop calling people vandals.

The addition of content here is not a big crisis - it is sourced, it's just possibly WP:UNDUE - so there is no real reason it has to be completely deleted. However removing it due to a stricter interpretation of BLP is not vandalism. Useitorloseit, you are "more" wrong than they are, you're edit warring, and if this discussion was not about topic banning you (where you should be able to defend yourself), I'd have blocked you already. Hopefully the wishy-washy solution of collapsing it will make everyone dissatisfied, but not COMPLETELY dissatisfied. If anyone removes the collapsed material completely claiming BLP, I'll be disappointed, but ultimately I won't block someone for a strict but not unreasonable interpretation of BLP; I'm asking you to leave it collapsed. If the material is uncollapsed, I'll block for edit warring.

We now return to the topic ban discussion, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

TIME TO CLOSE THIS NONSENSE. (sorry for the shout but this is insane. Why waste more time? Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Inadmissible personal attack

I have been critical of the sourcing of the article Democracy & Nature. As a result, I was accused of "trying to destroy" the article on the talk page. The article is now at AfD. I requested at the talk page to refrain from personal attacks and was now answered with this edit, which I think is absolutely and totally inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They've already slipped to Godwin's Law? Not a personal attack - not civil, but not an attack the panda ₯’ 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the attack, as well as the earlier attack in the header of a talk page discussion, and warned the user. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. The implication is clear. I'm a Nazi book burner. This kind of insult is inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you mean impermissible. Anyway, it's a stupid thing for the other party to say, but a sanctionable personal attack? Meh. All too often, people get frustrated and say stupid things that only hurt the discussion. Under ideal circumstances we ignore that and try to keep things on topic. If the incivility or even personal attacks don't disrupt the discussion, then the discussion can be handled normally. If it persists, then sanctions can be considered. I don't think we're to the latter point, even though there's apparent excessive personal discussion at the talk page. In short, I don't see the need for sanctions just yet, though it would be good for an admin to keep an eye on the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, I mean inadmissible (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th ed., Book Club Associates, 1977, p. 543). :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do. It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others and in the case they happen to be wiki administrators who knows all the tricks and rules etc they use them for no reason. Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine. Someone comes, delete what he believes is not an appropriate behavior and later he open a discussion about. I though it must be the other way round. You open a discussion and at the end you delete or not the comments, attacks or whatever. I though wiki is an open project but looks like its semi-protected and semi-open. Some views are allowed while others not or with other words you have to fight to prove that you are not an elephant. I’m afraid what is left from the poor liberal democracy (Freedom of speech) now is demolished by the hands of some wiki administrators (bureaucrats). Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh fee and faw. This diatribe strongly suggests that you are not here to write an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See my editing history to see why I'm here. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A correction: The phrase "Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine." I wrote above is not correct because my "not civil behavior" took place at the D+N talk page not mine. The rest is ok. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You also have a bizarre belief that you have "freedom of speech" on a private website. That's funny. Don't make that mistake again. the panda ₯’ 00:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Nikosgreencookie has now inserted an enemies list on their user page [35]. Rgrds. --64.85.215.195 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Idols. Not Enemies. It’s my personal page and I use it in any way I believe is appropriate to help me doing good work as regards wiki editing. I have to follow the great actions of my personal idols to be able to improve myself as an editor and a man. And who are you? If you don’t mind. You are not here to write an encyclopedia Nikosgreencookie (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your 'tribute'. You're digging yourself a hole here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The above comment: "You're digging yourself a hole here." is a personal attack. Please see: WP:NPA. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You should probably take a break from Wikipedia for the day and return when you have calmed down. Gamaliel (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

To even consider "You're digging yourself a hole here" to be a personal attack says a lot. Not everyone can figure out how this place works. Doc talk 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is neither a battleground, nor a court of law. Nikosgreencookie's behavior is simultaneously disingenuous and inflammatory. I would support an indefinite block, whether because this individual is not here to contribute to the creation of an encyclopedia, or because he or she is engaged in trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What you say is no sense. Just check my long editing history to see my contribution to wikipedia. The rest is cheap stuff. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Second that support. This user seems determined to convince people they are here solely to be disruptive. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nikosgreencookie (talk · contribs) seems to do some decent gnomish referencing work that is beneficial. The recent edits (including to his "own" page") are decidedly not so good. Per WP:POLEMIC I removed his updated list of "idols" (which I was flattered to be among ;). If he reinstates them, he's in trouble. I don't think that he's a troll, and so I wouldn't vote for an indef right now. Let's see what he decides to do next. If a swift kick doesn't do it, so be it. Doc talk 04:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion that "you're digging a hole" is a personal attack is on the same level as the claim that being told to "drop the stick" was a threat of violence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Indeffs should not be proposed for WP:NOTHERE reasons. It's not even policy: it's an information page with a wide ranging list of behaviors that could indicate why an editor should be blocked. But blocked for what? Not being here to build an encyclopedia? Seems very subjective, no? This says we block for either protection or disruption. "NOTHERE" should never be linked in a block notice, nor it is ever a good enough reason to block outright. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Doc talk 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to start an argument on this issue, but I think it's fairly clear that this individual is engaged in disruption, and that his or her disruptive behavior will continue. Admittedly, NOTHERE itself is not always the clearest reason for sanctions, and in many respects it's the shortcut du jour—I recall some years ago that arguing that someone was a "net minus" was in vogue as a reason for blocking in spite of a history of positive contributions. Nevertheless, disruption is disruption, even if it's not primarily happening in articlespace (e.g., compiling shitlists in userspace, IDHT behavior). Anyhow, yes, WP:NOTHERE is an essay, but it's an essay interpreting policy; there's nothing wrong with blocking for complex reasons so long as the reasons are summarized in the block log, and a link to an essay is good enough for that. If it's an improper block, the community should clarify that the rationale articulated in WP:NOTHERE is invalid as grounds for a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The punishment needs to fit the crime. I see no evidence to support an indefinite block on this editor. We don't toss someone aside based on the assumption that "his or her disruptive behavior will continue". How do you know that for sure? His only block was a 24-hour edit-warring block in 2012. He's upset with things here right now, and may very well calm down and move on productively. If he won't listen, and there is further disruption, he can be blocked. Doc talk 06:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me the action of the person behind the ip 64.85.215.195? I mean 64.85.215.195 appeared 3 times since 2005. @ 9 october 2005 @ 14 august 2010 and @ Yesterday. And for what? To send a "signal" to the "very right place" about my behavior in my personal wiki page. Is he a magician? I find it suspicious. It makes me to believe that he was intervened just because someone else asked him to do so. Is here base for me to claim that 64.85.215.195 is engaged in trolling? And if yes what actions must be taken? Any opinion and advice is welcome. Especially by Doc. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not remarkable. Lots of people edit from IPs, and people do get new IPs all the time. Could also be someone who accidentally logged out and doesn't want to out himself now by claiming the comment. In short, it doesn't really matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Doc talk 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• ...and there's no such thing as a "personal wiki page" on Wikipedia - you have a user page and a user talkpage that are the property of the Foundation, to be used according to the policies you agreed to. One provides some info about yourself and your interests, the other facilitates communication. If you have a "personal wiki page", that means you must have installed some type of wiki software elsewhere :-) the panda ₯’ 10:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indefblocked. In my opinion, this post by Nikosgreencookie's, in a talkpage discussion entitled "Randykitty's attempt to destroy the article (24 May 2014)", a section created by Nikosgreencookie themselves, is indeed inadmissible, since it does imply, or rather in a sneaky way does say, that Randykitty is akin to a Nazi bookburner (and has "burned" sections of the article in an attempt to destroy it, like the Nazis burned books so as to destroy them). The people who make light of it above may possibly be missing some context. Anyway, users can lose their temper, no doubt. But Nikosgreencookie's response in this thread shows him as not out of temper/out of control, but instead as a troll doing the "plausible deniability" dance: "It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do." I won't even dignify that with the appellation of wikilawyering; it's pure trolling and taking us for a ride. And also further embellished with the suggestion that if Randykitty unaccountably takes the reference to reading about Nazi bookburnings as not merely an explanation of why Nikosgreencookie is so busy, then that shows that Randykitty is oversensitive "It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others". A classic troll. The follow-up trolling on his userpage doesn't exactly help, either, but it's the original attack + the denial of it that's my focus. If somebody wants to unblock, I won't stand in the way, and they don't need to consult me first, but I hope they'll only do it if there's a decent unblock request without any dancing in it. I hope there will be one; I've no wish to keep this user blocked infinitely. I hope nobody thinks I'm defending Randykitty because he's an admin; on the contrary, I'd block in stronger terms and with a stronger comment about unblock conditions if he wasn't an admin. Admins do need to put up with more than other users. But no user should be expected to put up with that. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

I support the block. I was thinking the same thing earlier. This is someone tweaking the nose of the community and being disruptive for fun. -- Atama頭 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that this is not a troll. It's a misdiagnosis that is all too common. "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias." I do not see such an intent. YMMV. Doc talk 01:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I disagree, but reasonable minds will sometimes disagree. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But behavior that is indistinguishable from trolling can only be defended as 'not trolling' for so long. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of his intent of malice? Or gaming the system? Those two diffs above make him a troll?! I'm not saying I unwaveringly support this editor by pointing out that he's not a troll. So he unadvisedly used the term "Nazi": a major "hot button". Some other things need to be addressed as well. But a troll is a troll. This editor has done a lot of decent referencing work up to this point. 1 prior edit-warring block is insufficient evidence of a problem troll that must be indeffed. I shudder to think how an editor like "Jack" was sheltered here and repeatedly unblocked for so long by those who are now so quick to declare an editor like this a "classic troll". Doc talk 03:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The current unblock request is exactly the sort of problem that led to the block. Convenient claims that something problematic before is not so rather than owning up to the impropriety of what was said and agreeing to change is as much of a problem as the original improprieties. Coming here with blatant nonsense like the above claims that the Nazi book burning comment was a reference to something else... it's just continuing attempts to skirt responsibility for making uncivil comments. Furthermore, indefinite ≠ infinite: as Bishonen indicated above, the intent is not to permanently remove this person from the Wikipedia community, but rather to do so while the threat of ongoing disruption was there. Anyway, I won't disagree with the claim that not everyone would agree with a block here, but it's one of those things best left to individual admin discretion. If someone thinks the unblock request is credible and addresses the reasons behind the block, then by all means they should unblock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom deleting academic sources and inserting self-published Shugden websites

Kjangdom is not even remotely pretending to adhere to Wikipedia policies anymore. Not even remotely. With misleading edit summaries, he is deleting whole swaths of journalistic and academic sources such as Bultrini, Dodin and Thurman while inserting self-published Shugden websites. And he never denied being a director of the International Shugden Community, whether here at ANI or on Bushranger's talk page. Lastly, most of his edits are from old Wikipedia revisions i.e. meatpuppeting Truthsayer62, a blocked editor. Heicth (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Heitch - the edits you have consistently made to the Dorje Shugden controversy article violate both undue weight principle and neutrality. The anti-shugden sources I removed last night help address the issue of undue weight. Moreover, at the end of May I expressed my concerns about the Thurman sources on the talk page, and received some helpful feedback from another editor who also raised concerns about the weight given to negative coverage of the controversy (after your editing). You abstained from this discussion on the talk page, and instead chose to bring it up on this admin page. I suggest you try to be more active on the talk pages than these admin pages - which I believe would comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Then we can reach a consensus. This seemed to work well on the talk page of the 14th Dalai Lama just recently, with a lot of discussion on the talk page which as you know, helped us to arrive at a consensus on including the Dorje Shugden controversy on the Dalai Lama's page.

