Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Unfair conduct in a deletion battle

There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given Ubikwit a 3RR-warning based on the page history. Don't interpret that as me supporting the article, though, because it seems a bit "thin", so nominating it for deletion discussion was probably the right thing to do. Reverting any and all attempts to improve the article during the deletion discussion was IMHO not the right thing to do, though. Thomas.W ^talk 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy, will reply to this later. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the four separate reverts over a period of several days pertain to four respectively different blocks of text, all of which were inserted in the article against the various policies cited, and do not represent history.

The material added by the OP was fringe, peripheral, or completely unrelated to the subject of the article, such as the material in the last diff, which relates to Bnei Menashe, a group of recent converts to Judaism in India surrounded by some controversy.

Though I informed him of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, as he doesn't seem to understand the concept of history, not to mention policies such as WP:RS, he continued to insert similarly unrelated, unreliably sourced, and fringe material in a tendentious manner, without discussion on the Talk page, subverting the BRD cycle.

The AfD discussion is here, and I have queried the closing admin in relation to his judgement as to the consensus. He closed the AfD as a "Clear policy-based "keep"".

Meanwhile, the OP also linkspammed the "Jewish diaspora"[1] and Ten lost tribes[2] articles. After that he added fringe material not even supported by this unreliable website or this blog, this ref, or ref. Every single one of those sources in unreliable for just about anything on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the HP blog). They were added to support a promotional statement to which the OP apparently has an emotional attachment.

I have dealt with a number of similar editors on Ten lost tribes related pages over the past couple of years, but few as persistent as the OP.

Some of the material he added was offensive to other religious traditions, namely Hinduism and Buddhism. Some of it still remains in the article in slightly modified but still unacceptable form

Some legendary material links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as legends that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.

, while another statement on Buddha has been removed, and is quoted in this thread at the fringe noticeboard.

Regarding the first statement, User:Ravpapa seems to suggest that maybe Birnbaum was being misrepresented here. And the original text of the OP was modified here by User:Smeat75.

I should note that the source in question is in Hebrew, and since I don't speak Hebrew I've no been able to evaluate it myself with regards to reliability, though I accept Ravpapa's use for noncontroversial facts.

Apparently he is here trying to complain about "unfair" conduct "deletion battle" in order to win a content dispute. His battle mentality is evident. The four reverts over a period of six days certainly do not violate the spirit of WP:EW policy, and I certainly didn't come close to breaching 3RR. Moreover, material offensive to Buddhism was removed, and the material related to Nepalese as descendants of "Abraham's concubines" and the etymology of the word Brahmin should also be removed as offensive to the sensibilities of Nepalese people and followers of Hinduism, and are exceptional claims. So is the claim about the caste system.

In this regard, I cite from WP:RS

Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:12, 11:30 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have now accused User:Thomas.W of possible "stalking" you. [3] is your "stalking warning" to that editor with whom you have had zero other interactions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that I was not aware of his comment at this AN/I thread when I left that warning. Meanwhile, there has been zero interaction between TW and me outside of AN/I, commencing with his first baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me in the thread I filed against you several days ago, as you are well aware. So what is your point? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Accusing me of stalking you is just a load of BS. I commented on the previous ANI-case involving you, correcting a couple of misconceptions you had regarding the process here, and then issued a 3RR-warning to you based on the page history of the article that this ANI-case is about, but apart from that I haven't interacted with you in any way anywhere on WP. So your accusation is totally baseless. Unfortunately baseless accusations against everyone who doesn't agree with you are a frequent part of your uncollegial behaviour here on WP, a behaviour that is totally unacceptable. And, as was pointed out to you in the previous ANI-case, if everyone disagrees with you, the problem most likely doesn't lie with everyone else, but with you. Thomas.W ^talk 11:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: Claiming that the edits you reverted are badly sourced or fringe is no excuse for edit-warring, it's just a content dispute that should be taken to the talk page of the article. The only reverts that don't count against the three-revert rule are reverts of blatant vandalism, as defined by Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Thomas.W: First, I did not accuse you, I warned you to be wary of engaging in such behavior, as at the time I saw your warning I was not aware of your comment here, so again you fail to assume good faith.

Secondly, I was not at 3RR on that page, having made four reverts over a period of 6 days. 3RR warnings are generally issues at 3RR.

Finally, your first interaction with me on WP was to level this baseless accusation of WP:OWN. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You had two reverts within 24h and one just outside 24h, and showed no sign of intending to stop. Also note that the AfD-discussion has just been closed as keep, with this comment by the closing admin: The result was keep. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep". A comment that criticises your behaviour/reverts on the article. Thomas.W ^talk 12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are persistent, aren't you? With green text no less.

If you were a little more thorough in your investigating, you would have noted my comment above related to the close, and found this.

The closer has yet to respond to the query, which is standard procedure when the judgment of the closer of an AfD is called into question for possible review. Obviously I disagree with that close, as well as the accusation of disruption. The OP of this thread was tendentiously adding fringe and unrelated material to the article in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD. The close will be subject to review.

The assertion that I "showed no sign of intending to stop" is another baseless accusation by you. See WP:NOTBATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be very fond of wikilawyering, but you're not very good at it; in several cases obviously not even having read the policies you refer to. Because the only one here showing battlegrund mentality is you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reference: User_talk:Ravpapa#Birnbaum_source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • • Note to admins Tomwsulcer has now removed the contentious material from the article [4], which is an appropriate and welcome act, and I thank him for doing so. There hadn't been any real complaint about my conduct other than a weak EW claim, so I request that this be closed. Should Thomas.W persist in his demeanor toward me, I'll request a one-way IBAN be placed on him. I have never interacted with the guy on WP outside of this venue, when he leveled the above-diffed baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously requesting an interaction ban against me for comments about your behaviour, made in two threads on ANI? Get real, dude. Thomas.W ^talk 12:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefaced that with "Should he persist", dude. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since our only interactions ever have been here on ANI, and a 3RR-warning because of a discussion here on ANI, I interpret that as you intending to request an interaction ban against me if I continue making comments about your behaviour here on ANI, in a case filed against you because of your behaviour. That's not what interaction bans are for, dude, you're fair game here as long as the comments are civil,as mine always are. Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Dude", you made a baseless accusation related to an activity that presumes an intimate familiarity with my editing: WP:OWN. Your second interaction with me was also in relation to a filing here at ANI, which I gather you are an avid monitor of. Although you are permitted to monitor my edits, comment on talk pages of articles I edit, etc., you are not permitted to make baseless accusations out of the blue without evidence. The next time you do that I will file a report about you here, and request the one-way IBAN. I find nothing civil about your tone. You are "fair game", too. And please don't call me "dude" again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to file whatever complaint you want, but don't forget to read the page you quoted without having read it before you do. Thomas.W ^talk 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: Without attempting to excuse any improprieties that may or may not have occurred in this episode, I think it is important to understand the surrealistic editing environment in which it took place. The article History of the Jews in Nepal began its life as a coat-hanger to tell the story of a Passover Seder in Katmandu, attended by 1500 Israeli backpackers, sponsored by Chabad, an orthodox Jewish religious organization. In the course of the deletion debate, various items were added and deleted to give the article the appearance of a real article. Among the things added:

• There is no Jewish community in Nepal, and never was one.
• About 20,000 Israeli tourists visit Nepal every year.
• There is a legend about the ten lost tribes of Israel settling in various parts of India, but not in Nepal.
• An Israeli mountain-climber once gave up his dream of scaling Mount Everest in order to rescue another climber.

In the debate, the opponents of deletion - all of whom spend a not inconsiderable portion of their time editing articles related to the Chabad movement - argued passionately that this big Passover celebration in itself constituted an historical Jewish presence in this Jewless land. They took umbrage at some of the more pointed criticisms of the article, claiming they were "anti-Jewish" and "a mockery of Jews, Jewish Passover rituals, the Chabad people". The atmosphere was intense.

It is clear to anyone whose sight is not clouded by ideology that this ten tribes legend, irrelevant to Nepal, has no place in the article. But then, it is also clear that this article has no place in Wikipedia.

As I said at the outset, I don't attempt to excuse improprieties like edit warring, but I think that admins should take into account the surreal situation in deciding on any sanctions. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there will be any sanctions. The edit-warring and disruption of the AfD-procedure stopped, the AfD has been closed and Ubikwit's tactics, with repeated baseless accusations and attempts to stifle discussion by threatening to file complaints at ANI or whatever against anyone who disagrees with him/her, have been seen by more admins/editors than before. So all is well, and this discussion can, IMHO, be closed and archived too. Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• History of the Jews in Nepal is a triumph of flag waving over common sense. From the article: there has never been a Jewish community in Nepal; the Jewish diaspora has spread to many places, but not Nepal; Nepal and Israel have diplomatic relations; an Israeli tourist rescued a boy; an Israeli climber did not climb Mount Everest; an Israeli embassy has started the tradition of holding a Passover Seder for Israeli travelers. That's it! Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem is with the article title using the word history, not the content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be many articles titled "History of the Jews in..." In this case, it seems more like "anecdotes" than "history". Like if someone wrote an article called "History of the Maori in the Aleutian Islands". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Just when you thought things were "quieting down" along comes Ubikwit with #User:IZAK NPA, CIVIL, AGF, BATTLE, see below. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the things people invent!! That article is pure crap manufactured out of WP:SYNTH. All the section covered in notes 5-10 synthesizes original research by googling 'spikenard+Nepal' and 'spikenard+geniza'. That section is nonsense, like writing History of the Egyptians (or of the Sumerians) in Afganistan because lapis lazuli went out from Badakhshan, which however at that time was not Afghanistan, and found its way to Sumer and Egypt. Jeesus, or Yahweh! stone the fucken crows - the stuff that gets stuffed into a project that is supposed to be encyclopedic. I'm not going to read the squabble lit here: but Ubikwit is spot-on in saying some editors there have no understanding of history. And in lieu of that, you get policy waving over p's and q's. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani old chap when the best you can do in a serious discussion is use filth like "pure crap" and "fucken crows" you should wash out your proverbial potty-mouth first before expecting any civilized response. There is also no need to invoke "Jeesus, or Yahweh!" because no doubt there are many users who would regard that as very offensive or worse. You denigrate yourself by that kind of "response", have some self-respect will you. By the way, did you read the entire article and not just a section that troubles your "sensitive" WP:IDONTLIKEIT taste buds?! Is there anything you like in Category:Jewish history by country, maybe from that we can understand what you are really trying to say? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a serious discussion. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to chat in a social forum about the niceties of etiquette. I looked at the article. Whoever edited that section knew nothing of zilch about wikipedia's editing criteria, history, Nepal, anything relevant. It viollates every known norm of article construction. This is obvious at a glance to anyone with a tertiary education: it glares at anyone who is trained in ancient history and languages. All I see here at least is WP:AGF finessing. I didn't come here to twiddle my thumbs and listen to adolescent old ladyish chat about the decline in manners, or hear out precocious fogies plying the worrybeads over potentially frayed sensibilities - these remonstrations about the social niceties are all very well, but this is an encyclopedia, it needs people who understand the subject matter, not people who anguish over imagined or petty offences. Again, it is inane to speak about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please note that I gave specific details as to why that jejune pastiche is rubbish in wikipedian and encyclopedic terms. What is your response? I must be animated by feelings of personal distaste. No. I did I degree in this stuff, and part of it consisted in reading Cosmas Indicopleustes's topography, young man. It's not distaste for anything but juvenile nonsense parading as learning. In the real world, i.e., a university seminar, you used to get booted for dropping dopey clangers like that into a term paper. Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, nice "peroration" but it's no excuse for using filthy language (presumably you learned that in "tertiary education"), oh and you forgot to insult "Allah and Buddha" while you were at it, or do you reserve your dislike only for "Jesus and Yahweh"? Anyhow, WP articles do not start out at the heights of academia to be acceptable, they must be written in good English, meet WP:V & WP:RS, preferably have WP:NOTABLE information and abide by WP:NPOV -- all of these criteria are fully met in this case and an AfD confirmed that. By your standards the four and a half million articles on WP would be reduced by about 90% or less if you owned the WP Foundation. Good thing you don't. Bottom line, WP:NOTPAPER and it welcomes all articles as long as they can be verified and are based on reliable sources. Even as a term paper this article would be a very good and get an A. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia becomes overrun with users who believe that what I am replying to is a useful argument, the encyclopedia is in trouble. The comment has nothing on the article content, just generic attacks on the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:RANDY. Chabad loves to insert itself and its version of Judaism into places where it doesn't otherwise exist...it's just as annoying (and frequently offensive) in real life as it is on Wikipedia. 72.17.156.179 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC"

Hi, a bit puzzled. User:Spartay has lots of rapid contributions today which, according to the edit summary, are using AWB. The account was registered today and does not appear on the AWB/Check page - so how is it using AWB? In addition, the edits are bulk removing links to archive.is based on the RFC but as far as I can tell the latest RFC is still far from concluding. I've posted a question to the editor's talk page, but noting it here too because of the supposed AWB usage which is troubling if true. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account as a temporary measure until the issue of the apparent unapproved use of AWB is sorted out. Let's see what they say on their talkpage first. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The user is saying that they are only removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead, which would of course be a useful edit; I am waiting to see what they say on the issue of AWB though. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Except they're not just removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead. They're removing the whole citation, publisher, title, date, etc etc, leaving the original url bare. And certainly in this diff, the links are dead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK. In the one I looked at it was simply removing the archiveurl= section, and the link was indeed live. Regardless of the efficacy of the edits, a brand new account should still not be using AWB, and I am interested to find out why they are. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Probably a Joe Job trying to get me into trouble, or get more people to support keeping the links in the RfC, because I was removing archive.is links. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• See also #Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others Werieth (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Granhil has also done a huge number of similar edits, also stating they used AWB and that an RFC is the reason to remove archived URL's. Wes Mouse 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just blocked Granhil (talk · contribs) who has been carrying on the deletions since just a few minutes after Spartay was blocked.  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question Unless I'm being particularly stupid, how were Spartay and Granhil using AWB when they've never been authorized? I thought it didn't work if the user name wasn't on the check page? Obviously if it's available to anyone ... well ... I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either user has used AWB to be honest. It is quite easy to write in the edit summary and make it appear as if they have used AWB. One only need to type AWB and nobody would be any the wiser. On another note, I have made a start on reverting all of Granhil's edits (if that's OK with everyone?) Wes Mouse 14:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've finished reverting their edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Magioladitis and I have finished Spartay's. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to make AWB run without authorization, but I'd rather not go into details. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}: I asked Werieth to stop removing links because every one of his edits had the perverse result of canvassing opponents to the RFC. To the best of my knowledge, he has complied with my request and seems to understand the reasoning behind it. It would appear that someone may be consciously attempting to use the same technique to manipulate the RFC. Comparing User:Spartay and User:Granhil to the participants in WP:Archive.is RFC 2 and WP:Archive.is RFC 3 would be in order. The use of AWB makes it pretty clear that this isn't an innocent new account.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: correct, see above where I stated that his may have been a joe job directed towards me, or an attempt to influence the RfC. After you heads up I have stopped because of the points your raised, and will wait for the RfC to close before continuing. Werieth (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've just blocked Jameskine (talk · contribs) who had just started doing the same. This is obvious vandalism.  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it weird that every article that is being touched is in alphabetical order. Seeing as Granhil had got as far as the J's, then could it be possible that there are multiple account that have been causing al these edits starting from the A's onwards? Wes Mouse 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Hamerzi (talk · contribs) who started doing the same without edit summaries.  —SMALLJIM  14:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• CU can't do much here. I found a related account out of luck MyOperaCom (talk · contribs) who appears a first glance (I didn't verify this) to be using 32 individual proxies. I'll be putting the information to the other functionaries, but this one will need an edit filter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

AWB's code may have been modified and recompiled. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: English Wikipedia policy demands that you request approval to use AWB (by submitting a successful RfA or asking to have your name added to a page). Does AWB check if you have been approved when you try to edit pages using it?

The source code to AWB appears to be available. Would it be trivial to disable the functions which check if you are allowed to use AWB, or is this place in the source code difficult to discover?

I have never used AWB myself, and maybe the answers are trivial to other people. I realise that it would be easy to make a script using other tools (e.g. Pywikipedia) which uses AWB-style edit summaries, and you could add "using AWB" to the edit summary manually at the edit window. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Three more: Rabinquad (talk · contribs), Deankki (talk · contribs), Szikarim (talk · contribs). Should I report them here, or at AIV, or what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Even more: ‎Wibawal (talk · contribs) and ‎McFrancfurter (talk · contribs)‎. Probably more around. This is getting kinda out of control... 2Flows (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• All blocked. Can someone mass rollback their edits, please? I can't on this device. Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And while we're at it: ‎Hablamekt (talk · contribs) joined as well. Can an admin maybe get at [5] and block all new accounts who start making such changes? They're obviously socks and should be quite easy to spot. 2Flows (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Berriozobal (talk · contribs), KanakKanak (talk · contribs), Gandyngan (talk · contribs), Prebyslaff (talk · contribs), Janewiche (talk · contribs), SashaKahn (talk · contribs)... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• All blocked. We need an edit filter. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I put in a sockpuppet investigation case before I saw this here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Aaaand ... Maaaring (talk · contribs). Nothing more yet. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also * Akosanay (talk · contribs) and ‎Inilabas (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Aboliri (talk · contribs) too. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ‎ErgoPoint (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up all the edits made by the listed above socks. But an edit filter would be a very good idea. 2Flows (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Nowong (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In the user creation log, they appear to all be 'created automatically'. How is that different than just 'created'? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lala Wigan (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And they're undoing the Cluebot reverts. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, an account is created automatically if a user has an account on another wiki and logs in with it here. From [6]: "The unified login system combines the user accounts for all of these projects. The greatest advantages are single sign-up (you don't have to create your account again on each new project you get involved with; your account is automatically created at each additional Wikimedia project the first time you log on to that wiki with your existing username and password, or the first time you visit it while logged on to a wiki where you already have an account)" 2Flows (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked ten of the blocked socks, and found that one was created on the Japanese WP, three on the Ukrainian WP, five on the Chechen WP and one on Login-wiki, a technical site within the Wikimedia foundation... Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

KumarSatia (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Qrococcor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Saimankehru. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Urophora --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Filter 620 created. Protected from viewing for obvious reasons, but I invite other filter editors to review my work.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Urophora and KumarSatia blocked, reverted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this situation, but Special:Contributions/Yestersafe seems to be connected: new SPA account, apparently automated removal of archive links, alphabetical list of articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be different as they are removing any citation linked to findarticles.com, a since-defunct service, and while the approach is the same, it's not the archive.is issue. Perhaps riding the coattails? --MASEM (t) 05:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:: I can't begin to imagine this isn't related. Another detail: 12 edits, then the account was discarded. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now with more examples showing, I'd agree that this is much more likely to be related. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not really familiar with the details of this situation, but I have the impression that this new single-purpose account may also have to be looked at: Special:Contributions/Obar_Kaib. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GoFormer has, um, interesting commentary. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More:

• Online Reputation Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseraviq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mrs Ghundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wilok Colo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sharly Fiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Box Office Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leew Donn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivificant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

These accounts are coming fast and furious. Two Three more:

• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katheleen Dee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Griffiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The MO is pretty consistent: Account is created, the bot makes 12 edits and then account stops. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this the work of a botnet trying to affect the outcome of the ongoing RfC on archive.is? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

One the the accounts tried to remove "http://findarticles.com" which is really defunct. Should we do something about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• This topic is hard to wade through, but it doesn't look to me like a CU was performed. I've endorsed a CU at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ahollypak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This one seems to not follow the pattern described above. Might be an actual person. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Swenex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose edits have been sealed by the bots, now we have to revert them manually.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• YouBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removed archive.is links from a number of articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All archive.is links deleted by this user have been rollbacked.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

More trouble with Russavia

Banned user Russavia has created a sock, User:Diplomeditor, who is causing a ton of trouble at the newly created article Régie Malagache‎. Diplomeditor's first- and second-ever edits went straight to that brand new article, the second one naming Russavia explicitly. Related posts:

• New sockpuppet investigation that I filed.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Russavia/Regie
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 July 2

Can someone put a lid on this guy, and protect the new article? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like quick work was performed by several admins. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Someone beat me to blocking him, but I went ahead and unprotected and restored the content. Even if the socktroll's claim that the content was CC0 licensed was true, you can't exactly violate the copyright of something that has legally been placed in to the public domain in most of the world. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another sock blocked. It's amazing to me that an active commons admin is both socking on ENWP and doesn't know how a CC0 license works. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: From an initial look, I'm a bit unsure about this page. Could you elaborate on how the text has been properly released under CC-0? Is there an OTRS ticket involved? Mike V • Talk 06:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No OTRS ticket, but if the troll is in fact Russavia (and it does seem to fit his recent MO,) then no OTRS ticket is really needed. However, without technical evidence proving that the person making the statement was actually Russavia it would not be a bad idea to be cautious and histmerge the original history in to the currently live article, which I'll do myself in the morning assuming no objections - hate doing histmerges when I'm tired. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if the contributions by Russavia were legitimately released to the public domain (which they were not), Wikipedia policy still requires attribution of the material to the public domain source. The material was originally contributed to Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA license, and contributions under that license are still copyrighted by the author, and merely licensed to Wikipedia under terms that permit reuse with attribution. That is why cut-and-paste page moves such as Binksternet performed are prohibited, and by Binksternet doing so he was violating Russavia's copyright on the material. By his own statement at the MfD, he used part of Russavia's text. For Binksternet to editwar with a person he believed was, by his own statement, the original author of part of the material in an to attempt to remove a copyvio notice is beyond the pale.

Also, Binksternet's creation of this article was an evasion of the block on creation of Régie Malgache, and quite possibly used material from prior versions of that page as well. It's unacceptable for him to evade a block on page creation simply by using a different transliteration of the title.

In my opinion, at least, Binksternet should be sanctioned. Revent^talk 07:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is pretty clear, if the content wasRussavia's than he needs to be attributed in the page history, even if blocked/banned. That being said, Russavia's actions by maliciously adding a copyright notice, socking, etc are more in clear violation of policy. Per WP:AGF I think that Binksternet was simply trying to create the article and had no intention of maliciously denying Russavia attribution, and as Kevin Gorman already said, he'll handle the history merge in a short while, solving the CC-BY-SA complaint. Honestly as long as the Russavia socks are blocked, and once the history merge is complete, this should be resolved. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that it doesn't matter what licence the content was originally released under originally. If the copyright owner has at any stage agreed to release them in to the public domain, or some other licence without an attribution requirement that is CC & GFDL compatible (while we only require CC for content from other places, we require both for content from contributors so this should apply to content even from banned editors), then there cannot be a copyright violation due to us failing to attribute, no matter what the licence of the original release. We do not have to comply with the 'original' (whatever is meant by that) licence, only any licence including if it's no licence i.e. a release of material in to the public domain.

While it's true we require attribution of public domain material for a number of reasons, including to help establish that there's no copyvio and also to avoid misleading indications about who the copyright holder may be and the licence the material is under, this is a policy issue and not a copyvio one. (Well there may also be legal issues in that it is potentially a criminal offence to falsely claim copyright, but that's still not a copyvio issue.) This doesn't mean it isn't important, but it does mean people (including banned ones) shouldn't claim it's a copyright violation since it's not. Such claims are harmful when untrue for a number of reason.

BTW, since there seems to be some doubt over whether the content was really released in to the public domain, I agree with Kevin Gorman that we need a history merge or some thing else to satisfy the attribution requirement. I'm also unclear if Russavia was the only contributor or there are others who may have a legitimate copyright claim to some of the material. In reality, we probably should do a hist-merge even if it's only Russavia and we have clear evidence of a CC0 release to satisfy wikipedia's attribution requirements of all material including public domain material, although there are other options which may satisfy our policy requirements. And let me repeat again whatever we do or don't do in such a situation, there cannot be a copyvio for such material.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. Category:Attribution templates contains {{CC-notice}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Nytend beat me to the histmerge - I would've done so last night, but still have some hesitancy to do them when I'm tired. Since I've interacted with Binksternet often enough I am not going to try to close the section myself since people have brought up his behavior, but will say I see no reason to sanction him. The blocked account inserting the copyvio template never even suggested that an actual copyright violation occurred, and although PD material should be attributed, there's not a 3RR exemption for "editwarring to remove unattributed public domain content" whereas there is one for reverting socks of blocked and banned users. Despite what Revent suggests, I also see nothing wrong with Binksternet creating the article in the first place - Russavia's original draft was written in 2009, wasn't G5able since it predated his block, and Binkster's statement at the MfD that he hadn't seen WP:RUD or hadn't had it actively in mind is reasonable. If we sanctioned every editor who ever copied text from one area of Wikipedia to another without fully satisfying our guidelines and the exact terms of CC-BY-SA, I'm pretty sure we'd sanction most people who have ever done a lot of work in articlespace - violations of WP:RUD and internal copying without attribution are ridiculously common and should be assumed to be good faith in the absence of strong evidence of malice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In case I was not clear, the points that I was pointing out as 'sanctionable' were...

• Evading the block on page creation of Régie Malagache by creating the article under a different transliteration of the title. This was deliberate, Binksternet explicitly acknowledge that the block existed at the MfD when he noted that he had created Régie Malgache, and..
• Removing a copyright violation notice on material that he himself had posted. Regardless of if it was a legitimate copyvio notice, regardless of if he thought it was posted by a sock, whatever. Copyright violation claims REQUIRE investigation by third parties, usually OTRS. This is something where wiggling your way through the details of Wikipedia policy is irrelevant. It is an ethical and legal issue.

That being said, I think it's clear at the point that Binksternet has been adequately admonished in various locations, and he seems contrite about the copyright issue. As this point, I'm willing to step back from requesting that he be sanctioned... it's not as if it would serve the purpose of stopping an ongoing problem. I would like to suggest to Binksternet and the other regular readers of this page, however, that they take a hard look at Wikipedia's content polices, how those are different from guidelines, and ponder exactly why they are here.

We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to delete quality articles that meet the content policies merely because of who wrote them. The purpose of this project is not to be the "Wikipedia Online" social media game, where you score points by 'whacking' things. The 'rules' of the project are the five pillars, everything else is supposed to be an application of those through common sense and consensus. Revent^talk 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I performed the histmerge because it was clearly the best thing to do, regardless of whether we needed attribution for copyright compliance — having a split edit history is never a good thing. I acted on the request for sanction by giving a warning; we wouldn't block anyone for copyright infringement the first time around, unless it was possibly someone doing it on a massive scale, and this kind of thing definitely wouldn't qualify for a block unless the party in question had previously been warned for multiple copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Revent, bullshit copyright violation claims by sockpuppets of banned editors don't need investigation by a third party or OTRS, particularly when they claim an article is violating a CC0 license. If they did, someone could, say, an automated trollfarm to force all prominent ENWP pages to permanent semiprotection by writing a script to replace the contents of a page with a copyvio template with the name of the last user to edit the page.

Nyttend is correct that a histmerge for attribution is clearly the best path regardless of the validity of the CC0 release, but it doesn't make sense for you to simultaneously complain that people aren't here to build an encyclopedia and then try to ask for sanctions of a user who created an article but made a hugely common mistake by copying internal content without adequate attribution. If we sanctioned every person who did so, I can guarantee I could sanction 90% of people with over 5k mainspace edits. You also misunderstand the purpose of the create protection (salt) put on the original title - it wasn't intended to prevent a good faith user from creating a page, and creating a legitimate article at an alternate transliteration of a page that has been salted is not block evasion in the same sense that, er, actual block evasion is. Articles are create protected when they're repeatedly created in a disruptive fashion, and any good faith user indicating that they wanted to create an article at that title could have gotten any admin to lift the salt. Creating an article that has had an alternate title salted is not in any way sanctionable unless the new creation is disruptive in the same way the old was, although it's a good idea to ask for the salt to be lifted and create a redirect so that people can find the article regardless of what title they type in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The 'CC-0' claim is irrelevant. As I noted above, the 'posting' under CC-0 to Google Docs was not provably by Russavia, and thus invalid. Russavia's content was under CC-BY-SA, and unless Russavia changes that, not someone you think is him, then it's still under CC-BY-SA.