Any neutral reader / editor who looks at this article on the Dorje Shugden controversy will immediately see how outrageously biased it still is, - just look at how long the section "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" was after your editing (937 words) compared to "Replies from Shugden practitioners" (a mere 32 words). This one fact speaks volumes about the intention behind your editing. Please explain to me how this does not violate the undue weight policy. Just ask yourself how you would react if we had 32 words in the section "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" (the word 'majority' here is wrong in opinion, but we can come back to that) and 937 words in the section "Replies from Shugden practitioners"!!! There are a number of reliable sources presenting a more positive view of this situation which I will be drawing on. Anyone who knows about this issue will know that the negative spin you have put on this issue simply presents a false picture of the situation. I plan to give this article some attention over the coming months, primarily because you have misrepresented the issue so badly. Let's work together to improve this article, without you reporting me after every edit I make that you disagree with, OK? Your approach does not exactly promote a friendly, co-operative learner-friendly environment to editing Wikipedia, does it? As I have previously said, I am new to Wikipedia and happy to learn from my mistakes, but you need to be honest as well and reflect on what damage you are causing the article with your persistently inappropriate, negative and one-sided edits. Kind regards, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that Heicth is not much more experienced than you are, based on his own edit history, and the presumptuous, borderline hysterical, nature of his opening comment here is a significant indicator of his own being very possibly too strongly involved in this matter to be objective and unilaterally determining the nature of content himself.John Carter (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone show us where the steps in WP:DR have been followed? This appears to be a content dispute, and the fact that a talkpage discussion took place where the OP did not participate does not fill me with great confidence. The "meat" accusations are mere red-herrings from what I see the panda ₯’ 10:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No red herrings. See here. And as you can see Kjandom refers to secondary references as "anti-shugden sources", and thus deletes them with no hesitation. Its pretty ridiculous. Heicth (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact there have been no attempts at any other venues of dispute resolution yet, because, I believe, Heicth, who is himself very much a new editor, hasn't so far as I can see really even attempted to resolve this matter through any other venues than posting overwrought, possibly hysterical, comments here. That is probably as ridiculous as anything he would claim of others, although, given his extremely limited experience as an editor here, perhaps understandable. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually - that diff doesn't show Kjandom removing "anti-shugden sources", it shows you speaking to Bushranger about Kjandom. Nor does the Shugden page show a revert by Kjandom where he states he's removing "anti-shugden sources". Are you sure you have the right diff ? Kosh Vorlon    16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the second thread Heicth has started in recent days regarding this matter, the first of which is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites. I believe the information in that thread indicates that Heicth himself could reasonably be descibed as a POV pushing SPA on this topic, as well as perhaps others. However, Heicth seems to be the only one with such an itchy trigger finger to reporting matters here. I believe it might not be unreasonable for all three pages related to the Shugden controversy to be placed under temporary full protection, thus forcing all those apparent SPAs involved to actually talk to each other before making changes, and I think that Heicth also could not unreasonably be warned to maybe make more of an effort to refrain from acting on the type of basically battleground mentality which both ANI threads he has started in recent days at least mildly indicate he seems to have. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosh, Kjangdom refers to removing "anti-shugden sources" in his comment right above. John Carter, I am not a POV pushing SPA. I have worked closely with various admins since day one. You are simply unaware of who I am and the history of the Shugden pages. Heicth (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be useful for you, as a comparatively new editor, to maybe actually read WP:SPA and the relevant pages regarding POV, because you seem to have not familiarized yourself with them. And I also believe that a review of your edit history here indicates that you actually are a very focused SPA editor relating to the Dalai Lama and the Shugden controversy. And I would love to see the evidence of how you have worked closely with others. One recent discussion I remember I had with you at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#Please delete long Gardner quote I believe shows that you don't work very closely at all with others, as I indicated there, one should make alternate proposals for content, which you did not do, and so far as I can tell simply removed the material on your own, which is hardly a real indication of your working "closely" with anyone. As for your statement of "who you are" above, I don't know, and actually, don't care, who you are, unless perhaps you are the Dalai Lama himself, which seems to me to be extremely unlikely. The fact that your previous user name, as you indicated, is User:TiredofShugden is yet another indicator that you are rather single-mindedly focused on matters related to Shugden, and promoting certain material in articles related to it, which is more or less the way that POV pusher and SPA are defined. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked editor Truthsayer62 was edit warring with admin Dougweller, hence my first username. I am no SPA or POV pusher.Heicth (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your last sentence, your own edit history, linked to by me above, says otherwise. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I very much urge Heicth to attempt other forms of dispute resolution, as he has yet to try any, before starting another inflammatory ANI thread. I also believe it would very much be in his best interests to take advantage of the invitation to the Teahouse he has received. This thread, and the earlier one he started, could themselves be taken by some as a form of harassment as per WP:HARASS, and I sincerely urge him to cease from such conduct immediately. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know Cullen328 and myself have expressed concerns over Kjangdom's advocacy. And Chris Fynn, a seemingly knowledgeable Tibetan Buddhist, questioned some of the factual claims that Kjangdom put forward. Kjangdom is currently edit warring at the 14th Dalai Lama page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I believe Kjangdom just now broke the 3 revert rule, despite the warning I gave him on his talk page. And I see he deleted that warning. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have expressed those concerns. I am concerned about all POV pushing at Dorje Shugden related articles, but especially at our important and highly visible BLP 14th Dalai Lama. I encourage uninvolved editors to watch it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious he is a disruption. Ahh, people don't want me to say anything.... The Depressed Loser (I am not here) 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

More personal attacks from an IP

Shortly after his block expired, 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blanked his talk page with the edit summary rm a lot of chuntering retards. He had previously been blocked personal attacks, including calling me a prick, a twat, and piece of shit. (See #Personal attacks above.) given that, and his pattern of tendentious edits, I think WP:Not here may apply. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the unacceptable edit summary, I've reblocked them for one week.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockhopping conspiracy theorist

These Tokyo-area IPs are probably the same user blocked previously (see ban discussion).

• 180.52.166.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.3.187.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Recent edits are mostly unsourced, NPOV insinuations of conspiracies, war profiteering, and tenuous loyalty by Jews. User seems to have changed tactic from editing BLP articles to mostly articles about historical figures. This user has an idiosyncratic style of edit summaries, which typically include many slash characters ("/").

Examples:

• Edict of explusion diff: POV, implies Jews had never been legitimate residents of European countries.
• Oliver Cromwell diff: unsourced, implies funding by Jewish merchants in Amsterdam
• Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting diff: unsourced, implies divided loyalty or citizenship of convenience for victims
  • Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting diff: ditto, from the other IP
• Samuel Samuel & Co diff: unsourced, implies war profiteering by Jewish-owned company
• Heartbleed diff: unsourced non-sequitur comparing Heartbleed bug to malware of possible Israeli origin

Proposing a block of these IP as for previous IPs used by this person. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same person: I blocked two static IPs in the last few days. I'll block these. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another set of eyes needed at Bhupinder Singh Hooda

At Bhupinder Singh Hooda, there is an editor who is apparently the subject of the article who is attempting to remove a section from the article. He is claiming the information is wrong, the allegations have no proof, and he is trying to protect his image. See recent edit summaries in the article. I have attempted to convey to the editor how he should proceed, but so far is only actions have been to remove the section. Myself and another editor have reverted him. I believe the section is properly sourced to reputable sources and complies with WP:VERIFY. This is a WP:BLP issue. I'd like another set of eyes on this with someone more experienced with the BLP realm than I. I am notifying the editor in question. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the sources only report this as an allegation - and state that the woman responsible for bringing the court case had subsequently withdrawn the petition, [36] a section entitled 'Controversial second marriage' and an assertion that the marriage was 'illegal' was not only undue, but a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. If the subject of the article was indeed responsible for removing it (as I have done), he was perfectly entitled to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Andy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

M9820841415 and WP:SPAM on multiple articles

User User:M9820841415 has been vandalizing Wikipedia by adding an insignificant reference to his/her own work on several important articles, probably for WP:PROMOTION. In a few days he has vandalized 9 articles about biopolymers and gels by self-promoting a poorly written and not-related-to-the-topic, reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/M9820841415

--Jgfermart (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVAND, it's not vandalism, but it is spam per WP:REFSPAM. Ian.thomson (talk)

It is vandalism as defined in WP:VANDTYPES Link vandalism:

"Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling."

"Spam external linking"

Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially.

And in some cases also editions are followed by one or two words editions to avoid easy reverting of the edition as defined in Edit summary vandalism

--Jgfermart (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the words "if the activity continues after a warning." This is the closest to a warning he's received. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that the editor felt that the article is poorly written and not-related-to-the-topic. The article in question is published in Chemical Society Reviews ("Chemical Society Reviews (Chem Soc Rev) is the Royal Society of Chemistry's flagship reviews journal, publishing high-impact, succinct and reader-friendly articles at the forefront of the chemical sciences."). The wikipedia has been a great resource in my studies since my highschool, and I believe the adding the reference adds value to existing article. The wikipedia articles were carefully edited, and thoughtfully the reference was added. The intention here is not to spam. Here is the link uploaded article.

Added reference to wiki page: Gel, Biomaterials (The article discusses use of hydrogels within the biomaterial applications, citing all important work in last 5-7 years in the field of bioengineering)

Added reference to wiki page Click chemistry (The article discusses use of various click reactions in material synthesis. Summary of click reactions is present in the published article on page 12 (7346)).

Added reference to wiki page Polyethylene glycol, Hyaluronan, Heparin, Alginate, and Chitosan: (The article extensively discusses materials for hydrogel preparation on page 5 (7339), citing important applications in the field of biomaterials).

--(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Glancing over the article and where you linked it, it looks like you just inserted the reference where ever there were shared chemical terms. For example, here you added it as a source for the statement that alginate is used for cell encapsulation, information that is present in your article, but that your article gets from "M. Tang, W. Chen, M. D. Weir, W. Thein-Han and H. H. Xu, Acta Biomater., 2012, 8, 3436–3445" and "W. H. Tan and S. Takeuchi, Adv. Mater., 2007, 19, 2696–2701." Why did you not cite those sources instead of your derivative source if you weren't just trying to increase awareness of your article in particular? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the article were relevant for a specific topic about general biomedical uses of hydrogels, the article lacks relevance for any of the specific subtopics. There are articles with more detail and importance about each of the polymers involved. Considering the article to be significant for 9 different topics on biomaterials reveals a biased opinion (authorship?). --Jgfermart (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and I would like to apologise for causing any inconvenience. As I mentioned earlier, I added the citation in good-faith and to add value to the existing wikipages. After reading your comments, in retrospect, I believe that I made a mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it.(talk) 02:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

PoV pushing. WP:3RR, political allegiance, bias, and so go on

There's currently a long tiresome edit conflict going on on the Iran page (and some pages related to it) wich consists of constant reversions, edits based on personal opinion, and a violation of WP:3RR as I see it. None of them resort in discussing it, and therefore resort to spamming undo's/RV's. The users I'm talking about are Arvid Qasemy (talk · contribs), Qizilbash123 (talk · contribs), and User:Soroush90gh (He's in a completely different way related to the topic unlike User:Qizilbash123 and User:Arvid Qasemy). User:Qizilbash123 is neglecting and declining the reliable facts and keeps spamming reverts and undo's. He's constantly removing the sources and statements given and replacing them with sources given or favoured by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, neglecting and removing all other souces that are already given (if you check the edit history of the page and of his own you see that he's deliberately pushing on certain things such as lowering the amount of Iranian casualties in the war, or even resorting in removing the fact that the Iranian women protested against the newly inposed Hijab laws), or just merely replaces them with his own sources of a different opinion. He's heavily pushing an agenda and being a total nuisance to the Wikipedia community by doing so. Here some minor examples of his work both on the Iran article, and other related Iranian articles; [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]] (Can it get more obvious than this last one?)

He also violates WP:3RR here -> (links [[42]], [[43]], [[44]])

(01:53, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,872 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (Undid revision 611310437 by LouisAragon (talk)) (undo | thank)) -

(14:02, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (135,307 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (Undid revision 611346894 by Soroush90gh (talk)) (undo | thank)) -

(23:51, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,872 bytes) (-1,286)‎ . . (restoring stable version without A. Qasemy's photos and Soroush90gh's bias) (undo | thank)

Then we have User:Arvid Qasemy who constantly keeps editing and reverting the same Iran article with redundant edits purely based on his personal opinion without any edit descriptions given or any consensus, and also doesn't seem to care a bit about the constant rv's/undo's that are going on. being a total nuisance on his own. He's also removing completely well written pieces without any reason or any edit summary given (such as here [[45]]). Note how both him and Qizilbash123 didn't even bother once to reach a WP:CON during all this time. Finally we have Soroush90gh despite he's not doing any PoV edits or whatsoever or anything going in against Wiki law so far unlike Qizilbash123 and Arvid Qasemy, he still keeps the nuisance triangle as I call it alive as he keeps undo'ing and reverting it like Qizilbash and Qasemi. Seeing that he couldn't reach anything with them, he should've brought it to the mods a whole lot earlier. Make a visit to the edit history of the article if you want't to see more [[46]].

I don't know what precise penalties should be given to wich people in question here, but this nuisance should be stopped as soon as possible. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all I suggest LouisAragon to WP:CALM a little bit - I just saw his actions on other article (disputed below) and I agree with his edits, but his summaries sound as yelling or even threats. As I understand from rules, person engaged in edit checking should be cool and discuss, not avoid it. Prior of removing image from "Iran" article I backed it with explanation on talking page, and prior of planned replacing climate map I also made proposal about it. I gave advice to user Arvid Qasemy to do the same thing, and I believe his edits are good faith and only problem is that he's making changes without discussions. However, in case of user Soroush90gh we have similar problem but with obivous bad faith: he has inserted irrelevant photo with biased description few months ago without any discussion, and he's desperately trying to keep it inside by forcing edit wars. Considering he also avoids all explanations and discussion, it's pure WP:BIGOTRY. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I didn't get what's wrong with removing biased assertions like this[[47]] or even conspiracies about "World richest man"[[48]]. Last one is example of childish dispute by political fractions, revolutionaries have claimed Pahlavi had "$20 billion" and now monarchists claim Khamenei has "$95 billion". Of course, no Forbes or any other serious sources for it, except of their pamphlets. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already warned Qizilbash123 about edit warring on the Iran article. The way I see it, we've got two options here. Either block all three indefinitely, or the articles are locked and we force discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus. My preferred option is the latter. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it's Arvid Qasemy. Thanks to you dear LouisAragon for being such an active and careful user, and to dear Qizilbash123 for his help and advice. I believe that I am an amateur here, I'm new to this system, and your critique of my work is right, but I also believe that I can defend my activities. I'm not trying to remove or completely change an information, I'm just trying to use better photos and add some new and notable information. Such as the information about the Religion, which (thank God!) is not removed, except my other edits. And I wonder why do you guys remove the photo and information about the "protest of Iranian women against the hijab and new rules"?. It IS an important event. I will try to use what I've learned here, write the summary and my reasons, and do the edits again. I'm doing this all in order to improve this page. Please trust me and help me in this flow, and if I did a wrong thing again, just let me know and I will try to correct my works. Thank you so much. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a complicated issue. Let me explain. The user Qizilbash123, is going to simply distort the history. He is self-declared representative of all Iranian women. Let me talk about one of his views. He has stated that ALL Iranian women are happy to have Hejab, and those who aren't, are just "westernized minority". I'm not sure, maybe he is right, but I know just one point, here, in WP, you have to present resource for any single sentence. Soroush90gh (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Qizilbash123, what are you talking about? If you check the posting history on the Iran page and compare the dates with the dates from the sections you made at Talk:Iran, one can easily see that you were edit warring at first, and then resorted to edit warring and posting on the talk page at the same time. Instead of wasting your time there being a nuisance to the community seeing you couldn't push for a WP:CON with neither of the other two users in question, you should've brought it to WP:ANI wich could've solved everything much earlier without all this edit warring.

The fact remains, all three users keep the cycle alive and are currently quite a nuisance to the community with these continuous edits and reverts, while no single one of them bothered to have it solved per correct Wiki policy. All of them believe they're right, but no single one of them has shown as of why he is right with a reached consensus. Working per "reaching a consensus per edit warring and reverting" as we can call it. Take a look at here again please [[49]]. Even without the disputes solved, it still continues [[50]].

Based on all this, I have to agree with User:Mjroots based on how to reach a a possible solution here. Seems there's no other way. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

LouisAragon asked me to take a look at this yesterday. It looks like this dispute has settled down a lot, just judging by the discussion at talk. There was one revert earlier today dealing with some content... but nothing egregious. If slow revert warring continues, I would support temporary page protection as a measure to try and force more discussion. As to whether there's POV pushing going on here... I honestly don't know enough about the content area to make a fair determination. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

IP consistently adds unreferenced material

172.3.208.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP occasionally adds unreferenced material to various articles on Wikipedia and has ignored edit summaries in reverts as well as warnings on their talk page. After the last revert, which can be seen here, the editor proceeded to quickly revert changes without using "undo" as seen here. Warnings from Level 1 through 4 have been given. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

New account Nbgdjbt keeps making POV edits on Kosovo related articles

Nbgdjbt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just check all of his/her contributions putting a pro-Serbia POV in all their edits. I'm getting bored of cleanig up their POV pushing. Can someone deal with this? I need to get to bed. Regards IJA (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I asked whether a previous note was a legal threat. This latest post appears to be a clear legal threat. I don't have time to post more diffs but the edit history is short. Valfontis (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely falls under WP:NLT... Oregon controls the other 49 states? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, unequivocal legal threat. As of last week, Saltonking44 is off a 24 hour edit warring block. Support indef whether on NLT or civility grounds (i.e., for using empty legal threats as a means of gaining leverage in a dispute). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user per WP:NLT. Go Phightins! 00:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, all your states are belong to OR. Valfontis (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap - talk page soapboxing

Per WP:TALKNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article."

Today, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) placed a soapbox/criticism on the talk page of an article subject, with no value towards article improvement. Two editors replied ([51][52]), explaining that the talk page was inappropriate for this, and the section was closed-off to prevent escalation and discourage participation in such a forum. Steeletrap was warned that such dicussions go against guidelines, but removed the user page warning. They then restored the soapbox section to the page, and added more of their personal opinion/criticism of the article subject, and has made a contentious change to the article related to their opinion. I'd appreciate an uninvolved admin to take a look, remove the talk page soapboxing section, and weigh any appropriate other actions. I will point out that Steeletrap is subject to a topic ban in an area extremely close to this article subject, so their inappropriate behavior around BLPs is well-known. --Netoholic @ 22:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap's comments (while in a new section) are really more appropriate in the ongoing RFC as to whether or not Molyneux should be described as a philosopher in the lede. I've suggested that she move her comments to that section. Once (or if) she does so, this ANI can be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments like that are just as inappropriate and against WP:TALKNO there, too. An RfC should be about what the sources say, not personal opinion. There's already far too much of that there. -- Netoholic @ 00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkpages do involve opinion. See WP:TALK#USE, which says "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." Of course this deals with opinions about what should be in articles and not non-WP editing questions. My point is appropriate in that I have encouraged Steeletrap to better state her opinion on whether describing Molyneux as a philosopher in the lede is appropriate. What is inappropriate is the suggestion that Steeletrap has violated her TBAN. Molyneux has nothing to do with Austrian Economics or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She is as free as anyone to edit the article and discuss article content within WP guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Explaining is the key word there. Per WP:TALK#USE -"The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". Steeletrap's post was a statement of his own opinion, NOT an explanation of where he got that opinion (as in by citing sources that advocate that viewpoint). That is the difference between helpful collaboration, and degeneracy into forum-style arguments. --Netoholic @ 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Truther did the right thing here by challenging Steeletrap to explain what thoughts she had about improving the article. You chipped in too, although a user talk page comment may have been more appropriate. But you could not leave well enough alone. Having made your comment, you had to go and "close" the thread rather than waiting for a response. I would have liked to see what Steeletrap had to say, so I unhatted the closure here, specifically asking that we wait to see what Steeletrap had to say. Well, now, that's too much for you, isn't it? Eleven minutes go by and you remove the thread here. Well, what good has your confrontational hatting and removal done for the project? Steeletrap has reverted your removal, added to the thread, and added an !vote to the RFC. If her pseudo-philosophy commentary was not helpful, the best course of action would have been to ignore them. But, no, besides 1. criticizing them, 2. hatting them, 3. removing them, and 4. making other critical article talk page comments about them, you have to 5. bring this ANI complaint. I strongly recommend that we get an independent observer to come in now to end this nonsense by closing this silly ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you've made your participation in this part of the report and seem to not understand how disruptive it can be, I'd like ask an admin to issue S.Rich a warning also, for his part in encouraging talk page forum/soapboxing in violation of WP:TALKNO. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of refs and Pushing POV

Hello admins,

I have noted this user is continuously pushing his/her POV in this article.

He/She keeps deleting reliable refs (eg. New York Times) and replaces them with internal wikipedia pages. Then he/she takes advantage of the situation and adds figures to the table which do not exist in any sources that he is providing.

This is the history of the article and his/her persistent vandalism since 15th May: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghan_diaspora&action=history

He/She is also using sectarian and divisive editing that has been provoking other users to engage in edit wars with him/her.

Your help is needed in rectifying this situation. Thanks. --103.10.197.146 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this revert embodies the complaint. LouisAragon seems to be substituting a couple references for a NY Times article, including a conference article hosted by Boston University, and a UNHCR report. While there have been something like 4 reverts by LouisAragon since the 31st, I see no breaking of 3RR. This looks primarily like a content dispute though. Of course, LouisAragon has been put on notice as to the discretionary sanctions available under WP:ARBIPA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The NYT reference wasn't removed, it was put at the bottom, and a reference tag directing to it was added using Harvard citations. I semiprotected the page, to stop the back and forth, if someone feels it should be upped to full I have no objection. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. This ANI request should probably be closed as frivolous. This is a content dispute with some edit warring... semiprotection is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

..Yeah, I had applied for semi-protected status myself due to all these edits/reverts by anonymous IP's and labelling everything done before them as "vandalism" and "PoV pushing". It's interesting by the way how all these "anonymous" IP's never are able to find their way to the respective talk pages of the articles, but know how to reach the WP:ANI page. Ah well. Do the mods agree with reversion of the IP's last revert based on "vandalism" as it's completely ungrounded on the reasons? There are multiple sources added and there is not even 1% chance how that can be mistaken for "vandalism". Like all other Wikipedia editors he needs to learn that he has to discuss if he wants to make drastic changes and push for a WP:CON. What he's doing is pushing for a consensus by reverting and labelling it (unrightfully) as vandalism, PoV etc. It doesn't work like that obviously. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, pardon for being an IP (therefore being automatically regarded as inferior) but I was wondering why this user whom I have brought up a complaint against can add figures to that article without providing any sources and deleting the sources the sources already there? I mean I was under the illusion that on Wikipedia one has to provide sources for the edits. Is this not the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.197.130 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right that LouisAragon is putting undue emphasis on the fact that you're an anonymous editor. It doesn't make a bit of difference though: this complaint is unfounded and should be closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You mean one does not need any sources while editing the articles? Because as you can see in diff, he is changing the figures without providing sources. This is my question, which you have tried to sweep under the rug. Does one need sources while editing? --103.10.197.58 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now. I went through the history of the article once again and I see that you are biased since you have been saving this person now for a while. Then I guess, me being an IP and you being I don't know what, then this issue is resolved. Good. Note to any more powerful admin than these two: If you want to keep the quality on Wikipedia then keep an eye on your internal collusions for pushing POV's without providing any sources as these people are doing here. It is over for me.--103.10.197.58 (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The user has again vandalized the page by changing the figures in the table without any sources. And it was really wonderful to see that not even a single admin on this page took notice of my complaint. Such a useless board full of BS bureaucracy. --103.10.197.194 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, "vandalism" means something done intentionally to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia—I see no evidence that, even if the edits made to the article are incorrect, the changes were not made in good faith. Secondly, you claim it's the same user: this is false. A third party (and highly proficient editor) was the one to revert the changes you made. You need to make a credible effort to discuss the content being disputed at Talk:Afghan diaspora, and to do so without engaging in personal attacks (claiming another editor is a vandal without clear proof is a personal attack). Finally, your claim that the changes to the table lack sources is patently false: every single line of that table has a source. While I haven't checked those sources, I'm frankly not interested in doing so unless you can articulate specifically and clearly which lines contain information not supported by their sources. If there is a reason that a source should not be used, that's a different discussion entirely. Either way, neither discussion belongs here, and your continual attempts to shame the viewers of this board into acting by claiming there's some kind of cabal of administrators protecting the other side in this dispute are only serving to harm your credibility. As I said above, this complaint should be closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another grossly offensive DYK now on the main page

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

---

"Did you know... ... that an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"?" -linking to our article on Incidents of necrophilia. Can I ask that an admin pulls this grossly offensive DYK from the main page, before it does any more harm to Wikipedia's reputation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely needs to be replaced. It doesn't even necessarily have to be replaced with a DYK for a different article (although I don't see why it's been forked from the main necrophilia article). Something neutrally phrased about the (now collapsed) Moche civilization practicing religious necrophilia would be infinitely more tasteful. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's now been removed, by Floquenbeam. [53] At this point, I suggest we start thinking about what we are going to have to do to stop this sort of nonsense happening again - it seems obvious that many DYK regulars are unwilling to show the slightest restraint, and will use any excuse for sub-tabloid sensationalism, regardless of what effect it has on Wikipedia's reputation, or on its prospects for broadening its contributor base. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[Third Opinion]Seems more like a Censorship issue to me... Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 01:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:NOTCENSORED? "words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner" - and there is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about the serial killer's comments. Not least because, as our article on him makes clear, it was conclusively proven that he 'confessed' to crimes he didn't commit, and appears on multiple occasions to have said whatever his interrogators wanted to hear - which makes the veracity of the hook more than a little suspect. Not that this seems to have occurred to the DYK regulars, who evidently don't give a toss who they offend in their quest for further facile dubiously-sourced 'factoids'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness. and The hook should be neutral. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM

I initially reported this editor on WP:ANEW, but the only admin to respond didn't seem to want to do anything, so I figured I'd start a new case here. In retrospect, this editor's editing habits go beyond just edit warring. The original case is here. I'll leave it to whoever looks at this to look there, instead of repeating that long list of issues (I will add a few below).

Summary: This editor ignores WP:V, edits according to their own opinions (which they think are a better source than reliable sources), ignores other guidelines and project pages, and usually refuses to engage in discussion to come to a consensus. They will remove sourced info, claiming that it is wrong or that they know better; if reverted they immediately revert to their preferred version without discussion, and will continue to edit war, certain that they are posting the truth. Except in a few rare cases, they will refuse to engage in WP:BRD, or they will start discussion and then end up reverting to their preferred version anyway. There is also problems with civility, and from what I've seen I'm not the only one who questions their edits. I was drawn into various edit wars with this editor, until I realised that I was doing so, and have stopped editing articles this editor edits until some sort of result is achieved here (in other words, I have realised my mistake and am no longer edit warring).

Evidence:

• [54] Removal of sourced material to fit with this editor's personal opinions; many of their recent edits have been of a WP:GENREWARRIOR nature.
• [55] Removal of source and addition of unreliable source.
• [56] Removal of sourced material.
• [57] Removal of sourced material. After some edit warring, editor finally starts a discussion: [58]; unfortunately, they immediately revert to their preferred version: [59]. After about a day of the discussion being opened, the editor once again reverts to their preferred version, instead of waiting for comments from other editors (or a reasonable amount of time): [60].
• [61] Removal of information generally considered good to have on discography pages per WP:DISCOGSTYLE; also note the lack of good faith on their part, as if I'm out to get them.
• I attempted to help this editor edit under WP policies and guidelines, but they simply weren't interested: User talk:MrMoustacheMM. Note the various levels of incivility at times.
• This editor will remove discussion and warnings from their talk page, without heeding them: [62]. It's true they have the right to do with their talk page as they want, but it looks mostly like they're trying to hide these warnings in the hopes that no one notices them.
• Quotes from this user (from my talk page) supporting that they have no intention of editing according to WP:V, and are certain that they know better than professional writers: "Listen, just listen and try and understand what I am saying and my point of view as a massive fan"; "unsourced or sourced I don't give a shit"; "Most of Wikipedia is unsourced" (as justification for adding more unsourced information); "anyone who knows Opeth knows that all of there albums are labelled prog rock"; "there are exceptions to those rules [on Wikipedia] and this [adding unsourced genres] should be one of them".
• Recent evidence that other editors have disagreed with this editor's edits: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69].

Occasionally this user has a valid point about something, but more often than not their edits are simply "I'm right, you/reliable sources/everyone else is wrong". The few times they have a point, they refuse to discuss, edit war, and otherwise edit poorly, so that the validity of the original point just disappears. As shown above and in the ANEW case, I'm not the only one who has had issues with this editor. I'm not sure what's needed here; I don't think a topic ban (temporary or permanent) will be enough. I'm loathe to bite a newcomer, but there's a point where their stubborn obstinacy makes it impossible to edit in a collaborative way with this editor, and maybe a temporary block will give them time to reflect on WP policies and guidelines, and maybe start anew, willing to collaboratively edit. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this user is trying so hard to get me blocked is both upsetting and embarrassing, he already reported me to edit warring notice board and when he didn't get the result he wanted there he thought he would try here.

As the reviewer of that case has already established we are both as guilty as each other of edit warring and it was recommended that we both take time away from the topics which it appears we both have.

Regarding the "evidence" the user has posted (71) was just 1 post which I apologised and admitted my mistake, (72) was the matter with him, 73 didn't disagree with me he just said it needed more discussion first we I agreed and started a discussion on the talk page. (74) wasn't even a disagreement It was a suggest which I listened to, (75) me and that user Bretonbrequet spend hours editing discographies together improving them. (76) was to do with this editor again and (77) was just an "opinion" from another user that hasn't even had anything to do with me.

We have both edit warred and both have since stopped I am willing to discuss the changes to do with the page and have learned my lesson regarding edit warring. This user has scraped the barrel of my many edits to find any that could make me look bad and calling me a genre warrior or whatever he called me is absurd as until a few days ago I haven't even edited any genres regularly. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have since checked out the genre warrior topic and it couldn't be more wrong about me, 95 percent of my edits are not editing genres check my history if you want. I don't edit bands I don't like, I have never placed my opinion as genre as I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and my opinion on such subjects is invalid and I have had multiple consensus with users my main one being with bretonbrequet. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(2) insist on applying every genre they can think of to an infobox, possibly for the avoidance of doubt, e.g. "The Beatles = skiffle, pop music, country music, psychedelia, progressive rock, Merseybeat, rock music, baroque pop, folk rock..." Just because the Beatles, a consensus rock and pop band, did a few songs that briefly experimented with country sounds does not mean that they should be labeled as a country band forever.