As far as your dismissal of it as a 'bullshit' copyright claim, that's just disturbing. Go read WP:ATTREQ, which makes it quite clear that reuse of material within Wikipedia without attribution is a copyright violation. TL;DR, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Given that Russavia is socking heavily, and apparently enjoys trolling certain people, it seems quite likely that the CC-0 thing was a deliberate case of screwing with people. Regardless, it was a copyright violation.

As far as my perceived 'complaint', it mas more a request for certain people to take back and take a second look, and my omission of names was deliberate. I find it somewhat disturbing when people are doing things like nominating a banned user's entire userspace for deletion, regardless of if the pages contain usable content or not. In far more cases than this one, I've seen people taking it upon themselves to be the sole 'enforcers' of bans or blocks. The 'exemption' to 3RR for reverting such things should not be a hunting license....there are other editors perfectly capable of also taking action, and the 'hunter' could easily be wrong. In this case, Binksternet was wrong, maybe not about it being a sock, but about it being a copyvio. It was. The world would not have ended if the copyvio notice sat there until someone else looked at it. Instead, he was hitting revert so fast he reverted my edit to his user page. (He later apologized.)

As far as your 'strawman' about a trollfarm, go read WP:BEANS, though it seems unlikely anyhow.

Regarding the block on page creation, Binksternet could easily have contacted an admin, waited for a resolution to the MfD on the draft, or just edited the draft. Instead, as a result of his expressed desire to prevent Russavia from getting 'credit', he screwed up and created even more drama. Another point for my 'request' for people to take a step back above....this is not supposed to be about scoring points or getting 'credit', it's supposed to be about building an encyclopedia, and people are supposed to act responsibly. In the case of Russavia, I think some people, editors and admins, are taking action when they (at least to me) seem to be far too emotionally involved in the whole history. To be perfectly honest, given the 'whole' history of his involvement with Wikipedia, it's starting to make me feel rather uncomfortable to express my opinions even this vaguely. Revent^talk 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually had WP:BEANS in mind when answering you, and dismissed it, because it wasn't just unlikely - anyone who actually did what I suggested would get blocked (or rangeblocked etc) pretty much instantly by pretty much any admin. I brought up the example not as a serious threat, just as a demonstration of why the claim that all copyright violation accusations, even nonsensical ones made by trolls, must be reviewed by a third party is silly. I called it a bullshit copyright claim, because it was a bullshit copyright claim, regardless of the fact that yes, a histmerge should've been performed. If someone repeatedly blanks that a page (which may legitimately have a minor copyright infringement on it) on the grounds that the whole page was a copyright infringement because it was written by the secretary of state without attribution, whether or not there is in fact a minor copyright infringement on the page - the person involved is still making a bullshit copyright claim. Someone who repeatedly blanks a page claiming it's violating a CC0 copyright is literally making a nonsensical copyright claim - one that could not possibly be true. The fact that the page may have in fact included a minor infringement of WP:RUD doesn't make the fact that the sock was being disruptive and inserting a bullshit copyright infrigement claim any less true.

If we sanctioned everyone who violated WP:RUD or the literal letter of the CC-by-SA license for internal copying problems, we'd have very few contributors left. That would certainly include me being sanctioned for unattributed hack/slash copying in my userspace when trying to rewrite a draft that draws on more than one Wikipedia article, as well as almost every other person we have who has contributed any significant amount of collaborative content to Wikipedia. Honestly the day that we start regularly sanctioning editors for internal copying without entirely proper attribution is probably going to be the day when I'll be tempted to go on a massivewheelwar on the IAR grounds that blocking all of our content contributors isn't in the interests of the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Request topic ban for Andy Dingley

I have had enough of the harassment, and personal attacks. His persistent support of the trolling and harassing sockmaster User:Formal Appointee Number 6 is getting old. Andy persistently throws veiled references/accusations whenever and where ever he can. Andy's most recent edit [7] has pushed me over the edge. At what point does this need to reach before its stopped? Werieth (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What topic are you asking him to be banned from? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

He accuses you of being a sock of the infamous Betacommand, yes? Are you? If not, it would be best to deny it in some prominent place, such as the SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly denied it. Werieth (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And Andy has been warned multiple times to stop the harassment. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Veiled? You are a sock of Betacommand. When detailed behavioural evidence for this is presented, your NFC-hardline admin friends threaten (and indeed do) block and ban those presenting it. This makes it impossible to resolve the issue.

Your recent behaviour in stripping cites from articles has been dickish in the extreme and many editors have challenged you on this.

To be absolutely clear here, my last comment was [Werieth's] refusal to either not remove cites altogether, or to at least stop whilst it's being discussed, is just the sort of behaviour that Betacommand was banned for in the first place. and I stand by every aspect of that. It's now at a point where I don't even care about the socking, your behaviour under the Werieth account alone is following just the same path as Betacommand did, and what caused his block.

Why is WP enforcement for socking so random and partisan anyway? Someone who's not a friend of Kww or FuturePerfect is blocked immediately, but if you share the same viewpoint as some friendly admins on another policy, like NFC, it's a free ticket to sock as much as you like. Even someone like Hengistmate, who has been trolling me for years, can finally shoot himself in his own sock by mis-posting, yet he's ignored at both ANI or SPI. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone please remind me what NFC is? EEng (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No foreign currency.--v/r - TP 19:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny. Besides "National Football Conference", here it's being used to mean "Non-Free Content". Betacommand was an extremely obnoxious warrior on the subject, and it took at least a year or two before a sufficient number of admins and other users got sufficiently fed up and saw to it that he got banned. That episode left a very bitter taste. It's understandable that seemingly similar behavior by a relatively new editor would raise yellow-to-red flags. But I say again, it's the behavior of the current named user, Werieth, which Dingley should focus on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I thought it was funny. EEng (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As always, canvas early, canvas often Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise TLSuda Black_Kite. Future Perfect has (as predicted) jumped to your command and has started blanking content from the SPI [8] [9]

If we cannot discuss your behaviour on the ALLCAPS pages, we cannot address the question of your socking behaviour. Future Perfect has been warned for this in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you yourself just mention me in this thread? It would have been your own duty to notify me; be thanful for Werieth for helping you out in your own failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What I did was notify those administrators who have already warned you about this harassment, and the need for it to stop. Since you failed to take their advice Im taking the next step to end this. The harassment either needs to stop or Im going to leave. I cannot be a constant target of harassment. And yes since the request I have not removed cites. If you look in the related section above I noted a change in methodology to reduce the number of cites that would need removed (which is hopefully just a bare handful) and I havent run into any of those cases since. Werieth (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall TLSuda having been involved in this before. But what the hell, he's hard-line on NFC and I recently dragged him to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Recent_discussions for File:Fredcopeman.jpg, so no doubt you're hoping for another helpful admin from that angle. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you dont remember your own talk page. Please see User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Accusations_of_WP:SOCK Werieth (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed a pattern of harassment here, and it needs to stop. There is a long-term sockpuppeter whose agenda is to harass Werieth through throwaway socks, always raising that allegation of him being Beta. However plausible that suspicion may be, the repeated use of throwaway socks for no other purpose but casting aspersions on a user cannot be tolerated. Andy Dingley has for a long time assumed a pattern of enabling and supporting that harasser, by re-posting his rants after they are removed, defending him with spurious claims of "lack of evidence" on SPI reports (all the socks are so easy to spot on behavioural grounds that they are always quickly duck-blocked), and by echoing and multiplying the complaints against Werieth whenever the sockmaster offers him an opportunity. This, too, is harassment, and I am quite willing to block Andy over it if it continues. As for the suspicions against Werieth, people repeatedly had the chance to submit legitimate evidence to the Betacommand SPI; they were repeatedly closed as inconclusive. At some point, when you can't prove your case, you simply have to shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Topic ban from what? Do you mean an interaction ban? the panda ₯’ 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Im not sure that a interaction ban would be sufficient, as Andy can and does make references/accusations to others about me. A complete ban on the topic would cover that. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  An interaction ban does include talking about the other party to others, so that would be covered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  However there are times and discussions (On different notice boards and what not) where we run across each other and nothing happens. In those cases where Andy doesnt take shots at me, there is constructive results. I also dont want to have an issues where we accidentally cross paths on a noticeboard or article and dont notice that the other has done so recently too. Because this problem is isolated to a topic I went that route, as the least disruptive method. Werieth (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is why we tolerate Andy's reposting and enabling of this material. I don't see why the block would only happen if the behaviour continues. Andy has been around long enough to know better. If it weren't for some long-running content disputes between Andy and I, I would have indefed him long ago. This seems like as good of a time as any for someone to pull the trigger.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• SPI and harassment issues aside, I am curious about why Werieth feels the need to canvass completely uninvolved admins on this issue.[10][11][12] Inappropriate. —Dark 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  @DarkFalls: They are not uninvolved admins. All three of them have warned Andy about the same behavior before and told him it needs to stop. Werieth (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Since when was it common practice to notify admins who have warned the editor in the past? ANI only requires you to notify the reported party. Also, just because they have warned the editor in the past does not make them involved. And naturally since they have warned him previously, they would be more inclined to ask for sanctions. Hardly a non-partisan audience, and a blatant violation of canvassing guidelines. —Dark 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  @DarkFalls: I just consider it common curtsey. I could have gone to any of them and requested that a block be placed (Something I dont feel the need for when a TBAN or IBAN would be a better solution) and it would have happened. However I tried to take the less drastic road and maintain a collegial editing environment by coming here and requesting a TBAN. Given that the user in question is persisting in behavior prohibited by three different admins notifying them of the breach and my intended route to resolution would be considered common curtsey. I did not want to create the perception that I was trying to go around them, or "over their heads" as the term is. This is similar to notifying arbcom in cases where arbcom prohibits an activity. I guess its just a perspective issue. Had I wanted to canvass I would have picked better targets, and I wouldn't have worded the notice as neutrally as I could. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  A similar case can be made for when an admin discusses a block with the blocking admin prior to unblocking. Its not required, but more often than not the simple curtsey results in a better understanding of the situation and a better conclusion to the problem. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think its necessary common for this practice, but some of us have been mentioned in this discussion anyways, so I don't see the problem with it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I now see Andy Dingley had a very explicit warning about administrative sanctions in this matter from TLSuda less than a month ago [13], and his present behaviour is quite clearly in contravention of that warning, I have gone ahead and blocked him for a week. I'd very much recommend we place a formal interaction ban on him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. This has gone on for years, and has gotten way out of control for such an experienced user. Andy is very skilled and has many things to contribute here, but I feel he has let these petty disputes get in the way of his positive work. I would support an interaction ban for Andy in this situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this whole situation is going to end well.--v/r - TP 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be easy to either point to (if it exists) or create (if not existing) an SPI that collects the evidence of Andy's accusations? Then, that collection could be adjudicated as being acceptable or not acceptable. This wouldn't be the first hard SPI report every done, or reviewed and ultimately decided (I'm thinking of the recent one by DrMies, et.al., regarding a particular long-term prolific banned editor). Repeated (and strident) accusations of socking without evidence is a form of PA, or so I thought. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: such an SPI has already been filed, and closed. Andy isnt happy with the results thus this persistent harassment. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For the benefit of others, here's the link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacommand/Archive#09_December_2013. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not involved in the Betacommand case nor have I interacted significantly with Werieth, but I can see that the SPI case accusing Werieth of being banned editor Betacommand has never been proven one way or the other, the trail being too cold for checkuser. Instead, the case was closed as inconclusive—twice. In March 2013, the editor LessHeard vanU came briefly out of retirement to say Werieth was Betacommand, and this report got the first inconclusive closure. Andy's report in December 2013 got the same treatment. Both LessHeard vanU and Andy Dingley continue to believe that they are correct, that a banned editor has returned, which explains the anger shown by Andy. I think the two SPI cases were poorly submitted rather than incorrect. LHvU and AD should have included more diffs and other forms of proof. If they had, we would not be at this juncture now. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked for more when this first came up, and I'm satisfied that they did about as good a job of digging up evidence as could have been done. I can understand the good-faith belief that Werieth is Betacommand, because I'm on the fence myself. The evidence is interesting without quite being compelling. What I have real problems with is the continuous allegations that I'm engaged in a conspiracy to enable Betacommand to evade blocks.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And I am in exactly the same position. If one looks at the behavioural evidence presented in the ChildofMidnight SPI above, that was enough to effectively prove a connection even when/if the CU came back negative. If the level of evidence in the Beta/Werieth SPI came up to that standard, like Kww I would block Werieth myself. But it simply isn't, and when Andy repeatedly enables a banned editor to repeat the claims after being told multiple times to stop it or face a block, I don't really see what other outcome there can be. However, after Andy's block expires, a TBAN/IBAN would be the way forward here, I suspect. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was pinged because I previously warned Andy about this behaviour. This will end happily for everyone when Andy Dingley either (a) stops enabling a disruptive (and almost certainly banned/indefblocked) editor whose only raison d'etre is to harrass Werieth, or (b) comes up with some conclusive evidence (we're not even in DUCK territory yet). If he doesn't, he needs to be prevented from doing so; an interaction ban would seem easiest. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's possible the OP is victim to the unfortunate coincidence of having been created a few weeks after Betacommnd's final edit in the spring of 2012, and from possibly focusing on some of the same issues that got Betacommand banned - hence the yellow flags. Were any socks of Betacommand discovered, and if so, during what time interval(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @Baseball Bugs:

• 5 February 2012 Betacommand's last edit to en.Wikipedia [14]
• 6 February 2012 Werieth commences editing Simple Wikipedia [15]
• 15 February 2012 Betacommand blocked [16]
• 12 March 2012 Werieth commences editing Commons [17]
• 4 June 2012 Werieth commences editing en.Wikipedia [18]

Also, notice how Werieth habitually skips the apostrophe in I'm and I'll. Now search this page and this page and see who uses those spellings. This is Betacommand.