This is exactly what I tried to tell the other user, because Opeth - Herritage is labelled progressive metal and is sourced I check out the link and the bit that apparently backs up the claim that it is progressive metal is not referring to the album but 1 (one) song i even left a message on the users talk page which he decided to ignore and not respond to. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither approach is particularly helpful. Neither is making unwarranted subtle distinctions between subsets of larger genres, e.g. within R & B, hip-hop or pop rap or grime. These aren't genres; these are styles.

As is this, on the Meshuggah album pages they are nearly all labelled Extreme Metal which I tried to start a discussion about after he reverted me because this is not a genre but a term for a number of different heavy metal sub-genres, the user replied simply saying something like others think otherwise before telling me to stop bothering him as he was busy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment My thought is that Lukejordan02 means well and does a lot of good work, but doesn't handle conflict very well at all. If he would voluntarily agree to a WP:1RR restriction on all music-related articles (meaning you can revert once but then you have to discuss on the Talk page), that might solve this quickly. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely lost user

90.148.216.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been posting stuff on the Reference Desk (entertainment and humanities) in Arabic about (so far as I can gather from Google Translate) some guy named Mohammad Khalil, who lived from 1880 to 1964 (so not the cricketer). It looks like he wants to add it to article information or something. Normally I'd just revert and ask him to stop, but since he's posting on the English Wikipedia's Reference Desk in Arabic, I think it's safe to assume his English is on par with my Arabic.

I need someone else to notify him, because I don't trust Google translate enough to send messages in other languages, and sending him the notification in English would be pretty pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You might try the list of editors at Wikipedia:Translators available#Arabic-to-English. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo: Would you be willing to create Template:Welcomeen-ar? You can use Template:Welcomeen-es as a starting point (no knowledge of Spanish required, this is just a starter template). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never made a template before, but this would be good experience. Give me a few minutes as I try to figure this out. By chance, are there instructions for template-making? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really a template-making guide; for the most part, a template is no different from any other page, except that it is meant to be transcluded or substed on other pages. I've actually set up the page for you; all you need to do is to translate the "Welcome" header and the text below into Arabic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! I am going to issue the template to the IP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well User:King of Hearts, I hit my first problem. When I try to enter the Weelcom-ar text, the whole paragraph gets screwed up because of the left/right alignment conflict. When I put it in, half the line ends up at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning. I can't find an option to change the alignment manually in the editing window. The text itself is ready, but this is the only thing holding it back. Any suggestions? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you create a new user subpage and paste just the Arabic text there? Also, could you add links to Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_to_Wikipedia and ar: to the translation, as appropriate? (If you are unable to perform it technically, let me know which words in Arabic correspond to each of those.) Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, but there is one thing to note. After the four tildes, I left an Arabic letter H. This is a trick I learned in Microsoft Word when writing in Arabic. If you finish an Arabic sentence (which is right to left) with a punctuation mark, it throws the entire formatting off and it leaves the punctuation on the right side like in English. If you type at least one letter (not a number or character) after the final punctuation, things are fine. So that H is a placeholder until I can figure out how to align the Arabic text on the right. Does anybody know how to do that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI getting things done in short order with a minimum of drama? I didn't sign on for this. (I think MOS:RTL might have the answer for you; there are special control characters you can use) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I got it using {{rtl-para}}. If that's correct, you ought to be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not. My sig in the Arabic version looks kind of screwy. And putting it outside the {{rtl-para}} template isn't so hot either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took another look at this and got it so my sig displayed properly (by surrounding the ~~~~ with ‎). Hopefully an Arabic speaker can confirm that the right-alignment and such is correct... beyond that this template seems ready for use to me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, you got it totally right. Even the "welcome" in Arabic was aligned properly on the right. I tried sandboxing that stuff and couldn't get it right. I think the mission has actually been accomplished. Is this an ANI record? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Glad I was able to help out a little. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User stalking and harassment by Snowmanradio

Dear administrators. I'm being wiki-stalked by another user, Snowmanradio, in a harassing and disturbing manner. SMR makes significant changes to articles I have, whilst the are being nominated at GA, with no discussion, and instead presents extensive lists of minor issues that are unrelated to the unceasing, large amounts of edits being made.

Timeline:

• We met at Anatomy, 20 May Esophagus [70], 30 May Cervix [71], 5 June Parathyroid gland [72])
• Since 20 May SMR has been, every day, posting lists of things that are wrong with the articles, either in the GAN, or on the article talk page. This is extremely distressing.
• SMR has made no other edits to anatomical articles other than my current GANs
• These unrelenting criticisms are coupled with extensive amounts of edits.

Snowmanradio repeatedly insults me ("It is misleading ambiguities and amateurish style that I am concerned about." [73], again "I have partly re-written the introduction because is was badly written, amateurish, and factually wrong" ([74]) and again ("It is really basic stuff in the field of contraception", [75] )

• SMR does not engage in any form of compromise and there is no point rebutting these statements.
• In addition Wiki is about collaboratively improving articles, not destroying their authors.

SMR is extremely critical and posts long lists of comments he would like to see changed:

• Talk:Cervix/GA2 Talk:Esophagus, Talk:Anatomy
• SMR posts general comments about the articles' unsuitability for GA ("I would support a quick fail." [76], "I think that the article is not ready for GA nomination, so I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination" [77], " I would think that it could struggle to get through GA" about the article already at GA, Anatomy: [78]
• At the same time he makes an extensive edits within a short period of time that change everything from completely rewriting the lead (cfr. Cervix, 27 edits during the 5 days of review [79]), Esophagus (90 edits in 9 days [80]) to Anatomy (38 edits in 48 hours [81]) to Esophagus
• These edits are completely made without any form of discussion and, when discussion occurs, persevere despite opposition [82].

SMR is also following my contributions. Apart from commenting sequentially on my edits, I discovered this when SMR performed this edit: [83], a mere half-hour after my own edit, of a page not edited since 2008.

SMR shows no understanding of the GACR when making an unceasing list of demands coupled with his extensive concurrent editing (documented here: Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop)

I am more thank happy to work with other contributors on a review, and I believe I have a track record of doing this both as reviewer and nominee, and in article space. Users can see my talk page, numerous GA reviews, PR reviews, GANs, discussions in the WT:MED, WT:PHYSIOLOGY and WT:ANATOMY namespaces, or ask any number of users. In contrast, SMR has a number of users who have in the past expressed complaints with regard to his editing style and ownership of articles. These include:

• Chiswick Chap ("I do not feel, for what it's worth, that the approach being followed is collegiate... [SMR] I would ask that you do not post to my talk page, this to remain indefinitely unless I invite you back there; and I shall not post here again. ") [84]
• Epipelagic ("Snowman, your sustained harassment of hard working editors has been going on for a long time now. Please stop it. If you think you can improve articles then just improve them. ") [85]
• Cwmhiraeth (see Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth)
• TylerDurden8823 and CFCF, who have interacted with SMR on the article pages, may also express concerns.
• 97198, who states "I'm inclined to agree with LT910001 [about comments listed at Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop]... I am more than happy to collaborate with other users in writing, improving and reviewing articles but many of your contributions to this review have been less than productive and unnecessarily nitpicky for a GAN. You've shown a complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the points you've raised and it seems as if, regardless of what changes were made, you would never support this article's passing. GA is not about making articles perfect."

I am not happy when dealing with a reviewer who follows me from article to article, significantly rewrites content I've put a lot of effort into making while it is actively or about to be reviewed, who is unable to compromise during discussion, and who personally insults me.

I contend that:

• SMR should not be constantly harassing me, day on day on day, about articles I have been involved in.
• SMR's extensive edits and reviewing style are an example of WP:OWN

I ask that:

• SMR be limited to 1 edit per day on the articles that are current GA nominees
• SMR be immediately banned if I am personally attacked again
• SMR be limited to a set of comments, delivered in a single edit, to a GAN.
• SMR to take reviews with himself as primary reviewer instead of deliver pseudoreviews per Esophagus or intensive and exhausting second reviews per Cervix. --LT910001 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have notified SMR and the users mentioned. --LT910001 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you have presented is reason for sanctions by itself, but the obvious stalking combined with the repeated similar incidents with other editors must not be tolerated; I've blocked for 48 hours. No comments on any of your four requests. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Snowman's intentions are good - he has been scrupulous and impartial in assessing article material's faithfulness to a source. Diplomacy isn't his strong point however and I think he may have some difficulty in seeing how an editor may be frustrated their end (I certainly know I was feeling exhausted after one FAC he got stuck into one of my nominations, but for the most part his criticisms were fair. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cas on this. He seems quite motivated to improve the pages he works on, and I don't think making critical comments about an article or its suitability for GA status should be seen as an attack on the editors. I don't think this was a good time for a block. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems with users who want to improve the articles collaboratively and in a collegiate way. Please have a look at the pages at hand and understand I've now had 15 straight days of this user following me from article to article. SMR has been interfering in a very nonproductive way in GANs, and Casliber I am not referring to his corrections but his behaviour. As opposed to FA, GA has different standards and I'm not sure that these are recognised by SMR. See Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop. In addition, because SMR has shown no signs of being able to compromise, it is quite impossible to reason with him/her about some of the points put forward and this makes discussions difficult to impossible. I have no problem with a user pointing out errors (although I'd prefer that these were corrected) but it is SMR's attitude and behavior towards me that I am concerned about, rather than a comment about his editorial accuracy. --LT910001 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Abusive and disruptive static IP needs blocking

Can someone block 76.94.140.31 please to put a lid on their abuse and disruption. The IP appears to be static. The block should probably be indefinite. For evidence, pick pretty much any of their edit summaries or talk page soapboxing from Special:Contributions/76.94.140.31. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a (wo)man with a worldhistorical mission to save us from ourselves, and see 'Islamic' 'antisemitic' cockroaches everywhere on wikipedia and just needlessly coerces editors to waste time reverting the nonsense, or replying to vile innuendoes. Worst of all, (s)he has zero knowledge of wikipedia policies and the subject matter, and there is no sign (to the contrary) that tolerance will eventually lead to some change in attitude.

• 'Sorry I forgot that only Musoims ar e allowed to improve aricles'
• 'Sean hoyland anisemite who thinks he rules wiki' WP:AGF
• 'far-left nutjob' WP:BLP
• 'Police confirmed it was a jihadi cockroach'
• The most distressing thing is that the editor's fingers have an aleatory relationship to the characters on the keyboard, and those of us who suffer from apoplexy at orthographical lapses are sorely tried while most editors have to google desperately to figure out who 'anisemites' and 'Musoims' might be. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you two be banned for your anti-Jewish propaganda. You have no knowledge of Jewish history. Talkpage soap boxing, I asssume you mean responding to and countering anti-Jewish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The above message suggests an imminent change in behaviour is unlikely; blocked for one week. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

 – This comment on 76.94.140.31's talk page seems to have been missed: Let it be known that legal action will be taken soon.--Auric talk 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep that's an unequivocal legal threat.(see below) A longer block would be warranted, though likely not indefinite: according to the geolocation tool the IP is at least part of a dynamic pool. I also think we're close to where revocation of talk page use would also be warranted (diff, diff, and maybe this diff which refers to an editor's religion, evidently as a factor in declaring his edit to be vandalism). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the block log. That legal threat already netted the IP a week-long NLT block. Anyway, I think revocation of talk page access (which also happened with the last block) is still warranted. Possibly consider extending it to a month in light of the other diffs I presented above? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access due to the continued racist attacks and extended the block (hope that's ok Yunshui) to one month as the IP appears static and there is zero collateral.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections here; good call. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone was wondering, this IP is User:JarlaxleArtemis. I've extended the block. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this, but I suspect that Ansegam (talk) is evading their recent block. 85.136.72.124 (talk) has reverted the article Historical inheritance systems to Ansegram's preferred version [86]. This ip has also made edits to Systems of inheritance among various peoples [87], a page that Ansegram has heavily edited. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty transparently him, given that IPs from the same block have repeatedly shown up among series of edits of his in the history of the same articles. Block reset and lengthened to ten days from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation, harassment

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

---

User:Greatmarine3 is impersonating me, his userpage is a carbon copypaste of my userpage. He is also block evading, see User talk:180.131.233.121. His edits to my user talk page are identical in nature to these edits made at Japanese architecture. Also note how 180.131.233.121 is registered to the United States Armed Forces Europe, Middle East, & Canada - there is a strong link between the IP and the user's name. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Having the same userpage as you is not impersonating you, Plus you don't own your userpage anyway ......, Go and find something useful to do. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? This US marine is claiming on his page that he is an Australian Chinese with 35,000 edits who speaks Japanese. He's also begging for attention on my userpage. He is also linking to my Weibo and QQ accounts. He is also using my personal SHA-512 hash. If this isn't impersonation or harassment, what is? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith here. The user may be an Australian Chinese. You do not know this person's real identity, thus cannot assume they are not an Australian Chinese. If the user has got the same design as yours, does not mean they are impersonating you. I'd take it as a compliment that they admire your page design so much that they wished to do the same design. It's called trending. You've obviously created a trendy design that another user has fallen in love with. Wes Mᴥuse 13:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He is a US marine. US marines cannot be Australian citizens. Also, you sure have some nerve defending someone who has just been blocked for repetitive vandalism at Japanese architecture. We might have a bad history between us, Wesley, but you're being intentionally provocative here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll be dammned .... Seems Wesley Mouse beat me to it :), Totally agree the bloke simply loves your userpage. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, be nice. The user has obviously taken a liking to your design and has decided to use it. The evidence is clear that the user is still personalising it. Rome wasn't built in a day. Give the guy a break and give him chance to add his personalised touches to it. Bet you once he has done all that, that none of the other "identical" material will be there. The only similarities once he's personalised it will be the colour/layout design. I've had users copy my page design, and I take it as a compliment. At first they have the same information as I, but in time they update their version with their personal information. Wes Mᴥuse 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Since when is WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK no longer policy? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a serious allegation to make, you do realise that? And you're basing judgement of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK just because he has the same user page design, and edits the same articles as you? Have you not heard of the word "coincidence"? The editors I spoke of that copied my user page design also edit in the same areas as I do. Doesn't mean that they are impersonating me, or are sock evading. It feels as though a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Wes Mᴥuse 13:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it. This person is 180.131.233.121, who is blocked for vandalism. You're not supposed to be editing for the duration of time whilst you are blocked. This is how the policy is set out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This IP user who is registered to a United States military ISP makes this vandal edit telling the world how lonely he is, plus this one and this one. I revert two of his edits, and place a warning on his talk page. He gets blocked by User:Materialscientist, and then a few minutes later he starts editing as Greatmarine3, an account which he created minutes before that. Using this new account, he writes on my user talk page how lonely he is. Surely this is as blatant as WP:DUCK can get. "Buht we don't know for suuuuure!" you might add - how on earth can you rationalise such a statement at all? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And now you're an expert in knowing the IP addresses of registered Wikipedian users? There is no way you would know that Greatmarine3's IP location is 180.131.233.121? Get a grip. For all I know, that IP address could be your location, my location, or even the Queen of Sheba's IP location. It feels like you're just trying to find any fault to target Greatmarine3 just because he has the same user page design as yours. Wes Mᴥuse 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia based on his earlier actions, and therefore I have no reason to believe that his userpage edits are done in good faith. What happened to not giving troublemakers attention? He sure as hell is desperately trying to get attention based on what he did at Japanese architecture.