As for socks of Betacommand, there may be other lists, but I just found Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Betacommand.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[19][20]

If you have new evidence regarding the Betacommand suspicion that has not yet been submitted and deemed to be inconclusive at SPI, then by all means feel free to file a reopened case there. Failing that, re-hashing the same suspicions over and over again is disruptive, so don't do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the earlier investigations. This is such a big fat loudly stomping around saying "I'm a sock" duck, that I don't need to. What I can't figure out is why you and User:Kww are protecting him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I saw recently, simply claiming "this is a sock" without solid evidence can get you sanctioned (and that was on an account that's a really obvious DUCK). Black Kite kite (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth is Betacommand. I'm saying nothing about whether anything should be done about that. His 12-month ban has long-since expired. If he's not being disruptive or breaking the rules, meh. Still, (a) I'd like to know why the socking is being ignored and (b) I think blocking productive users who point it out is harmful to the project. To be clear: Werieth is Betacommand. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if Betacommand's ban is now expired, he's still indef-blocked, and creating new accounts is against the rules. Werieth could demonstrate some good faith by e-mailing his personal information to a trusted checkuser, who might then be able to confirm or refute the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • @Baseball Bugs: I honestly havent done that much research but beta looks to be a free content hardliner, and pushed for almost complete removal of non-free media. On the other hand I have a fairly moderate position and have uploaded about 350 non-free files already and am far from being done. I honestly have better things to do then play politics and investigate bogus claims that I am not myself. If people want to continue supporting Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs) and their style of behavior Ill be more than willing to avoid the toxic environment of this wiki and move to somewhere more inviting. But I do see where the claims from the media, and the loss of editors is coming from. Few people are willing to endure this crap. Ive been thinking for a while if its really worth it to continue to contribute to a project that fails to address toxic behavior? I guess Ill find out with how this discussion ends. Werieth (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• My two cents, it appears obvious looking at Werieth's first edits he was/is not a "new editor". No idea if he is Betacommand or someone else (even if the timing between the two accounts and a lot of behavioral affinities would strongly suggest it). --Cavarrone 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• To come back to the point: unless Andy (or any other editor) has enough evidence to open a second SPI case to put Werieth as Beta, we expect editors to AFG with the motivation of others. Since Andy has repeatedly not shown this, an interaction ban on him towards Werieth (at least, to prevent calling out Werieth as a sock, broadly construed), barring a formal SPI filing, should be placed. Andy should be free to question Werieth's actions as Werieth the editor, but to attempt to connect Werieth to Beta in this manner should not be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's just no changing Delta... I slay myself. Well, Werieth is quite an editor, with 54,600 edits to WP since this bright-eyed newcomer arrived at WP on June 4, 2012. Im amazed that we managed to find such an energetic new face to take up the slack for the banned Delta/Betacommand. What are the odds? Carrite (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you have new evidence to file against Werieth as a SPI, please feel free to do so. Until then, AGF must be taken by all editors, not just Andy. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AGF refers to the necessity of assuming sound motivations of a person behind a bold edit, not a requirement that Wikipedians pretend that a buck naked emperor is fashionably dressed. The fact is that SPI does not have the ability to make concrete connections between every editor of yesteryear and every editor of today, even in the event that those are one and the same. All we can do is listen for the sounds of quacking and draw logical inferences about the probable existence of waterfowl... Carrite (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think we are all wasting our time here. Why do we bother if Werieth is Betacommand or not? Betacommand was (I guess) quite the problem, but so far Werieth isn't and there has been no conclusive evidence that he is Betacommand. Actually, I don't care too much if he is or not Betacommand as long as his contributions are of benefit for Wikipedia. I really dislike these useless time-consuming unfounded witch hunts against editors just because "they might possibly be X, who is/was banned." → Call me Hahc21 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with the topic myself. However, this particular useless time-consuming unfounded witch hunt wasn't started by Andy Dingley... Carrite (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm kind of surprised that there have been two SPIs and yet no one has ever noticed that there is a strong overlapping interest between the Betacommand, Δ and Werieth accounts in the Learning management system and List of learning management systems articles. List of learning management systems and Learning management system are Werieth's 4th and 7th most edited articles [21], while Learning management system is Betacommand's top edited article [22] and List of learning management systems and Learning management system are Δ's top and 10th most edited articles [23]. That's a little hard to credit as coincidence given the other commonalities. --92.4.162.106 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Finally, a new piece of data to consider. I'm giving this one serious consideration.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ahem. #Above, I pointed out that Werieth started editing the day after delta/beta stopped. I also pointed out that both Betacommand and Werieth habitually skip the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll" - this is a very idiosyncratic writing style, not typo's. I see that neither of these were pointed out at the SPIs. This is all new data to consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If I were studying the matter, I would also look at things like evidence of previous experience at time of first edits, similarities or lack thereof in the use of automation or semi-automation, parallels in subject interest, average editing pace per day, estimated sleep cycle of the two editors to establish geographic coincidence, American v. English spelling and punctuation, and ideological content of the editing (Free Files enforcement v. Fair Use). But that's just me. Anyway, it's really good to have someone like Werieth to come along and pick up the slack like he did at that precise moment... Carrite (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reports at the SPIs note volume, content (non-free images), attitude, sleep cycle, ideology and tool use parallels. The dialect and spelling match. Level of eloquence, ditto. I agree, we got lucky there. What are the chances? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well, it's pretty obvious this Werieth is using some kind of semi-automation for non-free-content removal, for example a rapid-fire string of removals on the 2nd. That, of course is the kind of thing that Betacommand got into trouble for, because he was told repeatedly to stop, and wouldn't stop. Werieth's first edit on Wikipedia was on June 4, 2012. He edited sporadically for a while. His eighth edit, four months later, was about the issue of non-free content in lists,[24] which is not something a newbie would likely know much about. Another of his shared interests with Betacommand were/are the whitelist and blacklist, which presumably relates to the contentious subject matter Werieth has been removing. Archiving those pages had been one of Betacommand's regular activities, and Werieth picked up on the same activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth has contributed over 50,000 edits over the last two years, in the course of which he has essentially behaved well and made many useful contributions. Why should it matter a rat's arse whether or not he was previously banned? Unless the guy starts misbehaving significantly, leave him alone. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How many of those 50,000 were accomplished via the Betacommand-like rapid-fire automation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to this notion, and if he's behaved well then ArbCom should consider just allowing him to continue.

My problem is with the admins and possibly CU clerks who cannot but have known that he was socking to come back to en.WP 6 months early and that he had evaded discussing terms with ArbCom, which was required before he returned to editing. They're blatantly subverting ArbCom. What hubris. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This would probably take some effort, but it could be interesting to investigate which admins were enabling and arguing for Betacommand, two to three years ago, and see if it's the same ones who are enabling and arguing for this Werieth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Epi is endorsing a gross violation of the rules. Socking while indef'd is a bright-line offense which cannot be justified by allegedly "useful contributions". And defying requests to stop doing something controversial, and working to try to get a critic banned, is "significant misbehavior". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose it comes down to whether you want to support building an encyclopedia, or whether you want to pickle yourself in self-rightousness. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create the no-socking rule. If you've got a complaint about that rule, start a discussion about it somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a new SPI about Werieth opened? We have two users with a very suspect timeline, who share a bizarre interest for learning management systems, with a common interest on non-free file enforcement, with a common interest for blacklists/whitelists, who both habitually skip the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll", with same (bad) interaction attitude with other editors, similarities or lack thereof in the use of automation or semi-automation,average editing pace per day. Frankly I consider the new evidences above by Baseball Bugs, Carrite, Anthonyhcole and the IP, blatantly enough for WP:DUCK. --Cavarrone 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• And this sudden retirement announcement, apparently an attempt made to avoid scrutiny, makes me even more certain about the sockpuppertry. --Cavarrone 12:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ive been debating it for several weeks. See my first public post, I just cannot support a project that continues to attack, BITE and drive editors away. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly I consider that argument totally unimpressive. You ARE a free content hardliner, and looking at your profile you were also blocked for edit warring about the removal of several non-free files. I see enough evidences you are Betacommand. If there was not the common interest for the learning management systems, maybe, I would still had a very thin doubt... --Cavarrone 13:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I guess my uploading and using ~350 non-free files means Im a hardliner? I would hate to see what it takes for you to call someone a moderate. The learning management systems is just one of several articles that have ended up on my watchlist as persistant targets of spam/vandalism. See List of non-governmental organizations in Pakistan and Comparison of survey software for two other easy examples. But like I said Im done here, there is no amount of logic that will prove my innocents, and wikipedia has no interest in stopping the harassment of its users so Im gone. This will be my last post. Goodbye. Werieth (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Lol, the famous 350 files! I don't expect a Betacommand's sock would act in the same exact manner which lead him to a long block and these images appear just to be an excuse to say "Hey, I am not an hardliner like Betacommand". I am currently too lazy to look for the times your hardline approach towards non-free files was discussed here at ANI, AN/3 and in your talk page, but it happened a couple of hundreds of times. At any rate I don't expect a sock says "I'm a sock". --Cavarrone 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Would an admin please block this obvious sock? Is there an admin out there that actually does his or her job? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Enough is enough. --Cavarrone 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Followup discussion about archive.is links

This sub-thread factored out from the above for clarity. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you look the most recent edits I was doing while removing archive.is I was recovering the original url's and hadnt been removing references. But yet again more attacks from you. Werieth (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"the most recent edits " means little. You're good at stopping for a moment, only to resume immediately afterwards.

Can you say (I know you can but is it true?) that you have not removed entire cites, since you were requested by multiple editors to stop doing so during the discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP's talk page has a number of other users telling him to stop what he's doing with citations, so it's not just Dingley complaining. To me, the sockpuppetry question is a distraction. If the OP is going against consensus, he should be stopped, regardless of whether or not he's a sock of the infamous and banned NFC warrior called Betacommand. Dingley should focus on the OP's allegedly bad behavior under his own ID, and forget about Betacommand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Just because people complain isnt a valid reason to not do something. If that where the case admins wouldn't be able to delete or do anything. Just about every action that an admin takes makes someone upset. As an admin does more work the number of those who show up on their talk page to complain also goes up. It doesn't make the arguments for keeping articles on the user's pet rock any more valid. Find any admin who is fairly active and you will find a number of sections on their talk page or its history of people complaining. More often than not all that is needed is re-educating the user, not sanctioning the admin. Werieth (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins naturally attract trouble. It's part of their job. I didn't know you were an admin. Your user page doesn't have the "admin" logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Im not an admin, however I do tend to do the cleanup/policy enforcement work. Due to the similar nature of what admins do I thought it would be a good analogy to present, that would be widely understood. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you're not an admin. If multiple editors tell you to stop doing something, regardless of alleged "consensus", you should stop doing it pending further discussion. Continuing to take a controversial path leads to ANI - and with someone like Betacommand, ultimately to being banned. You don't want to follow in Betacommand's self-defeating path, do you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth's removal of archive.is links is an action agreed to by the community through two (now three?) RFCs about the issue. Yes, there are editors upset with this, but the RFCs clearly have shown no acceptance for these links anymore. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If consensus were so clear, I don't think you would have multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There will always be people on the wrong side of an RfC/policy decision that disagree with it. Often those users continue to disagree/complaint long after the fact. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors? Usually not. If a given RFC was closed in a way that seems fishy to the "losing side", it will continue to be debated and challenged. That's usually a sign of a poor closure and a lack of real consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The first RFC on the matter that included the removal of the archive.is was closed neutrally by User:Hobit (whom I would consider a very good judge of consensus/middle ground from past discussions despite numerous disagreements on other topics). Those that are complaining about that either weren't aware of this issue, or as Werieth says, didn't get their way are may be engaging in forum shopping to get that change reversed) --MASEM (t) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing some, there's only been one RFC closed in support of removing archive.is links Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. There was a second RFC which was closed as malformed Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2. Obviously you can't read anything in to that other than that people have to follow proper RFC procedures when opening one (such as phrasing it neutrally and not canvasing). The third RFC is ongoing Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. As a participant, I don't think I should comment on the likely outcome but I think it's clear it's not WP:SNOW. It's also worth remembering that whatever the community agreed to, I'm pretty sure we never agreed to the removal of legitimate citations in their entirety, when they didn't actually need a URL and the original still working URL could be recovered from the archive.is link which happened in at least one case. (In another case, the original URL was dead but the info that was removed about the citation was enough to find another copy.) I think Wereith has promised to be more careful, perhaps even ensure such cases never happen again (I haven't been following that well) but the fact it took so long to get there (if it's been agreed now, it was only after me and others saying many times that should never happen and getting ambigious responses in reply) is the main reason the whole thing is so distressing to me. Sure the archive.is links need to go and many of them can already go. But is our only choice for removal someone who's going to turn strong supporters of removal (like me) against their actions? And how much time have we already wasted on these silly discussions when we could be removing archive.is links properly? Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Threads refactored. The below was in response to the post of Werieth from 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC):