Finally, Wesley, you're grasping at straws. First, you claim that "this user might be Australian Chinese". When I point out that he edits from a US military ISP, you backpedal and then goes "but he likes your design". When I point out WP:EVADE, you then you claim that it's a coincidence. When I point out diffs to justify WP:DUCK, you then state that I have no evidence. You're trying as hard as you can to mess with me, aren't you? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And now you assume I am "messing with you". Are you for real, or has a lack of oxygen affected your rationale thinking? Watch that boomerang doesn't come flinging its way back at you. Wes Mᴥuse 13:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Aright then, let me change my statement. You're not trying to mess with me; I suspect that you're trying to mess with me. The two of us are no stranger to dispute, and I have ample right to suspect that if I were someone else, you would behave much differently. We were on opposing ends during the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning RM, various other RfCs, and more recently a dispute regarding the use of a flag belonging to a terrorist organization at Türkvizyon Song Contest responsible for many killings in China in the past few months. I have good reason to believe that you would have ignored this thread if I were someone else - whether or not my suspicions are correct, that is another story, but I have the right to voice this one right out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• @benlisquare FYI I came here to report another issue which is a thread directly below this one. So I did not come here just because you posted this thread, so your suspicions are incorrect I'm afraid. And what are you on about Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning RM, various other RfCs? I have not taken part in those. I don't even have interest in whatever this Bradley Manning is connected with. I work primarily on articles relating to Project Eurovision and one only needs to see my contributions to realise that fact. The only time that I last encountered you was at Türkvizyon Song Contest when other editor's even disagreed with your rationale that we should not use flags because there is a "law in China" that prevents them from being used. The contest itself uses those flags to depict contestants, sources are used to verify their usage, and you were told by other editor's that your rationale on this "law" held no weight when we are dealing with US Wikipedia here. Wes Mᴥuse 14:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What the...? Ok, both of you, cool it. Have your unrelated disputes somewhere else and stop using this thread as a proxy; it's impossible to examine what's actually going on here with all the sniping. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, back to the main topic here. I revert a series of IP vandal edits at Japanese architecture. The account "Greatmarine3" is created, and the first thing this account does is message me on my user talk page. This is as WP:DUCK as it gets, ignoring all the forum sliding above. I am very confident that the IP and the user account belong to the same person. They write in the exact same style, they write the same things, even the timeline matches a typical case. A checkuser would definitely confirm my suspicions, but even without checkuser, the evidence for WP:DUCK is already overwhelming based on the diffs that I've linked above. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: I concur with everyone else. You need to give this person a chance.

...Naw I'm just kidding. I've blocked Greatmarine3 indefinitely. They're clearly not here for anything other than trolling/vandalism. And this looks like harassment against the person who got their IP blocked originally. I'm amazed that nobody jumped on blocking this editor sooner. -- Atama頭 14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

They were blinded by AGF. BMK (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some rather clueless "AGF!" bleating in my day, but this thread takes the prize. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible web hosting activities from a registered editor

EuroFan98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like for an administrator to check the above named user page, as it would appear the content is of a make-believe contest, and possible web hosting activities. On June 1, I notified the user of this concern and gave them the opportunity to address the issue. However they have not responded nor addressed the issue. So I am seeking a second opinion from administrator's to see if the content is against WP:NOTWEBHOST. User has been informed of this ANI report. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 12:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe it's not a userspace draft? I think the best venue for this would be MfD unless there's some CSD criterion that clearly applies (I don't think there is). I certainly don't see any obvious disruption requiring immediate, out-of-process admin action. I mean, just looking at it, it looks like a userspace draft for a musician participating in some contest, which would fit in with the topic area EuroFan primarily edits in. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I work on ProjectEurovision and fully aware that there is no such contest known as the "EuroHeart Song Contest". The only such contest is a fan-created contest held on Facebook and is not affiliated with any of the events created and owned by the Eurovision (network). Wes Mᴥuse 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then either MfD or possibly WP:CSD#U5 would be the way to go. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mendaliv for the advice. I shall look into both options and opt for the most fairness to allow the user chance to explain the content. Although I have given them chance before and got nowhere. Wes Mᴥuse 13:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be various sites and YouTube videos posted about this, but I can't see anything that suggests that this is actually a thing with a real-world presence. I've certainly seen imaginary talent contests and reality TV shows made up out of whole cloth and posted to Wikipedia before, with vast amounts of effort being expended to make it look real. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsène Auguste / Administrator User:GiantSnowman

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

---

I have just invested about 1.5 hours to add to the article Arsène Auguste (see diff). Administrator User:GiantSnowman thinks, he can make a 100% revert, because he thinks inline references and POV, or whatever. All information I have integrated into the article can be gleaned from the links I have provided. I am not a 24/7/365 Wikipedian and simply cannot afford the time to perfectly document according to most detailed suggestions. Of-course, we can have a myriad of articles consisting essentially of two sentences following artful all the highest principles, with five references of for all the most trivial details interrupting every sentence two times, etc, then we mark them stub and hope that somebody will write something to an article that has marked it as low in importance and low in quality and then put some markers on the page of the article. When I want to write an academic work, probably, I will not select a topic low on anybodies importance and quality scale, etc., but rather more interesting subjects such as Martim Francisco, or Nicolas Ladany when I can afford the time. For this I then get generally rewarded by a reviewer with low importance and start class in terms of quality. Anyway, I find it more rewarding, when the Guardian quotes my research, Jonathan Wilson quotes at length in on of his books from one of my articles or FIFA uses in its most recent magazine a graphic created by myself.

I suggest, the Administrator User:GiantSnowman can select to request a reference in an article if something seems unclear to him, or something to that extent. His general reverts are simply indolent, utterly devoid of any respect. This is well beyond what is acceptable in terms of professionalism or general standards of common decency. It defies any spirit of co-operation. Anyway, Administrator User:GiantSnowman will tell, that he left unanswered messages on my talk page. A while ago, I had already problems with him, and I don't deem it helpful conversing him at any length. Also, in consideration that a revert is a revert.

I have written well in excess of 300 new articles and contributed to many more substantially across several language platforms. In addition to that I have contributed with more than 1000 graphics. Allow me to say, that I don't require to be lectured about quality standards which favour minimalistic stubs to which at a random count 200 added every day. Of-course, favoured are also complicated presentation forms, with little balls as indicator for goals, which allow football fans to play around for hours without contributing anything to the substance of an article.

I suggest, the team looks into the matter and forms a conclusion, I personally am not into the arguing business but rather leave it there, if the standards applied in this case are the way to go. Maybe, I am simply not suitable as a contributor here, and uninformative stubs which essentially don't offer more than statistic websites are not worth my while. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CC: @GiantSnowman:

@OAlexander: I won't correct the obvious error myself but I want to make clear that I am not an admin and I have not performed the linked edit. Please correct the above text to the name of the editor who did perform said edit. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant:: Please accept my most profuse apologies. I have great respect for your contributions and beyond that with your project. Very sorry about that! Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for changing it. Green Giant (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Giant Snowman is acting as an editor at the article, and hasn't taken any admin actions, so constantly labeling him as "administrator" doesn't seem necessary. His reverts of you were explained in edit summaries. I see that you have not even tried talking to him on his talk page or the article talk page. You're not a new editor, OAlexander, you've been on Wikipedia even longer than me and you have plenty of editing experience, you should know better than to run straight to ANI before even trying to resolve your content dispute in any way other than edit-warring. -- Atama頭 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried with the colleague in question the talk-page method in the past - to no whatsoever avail. I am not an expert in conflict resolution, as I avoid conflicts or usually encounter colleagues who are accessible. I request your suggestion, where I shall paste my above blurb instead. I then expect not to be exposed to the all to frequent friends-help-friends aspects of WP. Cheers, and thank you very much. OAlexander (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This doesn't belong here. And OAlexander, you wrote "The defender played initially professional football" - in normal English that implies that he then carried on to play something else, non-professional football perhaps. I don't think that's what you meant. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing "The defender played initially professional football with Racing" can also imply that in the very beginning he played football elsewhere and then continued to play professional football afterwards wherever - and so he did. Anyway, such things can be easily changed to anybodys liking; changing does not constitute complete content removal. Whoever wants, may deal with such issues in whichever way. OAlexander (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

On this article OAlexander has removed valid references while at the same time adding unreferenced material; while this is not a BLP (he died 20 years ago) they have a nasty habit of adding unreferenced material and POV/OR to BLPs (see this where he states that 'his good looks afforded him the moniker "Sexy-Lexie"', or this. My edits have done nothing more than challenge/remove completely inappropriate content, and I have certainly not abused my position as an admin. Furthermore this editor has not attempted to discuss the matter with me, and they did not inform me about this ANI thread. Boomerang, anyone? GiantSnowman 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User has now reverted me without explanation and added a whole heap of unreferenced material to a BLP, can an uninvolved admin please take a deeper look at this editor's contribs? GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To the "Sexy Lexie" I have since added a reference, one of many, many possible ones. The links I have removed in the Arsène Auguste article where insubstantial - the one to the webarchive site is eg, completely covered by the NASL-jerseys site., etc. The total reverts leave not much room for any discussions on talk pages, even less so, when such procedure has been tried before in the matter of the article Seth Burkett a while ago. I get the feeling that User GiantSnowman wishes to play here here the role of some Überuser. I affirm, that any content that I have added can be traced by links I have provided. The total reverts are rather remindful of vandalism, to be more to the point. It probably was GiantSnowman should have chosen to communicate via talk pages rather than full reverts. His actions were devoid of any respect or collegiality - certainly not in any spirit of co-operation. To call the content he removed "completely inappropriate" is brazen. If this is acceptable procedure, count me out. If GiantSnowman - or anybody else - with the given links would not have been able to reproduce the content of a short article inside a few minutes, if there is distrust, they probably should not be pontificating. With your high quality standards and low procedural qualities, there is no point for me contributing. Does now the grand Boomerang-gang-bang come upon me? Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And what about all the other information you added which is, and remains, unreferenced? You seem not to care about WP:BLP in the slightest. GiantSnowman 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the article subject passed away 21 years ago, so BLP shouldn't apply (per WP:BDP it applies for up to 2 years after the subject's verified death). Regardless, WP:V applies everywhere. The both of you should be discussing this at the article talk page and using dispute resolution methods. OAlexander, you've reverted twice, and GiantSnowman you reverted 3 times. This edit war should stop. My suggestion, GiantSnowman, is to outline on the talk page what content specifically you object to including without a source. OAlexander, find a source (or sources) that can verify that information and be included inline. If after that you still can't agree then follow the usual steps; third opinion, RfC, etc. But please do it on the article talk page, not here. -- Atama頭 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, all information was traceable with the links that were provided. I have no win the Lex Schoenmaker article entered into the competition of vileness with GiantSnowman. If what the colleague puts up here is ok - then I am definitely wrong here. Maybe, I should no longer wasting my time here adding to articles, but also focus on content removal. That seems to be the prestigious thing to do here. I personally think, what GiantSnowman performed here was ill-willed by design and constitutes vandalism. I leave it there. People of reason seem to be thin on the ground here. I will notify accordingly in due course OAlexander (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact you are engaging in WP:POINTy editing by blanking the article, and the fact you state you are engaged in a "competition of vileness" shows you do not have the attitude to edit here. Your edits are becoming increadingly disruptive, and I would invite an uninvolved admin to block. GiantSnowman 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor has blanked again, can someone take a look ASAP? @Atama: @Dougweller:. GiantSnowman 16:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: The article Lex Schoenmaker now looks like far too many Wikipedia articles: four trivial links for two facts, three horizontal lines, mighty infobox and table of contents. Else totally unsatisfactory. OAlexander (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. OAlexander The edits you made to Lex Schoenmaker look like a blatant violation of WP:POINT; in other words, if you are going to be challenged to provide sourcing for one article you need to strip a related article of everything that isn't directly sources. Per your own admission this is "totally unsatisfactory". Please self-revert, this is intentional disruption. -- Atama頭 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: OAlexander blocked 24 hours by TParis. -- Atama頭 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User Keeps Removing Useful References

The user Macaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted my edits on Google Panda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) three times now, even after I've contacted him on his talk page to stop doing so.

Here he removed a link to Search Engine Watch stating that it is spam even though SEW is a big name in the SEO industry, so big it meets the notability requirements to have its own page. His comment was "fourth spam from the same site: link useless, the content is already linked to a page from Google, not need to a duplicate." The link is not spam and there was no reference for that statment to a Google page.

Here he removed a link to Moz, stating spam: link is useless and not related to the page. Moz is a big time SEO and Analytics company, therefore it is relevant. It is not spam since they already have their own Wikipedia entry.