• • • • You have to decide what your priorities are. I've been hassled off and on by a particularly useless troll for the last five years, at least. I've stopped contributing pictures and mostly stopped contributing to articles. But I still think Wikipedia is worth defending. Wikipedia is a victim of its own success, and it won't change its rules to allow better prosecution of trolls who make Wikipedia look stupid. Your best bet is to find something relatively non-controversial to work on and let the warriors fight the battles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Doing the manual work that was mandated by a properly closed RFC to remove links to a highly questionable site seems like non-controversial work (granted, the issue of removing complete citations is a fair point but Werieth stopped to fix that), and we're here now. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
          • One might think so, sure. But as soon as something becomes controversial, that's a good time to leave it alone and go do something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
            • How can someone doing the actions of a properly closed RFC be controversial, from the larger standpoint of WP? That would mean no work would ever get done on WP as long as someone raised a voice to complain. If there was no RFC, or the actions were not those described by the closer of the RFC, you'd have your argument, but we're talking something that is supposed to be the result of a consensus and yes, there will be people unaware of that result and will go "Well, wait...", that happens, but there's also people that did not like that result and want to challenge it further, but that's not how RFCs work, where you keep tossing things at a wall to get them to stick. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
              • If it was "properly" closed, you wouldn't be having multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                • That's... not correct. If we have an RfC where 200 people participate (this is a big website), which ends with a result of 150 against 50, you can reasonably expect multiple users from the minority to go and complain. You'd be correct if you phrase it this way: you wouldn't be having many editors complaining about it, but multiple? → Call me Hahc21 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • If there is true consensus and a proper close, the No-voters will usually see reason. If it looks fishy, or like it was ramrodded (which, believe it or not, has been known to happen), then you've got a problem. But the core problem is the amount of energy being expended on such a trivial matter as to whether to retain certain links. How does such a fight serve the average reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • By reducing the number of links in Wikipedia to sites whose owners appear to illegally compromise other people's computers for their own ends.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • There's a reason we have DRV which often gets populated with "I didn't get my way" complaints. There is almost always negative response to how a RFC or the like is closed. That's fine. You don't take it out by trying to smear the name of an editor if you have a beef with them. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                      • That's why I say that Dingley should forget about Betacommand and focus on whatever he thinks the OP here is doing wrong. And looking at those RFC's, there was by no means a "clear consensus", and that likely accounts for the ill will it generated. There's plenty of speculation about the "legality" of whatever the archive guy is doing. The better approach would be to treat it as simple spam - and to retain the template that points out there could be dead links. Those two things would serve the reader better than this brute force "there's clear consensus because I say so" kind of argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                        • I think we're against a problem akin to presenting highly technical evidence to a jury. Most of the people that actually do networking for a living or spend their time looking at proxies, botnets, and whatnot look at the edits and say that the chances of that being a legally obtained set of proxies is vanishingly close to zero. In the true Wikipedia way, we have people that say "I don't know anything about IP addresses, but no one has presented any evidence of illegality". Our opinion about whether there's a problem is weighted equally in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don'l think I;ve ever commented on the archive.is issue< & at present I have no clear opinion about it > But I consider the indiscriminate removal of the links while AfC3 is underway to be uncooperative editing' ; because it will take a good deal of work to undo if the AfC does not sustain the present position, and that clearly is at least a distinct possibility: I'd suggest that the removal stop for the present. (I will now go look at the RfC, so if I do express an opinion there, that's not a contradiction that I'm presently of no fixed opinion.) DGG ( talk ) 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Everybody, can we please keep separate the issue of what to do with the archive.is links and the issue of what to do with Andy Dingley? The two are only tenuously connected. This here is supposed to be the thread about Andy Dingley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also about the possibility that the OP is simply trying to eliminate a roadblock to the controversial activity he's engaged in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs that the concerns of Andy regarding the overall edit patterns of Werieth appear to have face-value merit and the larger circumstances merit deeper scrutiny. Jusdafax 22:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case Andy should be able to construct his SPI himself (indeed, if he'd done this, there would have been no issue). Whilst he continues to enable a banned editor, however, he's going to continue to be blocked whether his suspicions about Werieth are correct or not. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock

Will someone block this sock User:TryNotToFly/sandbox? Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The irony is that, so I am told, the banned editor who is the source of all the socks against Werieth also has a good faith account here known to a number of admins, strange that I don't see them commenting on this if that is in fact the case. I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have information to that effect I suggest lodging an SPI, which is the correct forum for it. That applies equally to people who have accusations against the OP. On the wider issue, AndyDingley should be free to lodge an SPI against the OP if he wishes, and have the matter properly considered without blanking of his posts. But outside that potential SPI, he should drop the issue on other pages.Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I find the irony more apparent in that the same admins saying 'We cant block based on inconclusive CU/Need more evidence' have previously and routinely duck-test blocked on far less conclusive evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Are these comments (or those from Black Kite) directed towards me? I have no knowledge of the blocked editor TryNotToFly being linked to any legitimate account, nor did I block based on WP:DUCK. A check showed that the account was clearly socking and was blocked accordingly. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, mine were in reference to Kites, not yours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mine too. Your sock block was entirely correct. If there's evidence the sock also has a "good faith account" then that should also be published via SPI. Euryalus (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I meant to post my comment at the end of the previous section (editing on my phone); it was nothing to do with that sock or that block, which was entirely correct. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who it may be. But frankly, I would suggest that Andy Dingley, or anyone else, seriously reconsiders any support for this sockpuppet. Anyone who thought it was a good idea to ping BB (and me) to their sockpuppetry either has so little experience with these matters that they're not likely to help anyone, or is just trolling and not actually intending to help. Either way, not an editor you want on your "side". Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Retired

[25] The user name "Werieth" has been retired. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please give serous consideration to unblocking User:Andy Dingley? He has been harassed, bulied and insulted for a long while now by Werieth and the same bunch of admins, including the admin who just blocked him. He may have crossed some lines out of very understandable frustration, but I'd say there are exculpatory extenuating circumstances in this case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? Last time I looked, it was Andy Dingley who was harassing Werieth, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Although I concur that the issues have been at times in both directions, the reason Andy is blocked because he refused the basic rule of sock accusations: file the SPI and live with the results, or STFU. Not only did he fail to abide by it, he was told flat-out to stop with the accusations whether well-founded or not. Unfortunately, he didn't stop and got unfortunately blocked for it. Personally, I WOULD happily unblock based on a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request that addresses the reason and the way forward. the panda ₯’ 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just unblock him, won't you? Really. Look at this thread. Look at what's been going on here for years. Of course Andy was frustrated. He deserves our appreciation for turning up this fetid mess. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked enough in to the history for informed commentary on the block (but it does look like Andy Dingley received ample warning). However I do think Andy Dingley needs to "put up of shut up" (as I've said before in other cases). I don't know that much about Betacommand but I admit the evidence I saw when I looked in to one of the complaints a while back did seem suspicious. But ultimately, unless someone actually files a successful SPI (or similar, e.g. a community ban or arbcom case), it's fundamentally unfair to continually use innuedo or even point blank accusations of sockpuppetry to harass or annoy other editors. Of course, you should never be enabling sockpuppets either, even if they are allegedly exposing another sockpuppet.

If Wereith does retire, then I guess it's a moot point but if not, Andy needs to stop with the silly business. Andy is free to believe whatever he? wants, but shouldn't bring it up on wikipedia except as part of a case to block or ban. For better or worse, the nature of wikipedia and our strong privacy policy and limited data retention, and how the internet works, means there's always going to be some sockpuppets who "get away with it", I have no idea if that's the case here but if it is, Andy needs to accept that.

Frankly I'm bored of all the sockpuppets, alleged false flag attacks and whatever else. Actually one thing which Wereith and Betacommand I believe share, which doesn't really demonstrate any connection, is they seem to be their own worse enemy. I think it was commonly suggested that Betacommand alienated many against the causes they were trying to achieve. As I've hinted many times in many places, Wereith seems to have managed the same with this archive.is fiasco. Of course the sockpuppet, and to a lesser extent Andy seem to be doing a similar thing with Wereith (i.e. alientating people against their cause or making Wereith seem more symphathetic). Ultimately there both sides seem so ridicilous that I would hope people are able to put it all aside and concentrate on what matters.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Above, User:Kww says, "I looked for more when this first came up, and I'm satisfied that [SPI] did about as good a job of digging up evidence as could have been done. I can understand the good-faith belief that Werieth is Betacommand, because I'm on the fence myself. The evidence is interesting without quite being compelling. What I have real problems with is the continuous allegations that I'm engaged in a conspiracy to enable Betacommand to evade blocks."

User:Black Kite responds with gee, yeah. It's a hard one. Mmm I'm on the fence too. Is the emperor wearing clothes or is he not. I doubt anyone has the obsession or energy necessary to do the right thing wrt them. (Was User:Mark Arsten involved in this? He seems to be Kww's enabler wherever I see the two of them in one controversy.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The overlapping interest in Learning Management Systems was enough to push me off the fence. Werieth is blocked as well as retired.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there was a conspiracy, at least not with very reliable admins such as Masem or Kww as involved parts, however this is a major setback for WP, and I am frankly amazed we permitted this sock to operate for so much time. Probably the block of Andy was correct, even if I think Future Perfect at Sunrise was too involved and he should not be the one who blocked Andy. However I would suggest an early unblock, given the circumstances. Cavarrone 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I doubt there was a conspiracy too. I suspect Betacommand was very useful to them so each on his own just chose to do nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I have unblocked Andy Dingley, as the block evidently serves no further purpose now (which doesn't vindicate his earlier behaviour though) [26]. Cavarrone: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of misuse of admin tools; put up or shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  No need for rudeness, Fut. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Future Perfect, my note was just a very civil good-faith personal remark, at any rate I thank you for the savy unblock of Andy. Turning the page, before the thread will be closed, I invite everyone to keep the eyes open as Betacommand's sock records suggest he will back in the next few weeks/months under a different name. Please let's avoid this shameful history repeating itself. Cavarrone 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I think more accurately his record indicates he will be on another project for 3 months while checkuser goes stale, *then* he will be back here. Rinse and repeat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether Werieth was a Beta sock or not, a key point to walk away is that if one files an SPI which fails to show that user's case, it is unacceptable behavior to go around continuing to accuse the targeted editor as a sock outside of that. If new evidence comes up, good, file a new SPI, otherwise that behavior is intolerable. (I am aware this might be a simplification of a number of long-standing issues here, but the general point remains). --MASEM (t) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In my bitter experience, too often the admins and checkusers won't do anything beyond a bare minimum. SPI's are generally a waste of time and effort. By users Dingley and Cole confronting the sock in this more public forum, the truth came out. It's unfortunate that they tipped him off to the "tells", as his next sock might be more careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I went looking on google to see if that name "Werieth" had any kind of subliminal meaning. I didn't find that, but I did find that someone on a Wikipedia-attack site called Wikipediocracy had figured out the Betacommand/Werieth connection in February. So much for the value of SPI's here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's funny how you can find, in Wikipediocracy, people who has long ben expelled and removed from our community. Like Kelly Martin, for example. → Call me Hahc21 03:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I found it on Google, which linked to this Wikipediocracy thing. Not a place I'd been before, and not a place I ever hope to go back to. I just found it interesting that they had figured out the Beta-Werieth connect months ago. Most of their other commentary was repulsive and useless. But even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Hahc21: Kelly Martin is in good standing here, and appears to have rejected this project, rather than the other way round. Block log. If you intend further opining off-topic, please open another thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good standing? Not that I remember. But you're right that I went off-topic. → Call me Hahc21 06:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Noting here that ArbCom received an e-mail (on 3 July) about this from a source similar to that used to leave the allegations on arbitrator talk pages and others - I think an example is here, reverted by Kww here. I seem to recall similar messages were left on my talk page earlier in the year and reverted as well (having looked it up, these earlier messages were December 2013 and February 2014). I've not been around much the last two months, but had the time to look at this yesterday and I (independently) noticed the spelling tell pointed out by Anthonyhcole above (that is very distinctive and set alarm bells ringing in my head) - that and the tone used is what convinced me that something was amiss here. As Cavarrone notes, this was handled really badly. I think there is a need to look long and hard here at whether some people were (whether consciously or unconsciously) turning a blind eye here to what had been going on. I personally feel I should have looked more seriously earlier at the allegations being made, and I'm not happy that blanket reversions were being made to messages left on my talk page. I am going to try and track down how often that happened. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• It happens pretty much any time someone I blocked for socking left a message on your talk page. It doesn't suppress or undo the notification to you that a talk page message occurred. In fact, it provides you with an extra notification, because you get notified of the reversion as well as the original message notification.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. I realise that. An earlier reverted notification, that I carefully noted for the record, can be seen here. That was back in December. As I said above, it came up again in February and maybe a few other times (I stopped bothering about the time a banned user started pestering me with messages about something else). It is a pain to note the reversions for the record, but I would much prefer to be told that I've been left a message by a now-blocked user, than to have the message reverted and to go to the trouble of constructing a little reminder note for myself like that. What I'm trying to say is that reverting those messages didn't really achieve anything, did it? I know it is not always possible if mass rollback or something is being used, but I would much prefer that you (and others) didn't revert such messages on my talk page. Is there a way to do that at all? (Maybe we should take this discussion to one or other of our user talk pages?) Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, if that comment is basically "please don't revert sockpuppet's edits to my talkpage because it makes more difficult for me to communicate with banned users", then there's not much to discuss. No, I will not refrain from interfering with efforts by banned users to communicate via sockpuppets. The better solution would be for you to simply ignore them.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, I'm not trying to communicate with anyone, someone is trying to communicate with me (I hope you can see the difference). While I can't stop you and others reverting the edits, I will at some point need to do due diligence and look more closely at what is being said (rather than just skimming it quickly). I believe I have a duty as an arbitrator to read through what has been said, no matter how outlandish the claims might be, and especially when someone tells me I should ignore something. That is why I've made a note on my talk page relating to the edits you and Future Perfect reverted. It is so I can look at them later when I have more time (I've really been on an extended wikibreak since April). Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do see the difference: you aren't blocked from editing Wikipedia, the people attempting to communicate with you are. The lesson learned from this fiasco shouldn't be "sockpuppets of banned users can be valuable in identifying sockpuppets of other banned users, so let's allow them to use talk pages". It should be more along the lines of "when ambiguous cases like Werieth's show up, checkusers should make a proactive effort to obtain information from other WMF wikis to determine whether there's an identity match."—Kww(talk) 01:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Carcharoth: the standard response to block-evading trolls is R-B-I. You are forgetting the "I" part; it's crucial. When it comes to serial harassment and wikihounding trolls, the "I" is not only the only practical approach; it is also the only ethically responsible one. That harasser had no business communicating with you in the first place. By expressing an interest in his posts and increasing their visibility, you were enabling him and thus supporting his harassment campaign. This is not justifiable, no matter if you're an arbitrator or not. I recently said it on my talkpage, but it bears repeating it here: on Wikipedia, nobody has the right to hound and chase down an opponent and push an agenda through by aggressive socking – not even if they are right. Nobody on Wikipedia must be subjected to wikihounding and harassment – not even if they are Betacommand. Nobody, not even a legitimate user in good standing, has the right to aid and abet and make common cause with a sockpuppeting harassment troll – not even if that cause would otherwise be just. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of RBI, Fut. Perf. The point here is whether you and others can make that 'ignore' decision for me. You are doing the revert and block part, I have no problem with that. But when you go around telling others to ignore things, you are crossing a line and making decisions for them. If I hadn't made that talk page section back in December 2013, reminding myself of what happened back then, I would have struggled to dig back in the page history to find that edit again. The same applies to these edits (and there were others that I haven't yet noted down). At some point it may (hopefully not) be necessary to look very closely at everything that happened here, and keeping track of various edits will be important evidence as to what happened and how things played out. So rather than ignoring it completely, I'm making notes for the record and putting it on the back burner if you will. If it ever becomes necessary to look at all this more closely, then those notes will be there to refer back to. I'm not endorsing what is said in those edits (it comes across as rather desperate hyperbole even if the central point looks to have have been correct), but I don't want to lose track of those edits if it ever becomes necessary to refer back to them. There may be better ways to keep track of those edits, and I'm open to trying different ways, but what I don't want is for you to take a decision for me that I should ignore something. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Edits of blocked socks get rolled back, without question, everywhere on the project, no matter on what page, period. Your personal page is no more exempt from this rule than any other. The rule that you cannot restore a blocked user's edit unless you want to be personally held responsible for its contents just as if you had written it yourself applies to you just as much as to anybody else on this project. Your tactics of not restoring the posts themselves but only a diff link to them is hardly more than a transparent subterfuge. If in such cases you wish to keep records for administrative purposes but want to avoid the impression you are enabling and aiding the banned users, I strongly recommend you keep the links offline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• My views on the original allegations were "hmm, there might be something in what is being said here, I'd better keep a record of this in case it turns out to be true". Given that the user in question is now blocked as a sock, it seems my judgement there to not completely ignore this was correct. So I make no apologies for making the same decision about these edits. If you want me to move my notes on these edits to a page in my userspace and link to that page from my talk page and talk page archives, I'm happy to do that. I will try and do that by the end of the weekend. What I will then do is examine them more closely and see if there is any substance to the other allegations made. What appears to be at stake here is whether this was someone attempting to be a whistle-blower, or someone engaging in harassment. It might well be both, but given your defensive response here and for my peace of mind I need to follow this up and be sure there is nothing in what has been said there. If the consensus at a suitable venue (not just your opinion) and after a suitable period of time is that I should take the diffs offline, I will. I'll check back on Monday or Tuesday and see if there has been any progress on this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• The suggestion that there might have been a case of a legitimate "whistleblower" is breathtakingly absurd. No good-faith editor in good standing would ever have been in trouble for submitting legitimate SPI evidence about a legitimately banned user through the appropriate procedural channels. The very insinuation, on your part, that you find such a scenario plausible is an insult to those of us administrators who deal with socking issues on this project, for which you should apologize. It's not as if Betacommand was particularly popular in the community, now, is it. And no, the fact that the allegations turned out to be (probably) true does not justify what the harassment troll was doing, nor does it justify lending an ear to them. I'm asking you straightforward: which of the following three propositions do you disagree with? (a) if somebody creates a series of single-purpose accounts over a period of many months with the sole purpose of hunting down another user and getting him blocked, they are engaging in wikihounding. (b) Wikihounding is reprehensible. (c) Wikihounding is unjustifiable even if the target is himself guilty of a breach of project rules. I'd really like to know, so I can judge your level of ethics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with all three of those propositions. What I don't agree with is using those propositions as an excuse to ignore the allegations. On the face of it, that appears to be what you have been doing. As for apologies and ethics, in your shoes I would have apologised to Andy Dingley for the block you carried out. It is still quite possible that (as I said above) this will all need to be looked at closely to see what went wrong here. I would hope that more time would be spent examining your actions than mine. What I'm doing here is saying "hang on, take a step back and consider whether this needs to be looked at more closely". For obvious reasons, you are going to say "nothing to see here, move on". I'm not sure yet whether a closer look at all this is needed, but I'm not going to agree with you on the 'ignore' part without having taken the time to look at it in more detail myself. My initial impression is that this does need looking at more closely. The problem is, to persuade me otherwise, you are gong to have to pay this more attention than you think it deserves. So we appear to be at an impasse. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am not interested in persuading you of anything. Yes, we are at an impasse: I firmly know that I did the right thing, and I find your attitude morally repulsive, so I don't want to have anything more to do with you. But let's cut to the chase: by your repeated cryptic announcements about "looking at" things more closely, are you insinuating you are planning to play the Arbcom card? Not that I care what some people on Arbcom think, mind you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment for preventative technical countermeasure Assuming there are no copyright issues, if this is a recurrent, perennial problem (conflict over deletion of links), link/content archiving might help solve or ameliorate it, should WMF have the IT resources, and the evaluation criteria were solid regarding the material to be archived.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's been considered, as I recall. There was a proposal over at meta two Februarys ago that WMF take over WebCite, which was supposedly about to die off. I don't think WebCite died off, and the proposal languished. Part of the issue, of course, is that there are copyright issues. Significant ones at that. You can only claim fair use for so much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: That's good, so there should be a decent amount of discussion to consider in the event something like that comes under consideration again.