Here he removed another link to Search Engine Watch stating it is spam once again.

Here he removes a whole line from Moz stating There is not machine learning in Panda, just a formula. The sentence seems to be added just to put a link. However, if you simply watch the video and/or read the patent, you'll realize that Panda is a machine learning algorithm. Macaldo did not take the time to do his research and thought that the statement was placed only to get the link eventhough it is known that Panda is a machine learning algorithm and Moz is an SEO authority.

Here Macaldo removes a link to googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com, Google's official blog for webmasters stating spam again: yes Google made a list for guidance on quality, but published it on its site, not on the linked site. This is not spam since it is Google's official blog.

Here Macaldo removes another link to SEW stating it is spam even though, at one point, Google did ask for data points.

Here and here Macaldo removes articles that exaplains the Google Panda patent as the USPO entry is hard to understand.

This behavior of removing valid sources is not new to Macaldo. Here, from Macaldo's talk page, a user complains about Macaldo removing valid sources from the Microsoft Silverlight page. He uses the same comments when removing the links and the user informes him how his removals were unnecessary and, yet, today, he is doing it again.

For Macaldo's edits reveal that he is unfamiliar with the SEO industry and for his edits show that he did not take the time to do his research and for his edits removed valid sources that have their own Wikipedia pages, I'm asking for admin intervention. I would like my edits to stay on the Google Panda page, an admin to talk to Macaldo as to how his behavior is wrong, and for Macaldo to stop reverting my edits on Google Panda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 June 2014‎ (UTC)

As I've just said on Macaldo's talk page, it does help to have third-party cites in articles, even when we have a primary source from the subject of the article themselves. Otherwise, if we carried this policy to its logical conclusion, we would end up relying entirely on entities' own statements about themselves. Third-party confirmation is definitely useful, even when redundantly confirming statements made by the subject of an article. Removing third-party cites whenever you find them on the basis that they are redundant, particularly when they are from respected industry sources, is not helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If anything, our preference for secondary sources means we prefer third party over first party sources. Not sure how one would write a secondary source about oneself, come to think of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A man survives a horrible accident but suffers permanent amnesia, researches into his own past, and writes a book about it. Secondary source on himself! -- Atama頭 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the pilot episode of a TV series. As a twist, he is assigned the subject, and doesn't realize it is about him, until later.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question, it wouldn't be hard. Say you're in the news for something or another; after the incident's over, you publish an article analysing the news coverage of you. Since they're written in the context of the event, the news reports are primary sources, and your article is secondary. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here a summary. Searchengineland and Searchenginewatch are two content farms which are used to put lot of useless links on Wikipedia in the SEO articles. SEW is used to add useless and irrelevant sentences in the article just to add a link to their site, as a reference. SEL has a different technique, they publish a short article to echo each announcement of Google and put a link on Wikipedia to these short articles. I have removed tons of them and replaced them by a link to the original source, which, anyway, contains more infos than the short article on SEL. Even if it is true that the two sites publish sometimes useful and detailed articles, all the links I have removed are not in this vein. There are either irrelevant or small pages with no additional infos over the orginal source. So, take that in mind. There is no reason for a page of Wikipedia to have 10 links on these SEO sites, whose content is all but encyclopedic since they know nothing about the Google's algo which is secret, as you know. Macaldo (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "Here he removes a whole line from Moz stating There is not machine learning in Panda, just a formula. The sentence seems to be added just to put a link. However, if you simply watch the video and/or read the patent, you'll realize that Panda is a machine learning algorithm. Macaldo did not take the time to do his research and thought that the statement was placed only to get the link eventhough it is known that Panda is a machine learning algorithm and Moz is an SEO authority.".

I have read and studied the ~30 pages of the Panda patent. Not a a single reference to machine learning. I studied each formula, each algo (there are just some lines of code). Zero machine learning here. So your "SEO authority" looks as a joke. Remember these sites are filled by contributors with various levels and backgrounds. For the others arguments above, they have the same quality. He speculates I am new to SEO because I removed links to SEL that is a sort of God in his mind. I know this site for years and I saw how a quality site turned into a content farm over time. Macaldo (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User posts same inappropriate text 3 times on same day

User Paulbeckerblut has three times on June 5th added his/her diary-like text to the article Seasonal affective disorder, at 17:50 (reverted by ClueBot), 17:53 (reverted by Methecooldude, and at 23:30 (reverted by yours truly). See this edit. He has thrice been warned on his talk page and hasn't responded there. He's (figuratively) asking for a block. Hordaland (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First, second, and third time adding the unreferenced content. A fourth time should get a 3RR block, plus a final warning for adding unsourced content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Owning and Bullying by Livelikemusic

For the past two days, I have been working to make the Theresa Donovan page more accurate and thorough. In adding information about the previous actors to portray the role, my edits were reverted by livelikemusic with the explanation that they "violated" site policies. They did not "violate" anything. I re-did my edit and again, livelikemusic reverted it saying the current actress is the "most notable in the role" as though that means any previous actors should be ignored and can't be mentioned on this site. He then began saying there were "policies" against my edits. In actuality, there are no policies against my edits.

To me, lying about violations and policies to deter someone from making edits is a definite sign of bullying.

I then added a period to the end of a sentence and livelikemusic reverted that too with the explanation of no punctuation allowed in an infobox. I asked, "Where does it say that?" to which they have not yet replied. I added a brief explanation about another character being portrayed by more than one actress and that got reverted too with the explanation of it already say's that elsewhere. I added two commas to a sentence because it needed them and livelikemusic reverted that too because they didn't feel the sentence needed commas! I can't even correct minor punctuation errors without livelikemusic reverting them!

That, to me, is also definite bullying.

Along with all that, on the Theresa Donovan talk page, livelikemusic accused me of "attempting to own" the page by reverting his edits but, I have not reverted his edits, I have merely made edits of my own and gotten every single one of them reverted by him with his false "policies," "violations," and accusations of "owning."

That, to me, shows owning on his part.

All of this can be verified by reviewing the edits made to the Theresa Donovan page and it's associated talk page or by clicking this links to see the diffs: 1. here 2. here 3. here 4. here (deletion of the period) 5. here (again) 6. here 7. here (deleting my comma)

Thank you so much in advance. As per policy, I have left a message on livelikemusic's talk page regarding this complaint (although he immediately deleted it).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All of this can be verified by reviewing the edits made to the Theresa Donovan page and it's associated talk page. Please just post diffs of conduct you believe supports your argument that livelikemusic is engaged in inappropriate behavior. At first glance this just looks like a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me how to do that as I don't know everything about how to properly link to something. I'm new here. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Diffs have been added.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, I have been accused of reverted each of their edits to Theresa Donovan, which I have not done. I reverted some edits, which were explained, such as the addition of child actresses and a comma I felt was mis-placed; I did not revert each and every single edit Cebr has done. As I attempted to explain to this user on the page's talk page, the character of Theresa Donovan was not a notable enough stand-alone character per the Soap Project and notability of a fictional character on a soap opera until current actress Jen Lilley took claim of the role last year; I also used prime examples of GA's on the Soap Project as more examples of why I believed they should not be placed within the infobox. And my revert of the punctuation point was because on the template page, and Soap Project page, they did not represent it with such punctuation. Cebr is merely seeing my edits as not in good faith, yet I was merely trying to work alongside some of their edits, for the sake of civility. However, I was continued to be accused of owning the page, while I was continued to be talked about personally as an editor, and not my edits themselves.

(edit conflict) I did not lie, nor attempt to deter this user from making their edits on this article. Their perception is gravely mis-taken, as I attempted to explain to them. I stopped responding on the talk page, as I found it not okay for us to be softly baiting and biting each other in such a manner. My edits removing a comma was reverted, and removal of a period was reverted after a string of edits made exclusively by Cebr; if I'm going to be accused of owning a page, shouldn't they also be with those edits? As for the brief explanation of another character being portrayed by another actress, I noted that a note was already included on the page, which notes that two other actresses portrayed said role (Kimberly Brady) during the most recognized's actress' absence from the role. Continuing to be accused of bullying is something I take seriously, as never in my entire lifetime, on or offline, have I ever bullied someone. Bullying is something I do not tolerate in my life in any kind of way, especially in today's day in age where it's at the forefront of a lot of serious issues in society with our younger generations. And may I add: a user can remove anything they do choose from their talk page, so why that continues to be brought up is beyond me. I've asked Cebr to not contact me directly via-a talk page several times, as it appears no matter what, there never seems to be any resolve that comes out of anything. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You never made punctuation edits to the page, I did and then you reverted them... which made them incorrect grammatically. I had to change them back or have the page be wrong. Also, I had to contact you via your talk page as that is site policy when making a complaint against someone.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Would also like to add that as a long-time editor who has worked extensively to protect the authenticity of soap articles, and other articles, I am appalled and deeply hurt by the claims continuing to be made against me. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like nothing more than a content dispute. ANI is not the place to resolve this. If you feel discussion at the talk page is deadlocked, you may want to involve the broader WikiProject on soaps, or some other dispute resolution process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added diffs for you to see which clearly show bullying and excessive reverting which is a sign of owning: 1. here

2. here 3. here 4. here (deletion of the period) 5. here (again) 6. here 7. here (deleting my comma)Cebr1979 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Which I tried doing by pinging other editors that were close to the Soap Project, and I was accused of owning the page by bringing in other people, and that the other user's edits were not expert or important; which I never did. I attempted to keep things civil, but kept feeling baited by Cebr based on feeling their incivility on the talk page. I asked for guidelines that support their liking, and they didn't. I provided several and was told that I was mis-interpreting to act as "broad and self-suiting". livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And I didn't know trying to do what I believed to be grammatically correcting something and adding a preferred plainlist to be "bullying". Has the definition of that changed as well? Is there nothing I can do right in Cebr's eyes other than just quit Wikipedia? Because now I am feeling very personally attacked and bullied into leaving a hobby and passion I've had for several years in helping make better. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And once again, Cebr is using "mine" and "my", all words Wikipedia suggests going against, as it suggests a user owning a page. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will say this: never in the eight years of editing here have I felt such an injustice by Wikipedia. I made a report last week about Cebr and their personal attacks against me; the report was deemed unfit was they weren't "personal enough". Cebr was told to stop making accusations and refrain from all communication (which Cebr just removed). I thought working on the talk page of Theresa Donovan we could come to some sort of settlement. I also tried applying the preferred plainlist format that most infoboxes are converting to (an edit seen as bullying). At the Soap Project, the example template does not include a period after "Actress as Character" format, hence my removal (once again, accused of bullying there). I then removed the note concerning Patsy Pease and her portrayal of Kimberly Brady, explaining that a note was already included for visitors to read (Accused once more of bullying). Removed a stand alone comma after the word "and" as I did not feel it was grammatically appropriate to use there (accused of bullying again). I ask, how would any of these edits be seen as bullying? On the talk page, Cebr continued to accuse me of using policies as an interpretation as "broad" and "self-serving", accusing their edits as not being "expert" (which I followed and refuted). Cebr then accused me of not just accepting "an encyclopedia entry being more thorough", which was not what I was refuting. I have been accused of many things, which Cebr was advised against doing. I remained civil in my interactions, despite feeling baited and bitten, after being accused and attacked of many things. At this point, it feels like if I don't say "Fuck It" Cebr will continue to attempt to drive me out of Wikipedia, which is how I'm feeling. I'm not accusing them of doing such (as I'm sure I'll be accused of doing). I'm feeling that eight years of my dedication and appreciation for Wikipedia is being over-looked and under-appreciated. At this point, enough is enough. I played it civilly, and was still accused and attacked by another member of this forum. How many more times does it need to happen before action is properly taken? If an Administator has further questions for me, I'll be gladly happy to answer tomorrow when I log back on. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The F word doesn't seem like keeping things civil but, oh well. Anyways, I didn't "just remove" anything. I cleaned my talk page up last week. Anyone can go to the Theresa Donovan page and see the edit history. Anything anyone does, you always revert for this reason or that. Even here where a sentence simply wasn't enough for you so it had to be reverted. The sentence said true information but, it wasn't enough for you so had to go. You are owning the page (as you do with many pages) and you are the one trying to make others "go away" so you can reign as supreme editor on your favourite pages. The only "injustice" is that someone hasn't stood up to your bullying before. You should probably drop it now before I come back with a ton of more diffs from a ton of more pages.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And stop shoving your "8 years of editing" down everyone's throats! That doesn't make you any better than anyone else and shouldn't even be mentioned. Ever. That's exactly where an "owning" mentality stems from.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• With the exception of a few edits by User:Mendaliv, you two haven't allowed anyone else to participate here. Shut up and wait for neutral parties to intervene. This isn't another board for you two to rehash all of your dispute all over again.--v/r - TP 05:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Per Mendaliv, the diffs just show run-of-the-mill content dispute. DeCausa (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The diffs weren't there when Mendaliv wrote that. The diffs show constant reverting by livelikemusic.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were. You added the second set of 7 diffs after his post. That just shows the two of you edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they weren't. I added both sets of diffs at the same time. When I first posted my original message, I didn't know how to post diffs. Once I found out, I edited my first post to include them and added the second set (both after Mendaliv's comment). You can see that by checking the history of this page.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but it doesn't make any difference. It's still per Mendaliv - just a content dispute. And you've been edit-warring. Btw, you shouldn't be changing your posts after others have responded to them. DeCausa (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So? Mendaliv is not an admin. Anyone can give input, sure, but that's all it is. His say is not final.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, yes anyone can give input and I just gave mine, which is to agree with Mendaliv. Have a look at the other threads and see how this board works before you jump to conclusions as to how you think it works. DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am frustrated with the apparent inability of editors to deal with 'content disputes in the proper forum and the constant allegations of behavioural violations with bad faith, which is counterproductive towards finding a solution to these disputes. I have consistently called on both parties to discuss changes and keep allegations to a minimum, and am quickly losing patience over the constant posts to this board at every slight perceived violation. If you continue to cause disruption and continue to make bad faith allegations, I will pursue an interaction ban between the two parties and/or a topic ban on soap-related articles as the only recourse to stop the disruptive behaviour. The behaviour exhibited is beyond childish. —Dark 11:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My issue is not the content being disputed, it's all of my edits being constantly reverted by livelikemusic. I am not the only editor he does that too and many other editors simply go away rather than alerting anyone. In any case, I can see this is going nowhere fast so I will continue on and hope livelikemusic does the same. I mean, wikipedia is a big place, there's got to be countless other pages for him to revert and countless other editors for him to quote his false policies too. Thank you for your time. Cebr1979 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You can say your issue is with behavior, but you'd be wrong. Resolve the underlying content dispute like adults—both of you—and any "behavioral" problems will just evaporate. Hell, you might even find you have a lot in common. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I tried attempting to resolve the issue, and involve other soap editors to provide their own insight and feelings on the situation, and I was met with trying to "own" something, and was accused of things I was not doing. And as for the "F" word, Wikipedia does not censor. Once again, I'm being attacked and being made accusations against me. And TParis, I made that statement last night because I was logging off and wanted it said right then and there. I had no issues with letting others discuss. I never brought any behavior problems into this issue; I kept it completely on the topic of child actresses. So I am still dumbfounded that we're back here at ANI., when I'm accused of making things "my policy", which I am not. It's baffling and quite offensive, especially to be told to "stop shoving" things down everyone's throats. Once again, more assumptions and incivility on an editor's part. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, you need to keep trying then. ANI isn't the place to resolve this dispute. And sanctions don't lie against Cebr1979 for making this complaint. I see virtually no participation in the dispute from editors other than yourself and Cebr1979. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I have been. And those ping'ed have not responded and may never. But now I feel like no matter how/what I edit, it's going to be seen as "bullying" and "advancing my own agenda" since it's clear soap articles are the common link. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Once again, I'm trying to help the article, and I'm being accused of owning the page, when a valid quote was removed. They removed a quote, which they believed to be about The Book of Esther, however if you check the reference, it is specifically about her joining the cast of Days of Our Lives. Once again being accused of owning a page and "doing this again". Obviously Cebr and I cannot seem to come to understandings about things, and I believe this issue has gone far enough. I've tried working with Cebr, however, I'm continually just told I'm "wrong". May be taking this to content dispute now, but figured I'd also bring this here. But I've tried working alongside this editor, and like I mentioned before, I feel like I'm continuing to be accused of "bullying", while my edit was valid, as per the source and reference proves. And another edit I was told was wrong, since it was used on multiple other pages, etc. Yet, I cited the infobox template, and was still reverted. Yet, following suit of soap opera, specifics of a job are not specifically listed. I'm once again feeling like no matter how I intend or hope to help the editing process, I'm just simply "wrong" in my actions, and viewed upon as bullying. Do I have to quit to make another editor happy? I shouldn't have to, but once again, it's how I'm feeling. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is so tiring. There were no accusations made today by me! I pointed out a lie, true. That can be seen. As for reverts, her edits are still there! I made some edits, she reverted them, so I clarified them. Could someone please tell me how to remove this section of the ANI from my watch list? I no longer want notifications when something is added to it. Cebr1979 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The star or when you're editing unclick "Watch this page". And accusations were made, plus I am a he not she. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Whew! Thank you for being useful. This whole thing was useless as livelikemusic has already taken it directly to an admin (see so here).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cebr1979:: You would do well not to follow editors with whom you are in disputes to other people's user talk pages. It's not particularly friendly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was hardly concerned with making friends.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Let me clarify. If you keep it up you stand a good chance of being blocked for Wikihounding. Ease up on Livelikemusic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify: there is a reason why I removed this from my watch list.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I only noticed when I went to livelikemusic's talk page to get it off my watch list too. Don't jump to conclusions.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that both editors are well past 3RR today on the Donovan article. Warned both. Continued reverts should merit blocks. I'm in favor of leniency for edit warring done thus far rather than risk driving away productive editors. I will take a look at the content dispute given Livelikemusic's complaint that there has been no interest in outside involvement... I don't particularly enjoy American soaps, but I'll take a look. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've kept quiet on this right now, however, I have not "moved on". Conclusions have been continually put against me (via-accusations) and I have remanded beyond civil with Cebr. The civility continues to not be returned; I attempted to resolve things by taking it to the talk page, and was then accused of "doing it again", etc. And will continue to state I feel that nothing I say and/or do will ever be OK for this user. It was not my intention to violate 3RR, so I apologise for doing so. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, deary my! livelikemusic is wikihounding me! The only way he could know about the "moved on" comment is if he followed me to Mendaliv's talk page!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just an additional note, if Cebr1979 and livelikemusic fail to discuss their article changes on the talk page (and gain consensus for such changes) and continue reverting each other, I will treat it as disruptive edit warring and will sanction accordingly. I also would like to provide a precautionary warning regarding the improper use of multiple accounts to make changes to such articles - that is not tolerated. Wikipedia is based on consensus, I don't care whether you think you're right or not, you will discuss controversial changes civilly and without accusation. I hope that I do not have to see a thread on ANI about this again. —Dark 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there an example of socking going on or why was that brought up? For the record, I only have one account and this is it!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you only have 1 account, then you have nothing to worry about. —Dark 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