Maybe a scaled back version would suffice. Say, a system where a user like "Werieth" claims a link should be deleted because the host is distributing malware, then Wikipedia backups up the link and corresponding content and includes a pointer to that in the article. You could prevent socks (or whoever) from being disruptive by preemptively implementing a system for handling such concerns.

It's obviously a valid concern that the deletion of such links for spurious reasons would have a serious adverse effect on the WP article content built upon the basis of such links/web-based content. That's practically vandalism undertaken with a spurious yen ostensibly legitimate reason of WP reader security.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Andy was blocked? Sorry I haven't read all this thread yet. IMHO Andy's style was a bit too abrasive but the stuff he said was basically legitimate and would have been fine if phrased more diplomatically. The SPI was unconvincing in part because there was no evident attempt to match CU data against known Betacommand activity on other sites (I think he was active on Commons and I know he was active on Toolserver, which hopefully cooperated with WP sock investigations though it was non-WMF itself). I know that some other SPI's used cross-wiki CU data. It really did look to me like the SPI was shut down for political reasons as Andy said, and that various admins at different times in the saga showed, if not deliberate obtuseness, then at least sufficiently clouded judgment I couldn't consider them "uninvolved" (I can dig up some diffs if the matter becomes relevant again). I remember looking at Werieth edits at the time of the SPI and not being sure Werieth was Betacommand, but I think the evidence grew stronger after that, so by yesterday when I saw this thread, I was pretty convinced.

  Regardless of the socking question, I don't think Wereith's practices should have been tolerated: BOTPOL should have been enforced rigorously against him, resulting in an indef block long ago, sock or not. This should certainly be done in the event of a reappearance of someone with the same MO. Sooner or later I think the WMF will have to intervene and deploy technical measures to stop unauthorized bot editing, and I do hear some noises in that direction, which I find encouraging.

  As a general matter, I'm uncomfortable with any editors who operate persistently in the pure realm of rule enforcement and who never contribute any content. The thread from a couple days ago about that person placing speedy tags was another example. This is an encyclopedia, whose purpose rests in what the stuff in the articles mean to the humans who read them. Ignoring that is one possible definition of perfect bureaucracy and (I've come to believe) is a form of battleground editing that should not be allowed once there is significant pushback. And in case anyone is confused: I don't think Betacommand really cared very much about NFC or that he even understood why we have it (enforcing a policy that one doesn't understand is another sign of bureaucracy). He simply used it as a vehicle to justify his bots flogging the human effort of Wikipedia until nothing was left of it but a poor lifeless carcass. The first Betacommand arb case was long before he got in the NFC business, and among other things involved using bots to block people (he was an admin at the time). If and when he reappears it will probably be something different. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser

• Not an expert of SPI, but would not be appropriate in the current case running a CheckUser to identify any possible sleeping account by BetaCommand/Werieth? Cavarrone 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One was declined back in December. I'm not sure if anything in the interim has happened to change the reasoning behind that decline. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, that CheckUser was asked for comparing Betacommand's and Werieth's datas and it was declined as it was technically impossible analyze Betacommand's account as it was a stale account. Currently we already know Werieth is a sock, but being this account fresh and not yet stale a CU would be helpful in detecting his eventual sleeping (or even active) other accounts. I could be technically wrong but this is the sense of my request. Cavarrone 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Presuming Werieth's status as a Betacommand sock has been accepted, there's no reason not to run a CU. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're funny. Checkusers are lazy. They'll say, "Oh, he's already indef'd, so there's nothing to do. See ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone perform a global CU and hang onto the data so that people aren't told next time that it's stale? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pinging the checkusers who commented on this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive: Reaper Eternal, DeltaQuad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Betacommand is stale. I could technically check Werieth, but I need a reason to do so. The above is a major TL;DR. It relates to the Checkuser policy and Privacy policy which governs the use of our tools. @Baseball Bugs: We don't make people's cases for them. If someone wishes to put forward a straight forward case that justifies the use of CU, i'll look at it. But i'm not reading thousands of bytes of speculation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. What are we looking for? What is the reason for checkuser in this case? Are there supposed sleeper socks? But then again, I'm just a lazy checkuser so what do I know. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it succinctly, it would be so that the next time Betacommand creates a sock, it will be easier to identify. But you all can't be bothered with that. Thanks for living down to my expectations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. If another sock is detected 18 months from now, checkuser data becomes essentially pointless. His IP will almost certainly have jumped around so much that no overlap would remain. Even the geographic region could be different. Additionally, it's not like Betacommand (if this even is him), isn't very technically adept. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This recent sock was created the day after Betacommand was banished, and within 10 edits he was starting in on his old stuff. He managed to fly under the radar for a year or so (a year and a half if you only count Wikipedia). At least now we'll be more on the alert. Especially as the checkusers are unwilling to do anything. Don't give me that "pixiedust" stuff. If checkusers are motivated, they can do more. But that's a big IF. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, blow it out your ear, BB. I'm an SPI clerk and I admit to a bias, but I rely on CUs all the time, and if they decline to run a check, I respect that. They happen to be some of the more hardworking administrators I have the distinct pleasure of knowing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal experience says otherwise. There's been a troll after me for at least five years, and every time his diseased head has popped up, the admins have blocked that specific user ID and refused to do anything else. This has happened many times since 2009 or so. So I apologize if I don't share your enthusiasm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to strongly agree with Baseball Bugs here. My experience with CU has been disastrous, time and time again, for the very reasons BB cites. I don't really trust their expertise and their results even less so. I've had to devote considerable time and energy to defending innocent users who have been falsely accused of socking and I've had to invest an incredible amount of time posting diffs and evidence of socks only to be met by stonewalling. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The real solution to these kinds of issues is not to keep that burden on the (few) CU folks, but instead disperse the burden by moving into a more general forum, like this one, where all the other admins can take a look and decide if it's a WP:DUCK. Obviously that's also not a panacea, because here you have to fake timestamps in order to not get rotated into oblivion before anyone's seen it (*eyeroll*), but still. Once you get a modicum of a consensus that some repeat offender is indeed so egregiously annoying to be explicitly banned, then that makes admin action easier next time a block is needed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad and Reaper Eternal, thanks for the replies. The tl;dr is that Werieth is Betacommand and has been blocked as such. When people requested a CU in March and December 2013, they were told Betacommand's data was stale and that it was a fishing expedition (despite the circumstantial evidence).

  The question is how to avoid this happening in future. I'm therefore asking whether a CU could be run now and the data retained, and also to see whether there are other accounts. Betacommand is active on Mediawiki if a comparison is needed. [27] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• To my understanding, the global CU you propose would require a steward, or at least someone with local CU access on all wikis being checked. I have no idea if that is allowable under the CU policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless there is crosswiki abuse, there is no reason to perform a cross-wiki checkuser investigation. Anyway, what would it prove? You're already convinced Werieth (talk · contribs) is Betacommand (talk · contribs), so asking for me to compare Werieth here to Betacommand there seems to be an unnecessary use of checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, requesting a local CU to check for other accounts is a reasonable request in the circumstances. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about what is requested. As SlimVirgin has said - Werieth is a sock account. Has the editor behind Werieth created any other sock accounts, including sleeper ones? If so, can they be identified by a local CU? Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the idea. Forget Betacommand, the data is too old. The first order of business is to look for socks of Werieth. Then see if it's possible to capture the "technical data" for Werieth, to be compared with the next sock he creates, which could be today, tomorrow, next week... or more than 3 months from now, when he thinks the heat's off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in my view it SHOULD be done. This is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill sock case, the Werieth case is one of the worst and most shameful fiascos in recent WP history. If the CU will not give significant results, so be it, we tried. But we need to use every weapon we have to prevent this crap repeating itself, including verifying here and now if this professional sockmaster has sleeping or active alt accounts. It would not be minimally surprising considering his record. Cavarrone 04:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

*CU has spotted some Betacommand socks before, but I'm pretty sure Betacommand is knowledgeable enough to dodge CU once it has come into play. So a negative finding (now or in some future incident) doesn't really tell us much. Timezone evidence is also less meaningful than usual in a case like this, unless the person is actively responding to human conversation showing they are awake (bot edits don't establish this). Checking for sleepers is routine practice after a sock block anyway though, and it's (from what I hear) also SOP to keep CU data around regarding persistent sockers.

I don't blame Andy Dingley for not opening a new SPI given the obstruction and threats he faced in the old one (I just looked at the archived SPI again and I see I had forgotten how awful it was). I'd say Andy's judgment is now vindicated even if he might better have said some things a little bit differently. The Wikipediocracy thread that Baseball Bugs found was also interesting though polemical. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin look at User:TryNotToFly/sandbox and see if there is evidence there that the community might want to judge for itself? Alternatively, maybe there is something there that CU's might want to hold onto. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is essentially a message identifying the editor as a sock of GoFormer and urging others to read a section of an off-wiki website. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• So us lazy CUs got off our buts and actually read the material above (which I wasn't to thrilled or motivated to do), and ran a few CUs.  Confirmed Smokestack Basilisk (talk · contribs) & Werieth (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good job! That proves Werieth was a sock/socking, at the very least, and the other account was created before the "Werieth" account.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice, a sleeper account from 2008/09. Wonder how many more will pop up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DQ. I'm sorry to throw more annoying requests your way, but I think it's worthwhile to try to close the circle by getting a check on mw:user:Betacommand to compare with Werieth. I have noted a few more behavioural tells that confirm that Werieth was Betacommand but I think it's best to save them for next time. I'd also be interested if you can confirm that Spartay (talk · contribs) and friends didn't seem to be running similar software to Werieth's.

Joy, yeah, one is an incident, two is a pattern. There are probably more and I can think of some ways to hunt for them, but it scarcely seems worthwhile. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As a note, depending on how far this goes but if it does verifyable connect Werieth to Beta, please make sure ArbCom is notified, since Beta is - for all counts - still banned from WP (he has not approached ArbCom about removing the ban so that is still in place), and this might even contravine the second BetaCommand case, which I would thus suspect that if Werieth == Beta, ArbCom will recind the offer to return at all. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In actuality, I would question what difference it really makes anyway. I mean, he returned as Werieth when he was banned, so what would he care if they allow his main acct to appeal or not. He is now forever destined as a sock. That unfortunately is his fate, his legacy. "BetaCommand" is dead. Rgrds. --64.85.214.233 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Two things: first, we don't have any direct evidence that Beta == Werieth, but the vector of what has transpired plus Occum's Razor makes this conclusion almost inevitable, but for purposes of our AGF policy on WP, we should not be walking around like Werieth is 100% Beta, so as such, there's nothing to do with Arbcom yet. If that can be proven, then it is key to make sure that ArbCom knows as given the transgression from the start, I am confident they'd remove/cancel the offer for Beta to opt to return (as is currently open after the 3rd BC case there). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

They should be informed about Werieth, though. Trolls will try to imitate another user in hopes of getting him in trouble. True socks try to avoid scrutiny, but they usually give themselves away eventually, even while denying it. The fact that the user gave a non-denial-denial when "retiring" is just another nail in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:IZAK NPA, CIVIL, AGF, BATTLE

IZAK has repeatedly leveled personal attacks at me starting in an AfD discussion and continuing into a DRV discussion, becoming increasing vociferous, most recently accusing me of hissing and rampaging, and demanding that I demonstrate my "bona fides" by editing another article first.

Hi Ubikwit: Thank you for your attempt at a constructive response. However, the more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become.
As for your critique of my post, you owe me an apology[28]

Cautioned about his rudeness by another editor here and here.

“you just want the Jews out, out, out of Nepal”
“Furthermore, since you are such a self-claimed "expert" about the History of Nepal...once you can show your bona fides over there maybe you will have some credibility here. But right now, all it seems like is that you are just being stubborn, not acknowledging the constant improvements to the article being made daily and just tiresome obstructionism that is getting to be a pain” [29]

For the record, I never claimed to be an expert on the history of Nepal, either.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

inadvertent omissions

“Oh yeah Ubikwit and when you hiss things about objecting to "any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal" [30]
“your rampaging against this article” [31]

• As will be evident from the below, separately implemented response section, IZAK has not responded to the personal attacks listed above, and has chosen to engage in a tactic of making recourse to previous matters that have already been discussed above on this page and on the page of the admin he mentions. The admin closed that discussion before I had a chance to even reply to his last remark to me. Hardly anything of note there.

I don't know if the response given below indicates that the personal attacks made today were a strategy to incite my post here or note, but IZAK has simply attacked the messenger without responding to the evidence. That is indicative of a battle mentality.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ravpapa mentioned in the related thread above[32] that among editors on the keep side of the AfD, a number were frequent editors of the Chabad article, so I just checked and found these results for IZAK [33]. Perhaps he has an emotional attachment to this topic that impedes his capacity to engage in civil, rational discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

This must surely be one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one. Ubikwit can be very trying on anyone's nerves as can be seen from the many complaints only in this series of AfD, ANI, DRV and now again ANI. I have never met User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) before until coming across his disruptive behavior at the c article and its related AfD and DRV, the guy just does not stop in his irrational war to blot out this article, and the more pressure he applies the more the article has been improving which just drives him nuts, can't imagine why? Seeing that he cannot get his way with destroying the article and harassing good faith editors, see the above ANI complaint #Unfair conduct in a deletion battle against Ubikwit "There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)" and unwilling to see that the article has survived a previous AfD [34] and is being improved even as he has brought it to a frivolous DRV [35] and denigrating the decision of the closing admin, see User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 14#Your close of AFD discussion on History of the Jews in Nepal. Ubikwit obviously does not see his own problems but he has been progressively engaging in and violating WP:WAR and WP:DONOTDISRUPT [36] [37] [38]. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" [39] and that he "has been disruptive overall" [40] that added to his general unstoppable violations of WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL should make him eligible for a quick block here and now. Ubikwit is simply continuing his WP:WAR [41] over content that has nothing to do with the correct procedures and policies followed by the closing admin, me or anyone else in his way, or the need for this good article. Ubikwit would be well-advised to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Judging by how often Ubikwit seems to show up at ANI, maybe it's about time to implement some sort of ban to keep them from posting here and taking up everyone's time. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Three of their most recent postings being Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Repeated attempts to disrupt RfC, Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Unfair conduct in a deletion battle, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Re: bobrayner, Sairp. Anyone who wants to waste their time further searching the archives is welcome to: for the moment I'll just say this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: You are free to comment on my conduct here, as is anyone, but you are not commenting on my conduct. You again appear to be engaged in some sort of meta discourse against me. That demonstrates a failure to WP:AGF, especially since the only interaction I've had with you on this website is in this forum.

You are not required to comment on this thread if you feel it is a waste of your time. Making inflammatory remarks is not conducive to resolving disputes. Since you have only been on WP for less than a year, I wonder if you are familiar with this essay?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:G S Palmer, please drop the suggestion that three appearances at ANI deserves a ban. While some editors have been urged to stay away (although no names come to mind) I think it took double-digit filings to get to that point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: I usually stay out of these things, but since I was mentioned, I feel it behooves me to make a comment. So this is what I have to say: It is astonishing to me how much vitriol this particular article about Nepal has engendered. Tempers have risen so high, and, I mean, about what? Who cares? Admins, if I were you, I would close this thread before anyone has a chance to sling any more mud. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would have closed the AfD as "No Consensus" on the basis that very few policy-related comments had actually been made and that pretty much everyone had casted their !vote depending on their POV on the actual subject matter (there's a shock). Unfortunately that's the problem with AfD, those that shout the loudest get their way quite often (and if they don't they try DRV as well). But a NC close would still have kept the article anyway, so the point is moot. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing the AfD as "no consensus" might have facilitated a move to file a merge/move request, and certainly would have resulted in a less acrimonious editing environment. I (and I believe others, including an admin User:Drmies) would disagree that there were no policy based arguments made, though, as the article fails WP:N, but one has to actually look at the article to see that the content doesn't correspond to the container (i.e., the name). Maybe the policy needs some adjustment, but the "rough consensus" guideline seems to cover the issue insofar as it addresses "logical fallacy" and mere opinion in !votes. The point is that there is notable content, but not a notable article of that title, and not all of the content would survive a move/merge, while no viable renaming has been proposed that would meet WP:N. Material that supported the fact that it didn't meet WP:N was produced by more than one participant.

Meanwhile, the closing admin accused me of being disruptive in the close for removing fringe and other unrelated material that had been added during the AfD to "improve" the article. He then refused to explain the policy-based rationale, and accused me of lying on his talk page when I opened the DRV and stated that I'd queried the closing admin but was flat out refused an explanation of his reasoning. He has been described as being condescending and authoritarian on his alternate user's talk page[42] in the past day, and that is on the mark. Furthermore, in effect, the admins inflammatory comments provided fuel to IZAK, who'd been making personal attacks since the original AfD discussion, as demonstrated in his off-topic rant above.

I file a report against the personal attacks and not only is there no discussion of the personal attacks, I am besieged by political opponents on the other side of the political divide seeking to eliminate the competition, so to speak. On the other hand, Tomwsulcer files an entirely baseless report against me, ends up removing some of the illegitimate content he tried to foist into the article in order to unduly influence the outcome of the AfD, and is not called to account--or even questioned--by a single admin here.

This process is looking like it's seriously dysfunctional, and this is a primary cause why Wikipedia can't maintain competent content contributors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you say "This process is looking like it's seriously dysfunctional, and this is a primary cause why Wikipedia can't maintain competent content contributors" so that now you are waging war against WP itself, and when you allege "I am besieged by political opponents on the other side of the political divide seeking to eliminate the competition, so to speak" -- what?! You are "besieged"? No one is "besieging" you and WP is definitely not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for your POV political battles. I am NOT your "political opponent" (whatever that means?) because you don't know me or my political views. You, like any good WP editor should strive for WP:NPOV and not to "defend" or "oppose" any so-called political views. Ubikwit, let me make it quite clear, no one is "out to get you", personally I have no idea who you are or what your POV views are, I never met you until a few days ago, and all I can say is, it is very difficult to work with you to gain WP:CONSENSUS because you use all the the rules of WP against its better interests, that is called WP:LAWYERING, WP:DONOTDISRUPT or worse. You have no compunction in impulsively reverting as many times as you feel like it, running to ANI as if it was your personal "bouncer", launching AfD's and DRV wasting so many users' precious time, and who knows what else on the drop of a dime when you cannot get your way, and then if you see the world around you crumbling you then blame WP! Grow up! WP is just fine, I have been on it for over eleven years and with all its ups and downs there is still nothing like it in the history of civilization. Be a team player and not a spoiler and above all enjoy Wikipedia, it is after all an encyclopedia we are building here coming from so many divergent world views we all have to learn the art of give and take. I look forward to more positive contributions and behavior and lowering of the heat. Take care, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Running to AN/I", etc., your personal attacks just keep coming, even at AN/I. You are the disruptive editor at issue here, regardless of your attempts to divert attention from that fact. After 11 years, you should know better, and the fact that you apparently have supporters here at AN/I doesn't phase me. You are wrong for maing personal attacks, and they are wrong for not holding you accountable for the personal attacks.

For the record, the 'besieged by political opponents' comment referred to the following AN/I ban proposal launched by Marek.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please don't let your imagination run away with you when you allege that I "apparently have supporters here at AN/I" because, this may come as surprise to you, I have never met any of the people who have commented about your abuse of the services at ANI, and they are unknown to me. However it seems they know you too well. Take responsibility for your own disruptive actions. You are an energetic editor but you are misdirecting your energies in negative directions that does not help you and is not helpful to Wikipedia. Now I must take leave of you for Fourth of July, Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Ubikwit from AN/I

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

---

Per WP:BOOMERANG. Regardless of the topic s/he is involved in Ubikwit treats Wikipedia as a battleground. And when s/he does not get their way on a particular article, they run here to create drama, or alternatively to other noticeboards, with the same end effect. Which is that they put a huge drain on editors resources and time. These endeavors regularly involve a gross misrepresentation of other editors' comments and behavior where any attempt to raise concerns about Ubikwit's behavior is transformed into a "personal attack". This is a textbook example of acting in bad faith nevermind failing to assume good faith. It also appears to be the case here as well.

It might very well be the case that Ubikwit has something to contribute to the project, although their (drama page participation)/(actual article content contribution) ratio does not make one hopeful. However, given their behavior so far, it might actually benefit the user his/herself to pull them away from the drama boards in order to get them to focus on content creation. Hence, I propose that Ubikwit is topic banned from starting threads or commenting on threads at AN/I for the next six months, after which they can ask for the restriction to be lifted. Enough already, if you're here to actually contribute then step away from drama boards and write some actual content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal modified below to include Volunteer Marek as well as Ubik together under the proposed topic ban based on their unhealthy obsession with each other and this noticeboard, with Volunteer Marek's edits representing more than twice as many as Ubik's. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a good idea, would force him/her to find solutions of editorial problems on talk pages rather than solicit administrative actions. Obviously the discussions related to Ubikwit him/herself should be exempted from the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now (see below), though I support giving Volunteer Marek to reformulate the proposal to incorporate evidence that Ubikwit's participation here is so disruptive that Ubikwit should lose the ability to file a complaint here. ANI is an important forum to seek the correction of serious behavioral problems. I would have to see not only that Ubikwit's conduct here was disruptive, but that there was a pattern of vexatious behavior despite more than one attempt to correct it. I just see access to ANI and related fora as being that important. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on Ubikwit's behavior in this thread, I believe some sanction is in order. I am not connived an ANI ban is it, rather than a temporary revocation of editing privileges to prevent further incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior. No comment on whether sanctions are merited for other parties: I specifically object to the changing of this proposal to include an interaction ban. (see below) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: What exactly is it that you find objectionable in my responses here? DO you assert that I don't have the right to defend myself against the baseless allegations being made? Some admins? It is not the case that I am unresponsive to criticism when the criticism has merit, so please explain your accusations of INCIVIL and BATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