i hope not, either. I had no intentions of re-opening something against Cebr, and did not see them opening one themselves. I've attempted to try and reach consensus with the user, and continue to be accused of bending guidelines to meet "my own agenda" (which I do not have). I continued to keep the discussion to the article, and I continued being accused of doing things "my way", etc. Accusations continue to be made, against me, despite my intentions to co-habitat with the user, as the common interest we appear to share are soap articles. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Neil Gale and the Chicago Postcard Museum

• Neil Gale (talk · contribs)
• Chicago Postcard Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user holds himself out as the owner of the museum and has blanked the page twice claiming copyright infringement. I compared to the website and don't see where we've lifted any material from the website.

What I do see is that the user may be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, per this comment on Talk:Chicago Postcard Museum.

I don't think there's any validity to the copyright claim, but just to be safe, can I get some additional eyes on this? —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright law works. BMK (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A separate question, is the article subject notable? I've not looked into it in great detail, but perhaps it isn't which would solve the problem. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I looked at it and was wondering the very same. The article paints the subject as a museum when really it's a website. It got tagged as A7 when it was a new article, but it doesn't look like anybody ever sent it to PROD or AfD. While I personally think we should think hard about deleting something when someone related to the subject comes around making spurious arguments as to why it should be deleted... I'm not so sure here. Especially when it's out of the blue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe {{Notability}} is a good tag to put on the article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, and also ditched some of the fluff describing this website in terms more typical for a brick-and-mortar museum (though not to the point of being unfair towards other virtual museums). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just kicked this to AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably related to this, see Drgale, who evidently created an article on the Chicago Postcard Museum way back in 2007 (which got deleted per what sounds like A7; the log doesn't explicitly say A7). Probably the same person as Neil Gale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Czechia dispute

(Non-administrator comment) This was 2 seperate threads originally. I've unified them under a larger dispute so that editors see both sides Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Askave

User:Askave has been making protracted controversial POV-pushing WP:SOAP statements regarding the name Czechia for a number of months against consensus and peppering this behaviour with personal attacks against other editors, particularly User:Yopie, e.g. [88] [89] and making threats [90]. Askave has a real problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to promote Czechia over the Czech Republic as the main means of referring to the country. Previous requests to adhere to WP:A [91] [92]have been unsuccessful. I haven't had the time to see whether his latest edits [93] are in accordance with policy, but fear not, considering the above. C679 08:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, the user has accused me of sockpuppetry and resorted to name-calling on my talk page. C679 09:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Yopie

User:Yopie has been deleting all references to the informal name of the Czech Republic - Czechia for years. He has not used any arguments and together with User:Mewulwe deletes without reasons or with wildcard reasons destroys all articles and mentions about that name, however they are complex and supported by many references. It already has happened to several contributors many times. He also initiates blocking and reporting of persons, contributing to the issue. The articles were always deleted, one of them also after suspect voting process, though voting ended with the victory of his opponents. Those articles (remain on personla pages of contributors and also there was was even recorded his activity towards their elimination. The last example is the page Civic initiative Czechia. I ask Wikipedia for stopping that behaviour. He is "active" in deletion of informal name also in other languages Wikipedia, where is one-word name commonly used. This can be considered almost psychotic obsession. To show POV interests of User:Yopie see his Czech Wikipedia page https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Yopie where he obviously shows his biased beliefs by his own charakteristic of himself, writing: Tento uživatel nežije v Česku ale v České republice. ( "This user does not live in Czechia, but in the Czech Republic"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askave (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I can only confirm this, it takes few minutes and word Czechia is deleted. The dispute about the logical geographic name Czechia is ongoing since 1993 and has been discussed in the public hearing of Senate, Yopie's opinion is that this can be deleted because it is of no importance! So I can not imagine a public hearing of Senate for an issue of no importance! Yopie claims to be a monarchist, his thinking is totaly communist, he supresses any opinion which is not in line with his own belief.He is neglecting established facts, like Cesko, short name of The Czech Republic, which is the offical registered short name in the UNO UNGEGN list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helveticus96 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Askave and Heleticus96, please desist from making personal attacks - talking about "almost psychotic obsession" (Askave) or stating that a user's thinking is "totally communist" (Helvitcus96) is definitely in personal attack territory and doesn't aid resolution of the dispute (and in fact makes it less likely that your views will be taken seriously). Please provide diffs of any alleged wrongdoing, noting that ANI is not for resolution of content disputes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Frick.Photoarchive

User Frick.Photoarchive was {{uw-softerblock}} earlier today by 5 albert square for having a promotional user / editing on behalf of a company. After raising the issue on 5 albert square's talk page both of us seem to agree that the username will need a change, yet we don't seem to agree on the way this should be handled. Albert's stance is that the editor can request an unblock after which they receive the ye-usual 24 hours to file a CHU request. Personally I believe this approach is unnecessarily bitey towards the editor since they have been editing constructively without any attempt to promote Frick Collection (Edits so far include writing new article's detailing artists or updating them). Instead i would favor an unblock and a friendly pointer to CHU for a username change.

Albert seems to have logged out for the moment, and I don't want to simply undo the block while we are in disagreement. That said I would very much prefer to have this sorted out before the blocked editor returns only to be greeted by a block template. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually saw that, and I believe the blocking may have been bitey in this situation as well. The user seems the type who would have responded to a gentle prod in the right direction. - Purplewowies (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Foffa Bikes

While looking at the Recent Changes I came across a dispute at Foffa Bikes between editors and someone seeming to represent that company; I don't know the whole story but User:Danifoffa has made statements that the other users are posting "defamatory" statements and has threatened to take legal action against the other users. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The user is also edit-warring, under the user name & also under Special:Contributions/86.3.184.24. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The added content in that diff along with the edit summary in this edit are clear examples of legal threats in my eyes and aside from those I see potential ownership and conflict of interest issues here as well. Blocked the editor indefinitely until these legal threats are either retracted or resolved. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Their IP will need to be blocked too [94]. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind; was autoblocked. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This also needs a dose of WP:DOLT. The first para under "Controversy" was completely based on a single thread in an online forum. I've pulled it.[95] The second para's "admitted to prohibiting resellers from discounting his bikes, in breach of UK and EU price fixing laws. Foffa inadvertently, and falsely...." is blatant editorialising, taking an extreme interpretaion of Foffa's words and imposing the editor's understanding of the law upon them. NebY (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I've rewritten that para too[96] - the accusation that the subject "implicated XXX in the price fixing conspiracy" could not stand. NebY (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers The Clown

Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) has had quite a turbulent history on Wikipedia, culminating in being blocked twice last year. [97] After carrying on socking as Nelson Mandela was not Batman (and others), he eventually stopped just before new year. He requested an unblock per the standard offer last week, which was accepted by The Bushranger. [98] However, he immediately fell into controversial areas and was swiftly reblocked by Floquenbeam. [99] I don't see any evidence he is entertaining serious unblock requests on his talk page now, and would like to ask the floor what we do next. This could be anything from a sixth (or seventh?) chance, turning talk page access off, or a full blown community ban to drill home the message that our patience is generally worn out. What would people suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - I suggest we remove talk page access and initiate a formal community ban. GiantSnowman 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a site ban here. The editor is quite hopelessly incompetent and too big for his britches; but he can simply just remain indeffed. I do not see the need for a site ban, and would oppose one unless some major socking/bad faith evidence were put forth. Doc talk 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. A ban seems way premature. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly suggesting any sort of ban (indeed, if you read what I've written on Bonkers' talk page and elsewhere, you should come away with the impression I've been quite defensive and supportive of him), rather thinking that we need more admin eyes on this right now. He's got a pattern of repeatedly being disruptive and subsequently showing remorse again and again. He only apologised for the sockpuppetry after I bought it up, which does suggest he was hoping the unblocking admin wouldn't pick up on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we should just be ready to remove talk page access in case he spams unblocks. The Depressed Loser (I am not here) 13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just unwatch his talk page, in case we're tempted to read spam unblocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much need to do anything at this point. The user was just indef'ed, he's not going to be unblocked anytime soon but a site ban seems of no real use here. Talk page access can be removed by any administrators if the talk page access is abused. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a formal community ban for a period of no less than 1 year (with an appeal option after six months). He was unblocked on the basis he was topic banned from the DYK project, but has already submitted and successfully obtained a DYK credit, he was topic banned from creating articles in mainspace but thought it acceptable to work with the AfC project, which requires him to assess and then move new articles created by other editors into the mainspace. That breaches the spirit if not the precise letter of the topic ban, he cannot be trusted to add new material to the mainspace, it should be obvious that applies not just to his own work but that of others. The damage he has done at the AfC project is impossible to estimate but it could well have discouraged new editors. The behaviour he now shows on his talk page is again unacceptable (misogynistic in nature - see [100]) and in combination with the breaches of the DYK topic ban and disaster at AfC, I think he needs to spend a great deal of time away from the community, given time to mature and reflect on his behaviour now, prior to his previous ban and the socking that occurred after it. The enforcement of a community ban will also require Bonkers to think about how the community will have perceived his behaviour, and has the benefit of preventing any administrator thinking of unblocking to do so without input from the community, be it in six months or a year. Nick (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Nick, he got too many second chances already and has a history of socking. Endorse ban Secret ^account 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Not entirely sure it will help much, as I don't think any admin should go and unblock this person without community consensus anyway, given the result of the latest unblock attempt, but I see no reason not to endorse this ban proposal if others feel it can have some positive effect. It surely cannot be of harm. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Given the contempt Bonkers showed for WP:BLP policy in the incident that led to the previous ban, [101], his continuing reluctance to admit to doing anything wrong, and his immediate return to disruptive behaviour as soon as he was unblocked, it seems self-evident that he cannot be trusted, and is an ongoing liability to the project. We will manage fine without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - Bonkers' immediate return to his previous behavior and attempts to hide his past behind supposed ignorance and sweet words clearly shows that the interests of Wikipedia are not what is in his mind when he is editing. Ansh666 15:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - after his latest endeavors I think it's time we close the door on second chances. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I don't see anything misogynistic in that diff, and don't think 'misogynistic' is a word we should toss around lightly without very strong proof. That said, this is a user who came back from a long block with promises of reform and got himself reblocked almost immediately, so I endorse ban to prevent further waste of the community's time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as the target of the diff, I didn't interpret it as misogyny either—simply his habitual sarcastic obfuscation when he has been caught out being economical with the truth. And where did this idea come from that he is a simply a very young editor who needs to mature? To those here who assume he's a naive teenager, I have a bridge to sell you. Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• support indef block, with WP:OFFER available in time. I had only a vague knowledge of Bonkers until this week. I saw one positive article and DYK (Eat Frozen Pork), although I then discovered these were strictly against their topic ban. Then I saw the past history, then I saw the issues leading to the latest block. Let's just say that I wouldn't be so positive to him if I'd known this beforehand. Give it time, maybe he'll grow up. Maybe he won't, hence the block. I don't care in the slightest, it's all up to him. Certainly a block today is entirely justified as preventative. Too much dramah otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Eight years ago, Wikipedia welcomed another Singaporean editor around the same age as Bonkers. Although he could contribute quality content, he could not handle stressful situations and eventually developed a very effective method of vandalism. He was almost community-banned, but an admin decided to block him for a week instead and since then, he has written thirteen Singapore-related GAs. In case you have not already realised, that editor was myself and Bonkers reminds me of what I was like back then. Of course, I do not condone his actions, but are they so severe that they warrant a community ban? I doubt so. What Wikipedia needs is more contributors of quality articles about poorly represented topics. With over a hundred (mostly Singapore-related) DYKs to his name and potential GAs (such as Ah Boys to Men), Bonkers is certainly among them. If he simply focuses on article writing and is given sufficient guidance (from me, for example), he could be one of our most valuable editors. Perhaps the community could allow Bonkers to develop articles offwiki and email them to another editor (such as me), who would check the articles and post them to mainspace (if they are of high quality). --Hildanknight (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree your goals and also oppose such a ban. However take a look at what has happened this week. We don't want to re-run that, so how can we avoid it? Bonkers just doesn't seem to see that his behaviour is a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the AfC disruption? Then we can ban him from AfC. We don't need to siteban at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The AfC disruption, the breach of the DYK topic ban, the breach of article creation and claiming that he had conveniently forgotten being topic banned. That's just the stuff I saw. Clearly topic bans are simply ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In the unblock, I didn't see any mention of a DYK ban - it looked unconditional to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose siteban, consider AfC ban if the conduct that led to the most recent block is really that troublesome. There are some indecorous comments at the Bonkers' user talk that did lead to revocation of talk page access, but I think some leniency is in order given the circumstances. As another editor has pointed out, Bonkers has a good history of content creation on Singapore topics. Given Wikipedia is starting to operate a bit leaner in terms of good content creators, we should trim the rotten parts rather than pitch the entire roast in the garbage. Perhaps it's a sign of the economy getting better that people have less spare time to spend editing Wikipedia. This of course should not serve to abrogate the prior standard offer that resulted in the last unblock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support indefinite ban with option to appeal in either one or two years and every six months thereafter. Bonkers has caused a months-long trail of disruption and proven himself incompetent, immature, and uncivil. --Jakob (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite ban – Seriously? Why should we go around banning editors like Bonkers, when such editors consistently expand the quality of articles? However, Bonkers may be a little naive and misguided to be editing Wikipedia at this time, so I suggest leaving the indefinite block, with an WP:OFFER applicable in one year this time. I'll also choose Support one-year ban. (On further thought, I won't support any ban. Bonkers might be a clown, as implied by his username, but he isn't a long-term disruptive user; he is only misguided. Modified 17:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)) Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite Block extended to talk page with no appeal for at least a year. I intensely dislike outright bans except as a truly last resort. That said, this is clearly a hardcore recidivist. I like Snowolf's point that little will be gained by an outright ban that cannot be accomplished by an indefinite block. I would add a strongly worded warning that if/when the block is ever lifted (or if there is any further attempt at evasion) that any further trouble from him and the next stop is the full blown ban/excommunication/anathema. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if we must do this exercise. This has yet to reach the level one would normally associate with banning. I have no issue with the indef block, but he hasn't been shown to be so problematic that we need the formal act of banishing him out to the wilderness yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Eric Cartman amuses but doesn't convince. "Formal communitah ban!" "Too big for his britches!" "Repeatedlah disruptive!" "Needs time away from teh communitah!" "Too manah second chances!" "Liabilitah to teh project!" Puh-lease. Just block Bonkers (excellent user name btw, Bonkers) when he's naughty, unblock when he promises to be good, proceed with blocks and unblocks as required. Playing with their little blockhammers is what sysops become sysops for. Maybe give the Bonkers job to the diligent Beebelbrox, whose tally currently stands well north of 2500. Bonkers could help him to the magic 3000. All this Down With The Clown! dramah is totallah unnecessarah! Writegeist (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, and any block that might be seen as punitive. When Bonkers work is good, it is very, very good. When it is "bad" it is always reversible even when it may raise the hackles of his detractors. Send him to counseling. Encourage his adoption. Perhaps limit him to 1RR. Ask him to self-limit actions that may cause angst to his many watchers. We have many far better solutions that build the encyclopedia and this editor's skills that do not require a ban. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• What evidence do you have that this person is a "young Singaporean?" I strongly suspect he's lying to you. Adopting a persona designed to appeal to the weak-minded and naive is a popular tactic of online trolls. Have fun playing encyclopedia folks.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why would young Singaporeans especially appeal to the weak-minded and naive? Anyway, I reviewed his fish soup bee hoon and found it quite plausible as the work of a native Singaporean. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Andrew (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. The actual unblock appeared to be unconditional, and there was no obvious DYK prohibition at the time it was made. The AfC mess was problematic, but stopped when the warning was given. I'd support some way back, possibly with clear and specific restrictions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose long-term ban of people who are here with a genuine desire to contribute to the encyclopedia (e.g. vandals, trolls, and advertisers be gone!). Endorse 5-year (see below for why not "indef") block with a custom-tailored version of WP:STANDARD OFFER or similar available any time after 7 months (his last block was 6 1/2 months, obviously not long enough). Strongly endorse post-block heavy editing restrictions including continued an additional 6-month ban on any WikiProjects in which he was disruptive since his first unblock on 10:37, 26 September 2013 and, if he has been disruptive in any particular article or that article's talk page since 10:37, 26 September 2013, an additional 6-month ban on that article and talk page and any "successor" article or talk page (e.g. if an article split, both articles would be covered, if it was merged or redirected, the target would be covered, if it was deleted and re-created under a different but obviously-the-same-topic title, the new article would be covered). I qualify all of the above by saying the long-term block and bans mentioned above should all expire 5 years after the most recent block. Any violation or evasion (e.g. WP:SOCK) of these blocks or bans would result in, at a minimum, a reset of all clocks. After 5 years, we can assume that if he comes back, he will have changed at least a little (I can't think of anyone who is the same person now as they were 5 years ago). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban The article which is currently showing on the main page seems fine and that is our main business here. This editor seems to have an abundance of youthful high spirits but short blocks and warnings will suffice to keep these in check. A ban seems too draconian. Wikipedia is not the government of Singapore and so should not demand placid conformity from every foreign visitor. Andrew (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In an international project, a contributor from Singapore is no more 'foreign' than anyone else, and as for 'youthful high spirits', I see no reason to accept that Bonkers is the youth he claims to be - though it makes no difference, since policy applies regardless of age. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

user: 107.219.204.241

@Dennis Brown: IP user:107.219.204.241 with a long history of disruptive editing, warnings and blocks has deleted all warnings and posted a direct attack on other editors on his/her talk page. IP was blocked for one month on June 3rd by Dennis Brown so I'm not sure if the block was lifted for some reason or the IP user found a way to evade it. In any event, enough is enough. This is a hard core recidivist and a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. I respectfully request an extended block and perhaps some sort of page protection to make it harder for this kind of silliness to recur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Most recent edits to the talk page.

• He is blocked but any blocked editor (even an IP) can edit their talk page. As far as removing the block template, consensus seems to be that this is fine if he isn't trying to get unblocked, and he isn't. As for calling a group of editors "cowardly", that alone isn't going to get me to take additional actions. In all fairness, I've probably said worse, as have a number of other editors who have been here long enough. It is rude and a bit uncivil, but not really action worthy in my opinion. This falls under "talk page venting". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:182.249.240.21

This user who has multiple IP addresses has been constantly deleting sourced material on the article on Emperor Jimmu despite no clear consensus on the talk page to do so. He took his complaint to the original research noticeboard but instead of waiting for a reply he continued to delete the sourced material. The user has been continuously making accusations against me of engaging in original research, though the article clearly reflects what the sources say. In his latest post he issued a veiled threat to report me. Could you tell this user to keep discussion focused to the matter at hand without making threats and to consider alternatives to complete deletion of sourced material?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New user claims to be a returning "indefinitely banned" user

FASTigerETURNS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims at User:FASTigerETURNS/sandbox to be "a ex editor on wikipedia, who was banned indefinitely for his unhelpful comments and edits."

His edits upon returning include claiming that Iron Maiden fans burned down the Rainbow Hall after not receiving a refund for the show, killing one of the band members (easily recognizable as false with the least bit of research), citing a "personal interview" when given a link to WP:RS.

He is either evading a block or ban, or is a troll pretending to be such a user. Either way... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 16:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Block for ...

Pls block User:Čuraci vládnou, on Czech this means a vulgarity like "Penisses govern", -jkb- (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bambifanus 1000 (talk · contribs) seems to be related because of you-know-who too based on this edit. Nate • (chatter) 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Google translate (mostly) verifies that (as an alternate translation), second that that's an inappropriate username. A Google Translation of his only edit so far is complaining about the block of Erinplum2, saying (more or less) that it's 'proof' that this place is 'run by dicks.' We've got a trol. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There was actually a sock drawer replete with trolls. I've blocked all of them.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Cody Legebokoff

The article, Cody Legebokoff, appears to be in violation of WP:BLP and WP:Libel. I am an administrator and could clear up the article itself, but I am rarely active here any more and am less familiar with those policies than others are. My specific concerns about the article are that we use the serial killer infobox, we claim he has four victims and has been convicted of crimes when, I believe, he's plead not guilty and has not yet had a trial. And we have a section on 'Victims' rather than 'Alleged Victims'. I believe it's justifiable bringing these issues up on this noticeboard rather than on the article's talk page because of the seriousness of calling someone a serial killer when they may be not guilty. So, could someone more knowledgeable than me tackle this particular issue? Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it libel (the wordings in the article are fairly careful), but you're right: WP:BLPCRIME does indicate that for living persons accused of but not convicted of a crime, we should seriously consider not creating an article. It may be AfDable per WP:PERP as well. Even if convicted, it's likely that the appropriate place would be an article about the crimes rather than the perpetrator. In short, this article should probably be deleted; if the crimes are notable, the content may be moved to an article about the crimes. If convicted, it may be worth creating a redirect. If acquitted, it's likely that neither an article nor redirect would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also notified the article creator of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I WP:BOLDly removed the infobox, since that almost undeniably needed doing. Neutral to other matters, but even if all other content is appropriate (again, I WP:DGAF what we do to/with the article), the infobox failed (at a minimum) WP:V and (to a degree) WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have added it to my watchlist, mainly to ensure the infobox stays out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please Look into the matter

Speedy deletion won't be enforced here (in fact it should only be enforced for copyright infringements and gross attacks/BLP violations). Furthermore, Ichgab shall refrain from re-nominating this article for any reason of speedy deletion now that these tags have been removed multiple times. There's WP:AFD for further discussions. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I nominated the article Nirmal Kumar Ganguly for speedy deletion on more than one ground which Shirt58 reverted for no valid reason or reasons best known to him.I request the administrators to visit the concerned page and take a just decision. Ichgab (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no necessity to give reasons when removing a speedy deletion tag, which anyone can do except the article creator. If you still stink it should be deleted, WP:PROD it. BMK (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, just, God no. I don't even know what to say to you. THEY AREN'T YOUR TOOLS! You don't get to dictate to other people when they must or must not used the tools the community has entrusted with them. Placing a speedy deletion tag does not obligate an administrator to do your will. Okay, that's out, good. Now. You placed an A1 tag which is for very short context that makes it impossible to identify the subject. There is plenty of context to identify Nirmal Kumar Ganguly: he is an Indian microbiologist and has a range of career positions including "Emeritus Professor of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and was Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi (1998-2007). He is currently President of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research". You listed A1 a second time, that's addressed in my last sentence. Then you listed A7. A7 is a maybe and arguable, but I think being a Emeritus Professor is enough of a claim and being director of a national government medical body is enough of a claim of importance that an AfD is necessary to determine notability and the A7 tag isn't appropriate. Please take this scolding seriously and don't ever insist that admins, or anyone, enact your will by decree.--v/r - TP 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ichgab, you need to stop restoring the CSD tags. Once any editor (other than the creator) has contested the speedy deletion through the removal of the tag you cannot restore it. They have been removed three times now (including by me). You need to stop edit-warring to restore the deletion tags (two of which are incorrect by the way) and take the article to AfD if you believe it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't waste your time on a PROD as it will be removed too. WP:AFD if you must but I think the subject clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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