See the commentary of my learned colleague Collect below. I was fully willing to oppose on the grounds of no evidence until you provided evidence of a civility and battleground problem yourself. I'm not saying I agree with an ANI ban; I do agree with Sphilbrick's reasoning, which I believe is reflective of my original comment. That said, and I'm sorry to say it, you need to take different measures to resolve this dispute. If you understand this I'd be more than willing to oppose any sanction on the grounds that, assuming you will go along with those recommendations, any sanction would no longer be preventative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was accused of Wikilawyering and an inability to communicate, while at the same time the two admins making the allegations refused to address the communication problems at issue in this thread. That was all I meant by first repeating "Wikilawyering" and then substituting "sophistry" with respect to the same link. If peope don't agree that the comments I posted above are personal attacks, they should just say so--no one has--so it is not me that is failing to AGF. This report was filed in goof faith against straightforward, simple utterances that should be stopped. A warning would have sufficed. That said, I would really like to know what "different measures" I should have taken to resolve this dispute? I am not trying to be contrarian. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • Based on Ubikwit's contrite comment to DarkFalls below, I am willing to AGF that what I saw in this thread was a temporary lapse due in part to sleep deprivation (and let's face it, we've all been there). Ubikwit should be considered on final warning that further problems on ANI are likely to result in sanctions. Therefore, I oppose any sanction and move to close this thread as anything more would not be preventive but punitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Yeah it is boring and unproductive to read same content dispute every time. Alex Bakharev is correct, Ubikwit should take some break from ANI, but he won't so it is better to provide him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not familiar enough to comment with a decision myself, but I'd like to note that if a ban were placed, an exemption should be made for any topics involving Ubikwit (though that's probably a given). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable, and yes, the reason why it wasn't mentioned explicitly above is because it's pretty much a given. If someone else tries to bring Ubikwit here, Ubikwit would obviously be exempted from the proposed topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There's probably quite a few editors who probably should stay away. What's not clear (because only three diffs of ANI threads have been linked to, and none by the proposer) why this user is particularly deserving of this restriction. AFAIK, being banned from ANI has only happened in pretty extreme situations. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The drama boards can be addictive and I think Ubikwit needs to go cold turkey for a while per this (thanks G S Palmer for pointing to that useful tool). The username is presumably a reference to ubiquitous, and I always have that association when I see Ubiqwit's sig on this page here: "Man, that guy is ubiquitous on ANI". It's true that access to ANI and related fora can be important, as Mendaliv points out, but IMO it's only really important for responding to complaints about oneself, an exemption which is obvious, see several comments above. The ability to ask for administrative action against opponents can be withdrawn if it's used to excess and becomes an annoyance to the community. For the individual, it may divert attention from more collaborative ways of solving content conflicts, especially talkpage discussion. Also it's not like Ubikwit wouldn't have other recourse, for instance appealing to an individual admin or going to dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
  • I thought the user name was a homage to Philip K. Dick's Ubik. As for the "useful tool", it shows 221 edits by Ubikwit to ANI, but it also shows 466 edits by Volunteer Marek. In that case, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and considering that Volunteer Marek appears whenever Ubik shows up, I propose that per WP:BOOMERANG, both Volunteer Marek and Ubikwit should both be given a topic ban from ANI, not one or the other. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nice try there Viriditas (I'm assuming this is payback for me having the nerve to disagree with you at the RS/N discussion). Let's see. Ubikwit: 229 edits to AN/I out of a total of 3,842 edits [43]. Myself: 466 edits to AN/I out of a total of 45,891 edits [44]. So I might have about twice as many edits to AN/I than Ubikwit, but I have twelve times as many total edits. That actually sort of shows the problem. If Ubikwit spent the same proportion of his editing time at AN/I as I have, he'd have... 37 edits here. But he's got more than six times that amount. Oh, and about 60% of my edits are to actual articles, whereas Ubikwit barely scratches 15%. Again, that's sort of the problem right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That useful tool sure is fun. I suppose my topic ban from ANI is in the mail. Also, someone pinged me to come here, but I am on vacation! There are too many words here and too few paragraph breaks for me to read this. I am with Ubikwit in the narrow matter of that ridiculous AfD and the invented history of Jews in Nepal; besides that, I really don't have an opinion and I wish you all happy ANIing. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment by Ubikwit Marek's complaint amounts to an attempt to smear an editor that has been on the opposite side of the partisan divide in a couple of content disputes directly or indirectly related to the Ukraine crisis, and because I introduced evidence at the American Politics Arbcom case against him misrepresenting a source.

I've never interacted on an article with Alex Bakharev, so his unsupported characterization of the complaint I have made here against explicitly personal attacks as "editorial problems" is an incomprehensible imaginary concoction. OccultZone is another editor I've not interacted with before, and maybe he'd care to elaborate on what exactly it is that s/he refers to as "the same content dispute". It seems that they are trying to claim that I repeatedly bring "the same content dispute" to AN/I, but they present zero evidence of such implicit allegation.

AN/I is not a venue for targeting editors perceived to be on the opposite side of a given content dispute. It is a venue for addressing conduct problems that interfere with the ability to resolve content disputes by civil discourses on Talk pages, etc.

Personal attacks are obviously one category of conduct prohibited for that reason. Not one of the admins commenting on this thread has addressed the personal attacks, and one has apparently characterized them as an "editorial problem", so the hypocrisy seems to be getting extremely thick here. Quoting from WP:NPA

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

I challenge you, admin @Alex Bakharev:, to deny that the above-quoted comments by IZAK are personal attacks. We'll take from there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Although there was an edit conflict so you didn't have the chance to see my above reply, considering that it appears that you, too, are an admin, I'm going to have to query your failure to address the personal attacks posted at the top of this thread. You would appear to be yet another admin that is remiss in their duty and engaging in some sort of selective/targeted enforcement out of process against an editor that has posted a straightforward report of misconduct. Incidentally, User:Sphilbrick cautioned GS Palmer regarding his remark before Marek opened this subthread, and Palmer apologized for the remark, yet you--along with Marek--seem to be intent on using that as some sort of hook. What is the basis for your !vote? I mean, as in policy-based rationale? You are an admin, right? It seems that you are insinuating that my filing this report represents a more serious conduct violation than the personal attacks. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Any insinuations that you see in my post are in the eye of the beholder. I neither insinuate nor state anything about your "filing this report"; I do state that you probably need an ANI break per this. Did you click on it, or do you prefer to change the subject? Yes, I'm an admin. The remissness in duty that you perceive in my not addressing everything in this thread, or everything on ANI, or everything on the site, is predicated on the fact that I'm a volunteer like yourself, with Wikipedia as a hobby; I address what I'm interested in addressing and find the most useful to address, currently the proposal to ban you from ANI.

I've said everything I had to say on that subject (twice, now), and won't engage further, as I'm quite wary of being drawn into some some absurdist question-and-answer session with you. People are probably looking and considering whether ANI would be better off without your wikilawyering, so you might want to avoid giving too crass an impression of wasting time. "Policy-based rationale", after I wrote all that explanatory stuff? Bah. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

So let me see if I have this right. You admit that you didn't even read the thread on which you have chosen to selectively comment on only one section because you don't have time; furthermore, you think that even if I raise legitimate conduct issues here I am wikilawyering? From where I stand the people that are making excuses for not addressing the personal attacks and instead looking for a way to stop filing legitimate complaints against people like IZAK, who just boasted about being on Wikipedpia for 11 years, are those attempting to engage in sophistry. IZAK the 11-year veteran Wikipedia! He should know better, and so should every admin commenting here without reproaching him for his conduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The regular ANI posts that Ubikwit makes every time he comes into conflict with another editor is wearing down my patience. That is disruptive. If Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone on this project without making allegations of misconduct/policy violation, then perhaps he should not be editing here. The posts themselves are spurious and merit no admin action. In answer to Ubikwit's query of "[him] filing this report represents a more serious conduct violation than the personal attacks" - Bishonen may not be insunuating as such but I certainly am. Your frequent filing of these reports are certainly more disruptive and detrimental to the project than any perceived infractions that you have listed. Your inability to assess your own disruptive actions or to take on board the criticism of fellow editors regarding your behaviour (instead accusing them of foul play and dismissing criticism altogether) is completely against the spirits of this project. I hope that you will reassess your actions and fix the communication issues. Your response to this post will probably be laced with hostility and cite a dozen policy violations, but at least I oould say I tried. —Dark 12:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

At least you are more honest in presenting your thoughts, Dark, though obviously I am going to disagree with you and take issue with some of your remarks. You are out of line to suggest that "Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone".

Let's see if I can communicate directly with you, or if you will fail to hear me.

Are you claiming that the personal attacks quoted above are not personal attacks? Or that they don't rise to some unknown threshold that makes them subject to admin action? Let me point to WP:NOTANARCHY, and remind you that personal attacks are not a form of communication that is permitted on Wikipedia. Apparently I was mistaken to think that admins were tasked to enforce the behavioral norms when presented with a complaint. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"If Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone". I am certainly not out of line to suggest a failure to communicate as you have demonstrated with your rather selective reading. "Enforce the behavioral norms when presented with a complaint". Certainly. I am seeing a problem in your behaviour and therefore I am voicing my concerns over it. And yet again you are demonstrating an inability to see fault in your own actions, confirming my point. —Dark 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're communicating. I didn't mean to miscontrue what you said.

Let me try to rephrase my concerns. I've been sort of accused of abusing this forum by making "bad faith" report(s). There is nothing "good faith" about personal attacks, on that I gather we would be in agreement. So it appears that the failure to hold IZAK accountable for those personal attacks--everyone, including you, has refused to say that they aren't personal attacks--would appear to lie in the degree or some other as yet unarticulated variable related to the attacks. I assure you that I'm not here to waste your time or mine, just to prevent conduct issues from impeding the resolution of content disputes. The claim that my filing a report here is diruptive to Wikipedia is a meta-assertion that fails to address the personal attacks. Am I failure to AGF is seeing the matter as such? Your only complaint about my conduct seems to be that you find my reports here to be frequent and frivilous, when at least one recent report resulted in a long-term disruptive editor being indeffed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You wish to hold IZAK accountable for his actions, yet you do not see any fault in your own behaviour. It is not only your frequent and frivolous reports that I find objectionable, but the way you choose to handle any criticism of your actions by deflecting blame to others and accusing them of foul play. You seem to be unable to grasp that your actions are the problem, not the solution. I am not here to comment on the nature of IZAK's activities, it is neither my obligation or inclination to do so (and since this is a thread on a ANI ban for you, it would hardly be the correct place either). I am commenting on your unnecessary and aggressive battleground behaviour, including your accusations of misconduct by casting dispersions on people who have criticised you, your wikilawyering as expressed by Bishonen and others above and your tendency to demand admin action at the first supposed indication of policy infraction by using ANI as the first avenue of complaint. Instead of expressing concern on IZAK's talk page, you come straight to ANI. You have done that 3 times in the span of 1 week, showing a clear tendency to antagonise others in times of disagreement rather than work collaboratively on this project. —Dark 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, the above-related report was not filed by me, I only responded to it. That means twice in one week, in related to completely different issues.

Secondly, I appreciate your advice to bring up such concerns on user talk pages, which is a practice I generally follow, but in this case IZAK was warned during the original AfD thread by User:Gregkaye here, as mentioned in the parent thread above. The WP:IRS talk page dispute was indirectly related to evidence filed at the American Politics Arbcom case.

Finally, I have to defend myself and say that I flat out disagree with your characterizations of my behavior, and frankly, I'm not interested in your psychoanalysis. If you have specific evidence to support your allegations of "unnecessary and aggressive battleground behaviour" aside from claiming that my reports are frequent and frivolous, or that "my actions are the problem, not the solution" aside from claiming that my reports are frequent and frivolous, please don't hesitate to present it instead of making sweeping and baseless generalizations about me. As stated explicitly in the text from WP:NPA that I've quoted in this thread, there is a difference between criticizing an editors editing versus criticizing the editor. You can criticize my actions, but not my character.

I filed this report on personal attacks in good faith, and your assertion that my intentions were otherwise is wrong and offensive. If I'm warned that this report was deemed to be somehow excessive or unnecessarily litigious, then I will certainly reduce the number of reports I file here, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's DR process.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent point that Ubikwit errs by coming to ANI before even trying to discuss an issue with the other party. Which is exactly why I am gobsmacked that some editors are doing exactly the same thing, jumping on the ban wagon before providing Ubikwit with advice or a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: As stated (again) in the edit conflict edit above, IZAK had been warned about making attacks (against me) during the AfD thread by another editor.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, the difference is that plenty of feedback and criticism of Ubikwit's actions were presented in previous threads he had made. The problem, as I have specified many times, is that he has a tendency to accuse those that provide criticism/warning of bad faith and in general, dismiss all feedback presented to him. He has shown a pattern of attacking those that he disagrees with. That is extremely problematic. It's not as if we did not provide him with adequate warning. —Dark 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little too process oriented, but it is my strong view that when a editor is engaging in activity that could result in a topic ban, we owe it to the editor to state in clear terms - "If this behavior does not change, you might be banned".--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It seems to me that DarkFalls is attacking my character as opposed to criticizing my filing of this thread (or any other specific "action"). Making attacks against an editors character is prohibited, I believe, even by admins.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

::sigh:: Now I know how user:Collect feels--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, I'm sure you can appreciate the difficulties of attempting to reason with an editor who considers any criticism to be an attack on his character. I am thoroughly unconvinced that providing him with a formal warning will elicit anything other than further contempt. From the evasive response to your warning on his talk page, I feel your efforts may be in vain although we can hope for the best. —Dark 09:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are mischaracterizing my words, this time as being "evasive". Oh, but your just "criticizing" my actions, right?

I have repeatedly told you that I disagree with your casting aspersions on my filing this report as being "bad faith", etc., as with the OP of this subthread.

I understand that Sphilbrick can see how Marek might be able to characterize my filling this report on personal attacks as representative of BATTLE, but that is not the case. Other editors have characterized Marek's opening of this thread as representative of his BATTLE mentality, but I don't hear you harping on him. You did mention that I was trying your patience, though. Well, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY applies to admins as well, I would imagine. You're a volunteer, right? So am I.

Incidentally, let me refresh your memory that I replied as follows, directly to you several comment above

If I'm warned that this report was deemed to be somehow excessive or unnecessarily litigious, then I will certainly reduce the number of reports I file here, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's DR process.18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I trust you don't see anything evasive in that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:20, 11:53 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that your reports have been deemed to be excessive and unnecessarily litigious by a vast majority of the editors here. There is no ifs and buts about it. The only question is whether your conduct is so disruptive that it merits a ban from this noticeboard. I would also like to note that casting aspersions suggest a lack of evidence - there is plenty of evidence that you have acted in bad faith as suggested by your actions in this noticeboard, including accusing an established editor of being a disruptive SPA, constant cries of unjustified persecution when faced with criticism and deflection of culpability or blame for your actions by pointing out the activity of others. As it appears that nothing productive will occur from continued discussion of this issue with you, I can only hope that you recognise the problems in your behaviour before you are faced with a heavy sanction. —Dark 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: OK, I acknowledge that perhaps my understanding of AN/I's role in DR is somewhat inadequate, and consider myself warned against filing reports that may be seen as unnecessarily litigious.

Incidentally, I did not call an establish use a disruptive SPA, so there must be some misunderstanding there. I can only assume that this relates to the RS/N thread report involving Robrayner and Sairp. Any reference to an SPA in that thread was definitely made with respect to Sairp. I apologize for any confusion due to poor wording in that thread, which was filed under sleep-deprived conditions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Random section break 1

• Noting that the "modification" adding another editor was out of process and not relevant to this discussion
• Was going to oppose until Ubikwit accused everyone else of being Sophists - Support as a result Seems to cover it all. Ubikwit is engaging in battleground acts even where my usual inclination is to oppose all Draconian solutions as rarely working. Cheers, Ubikwit. You managed to change my mind here. Collect (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I understand the frustration, but this is not even a close call. I perused the editors talk page, and did not find a single warning about actions at ANI. I wish I could say we do not topic band people without warning, but we have. The one case I can recall prompted me to consider walking away from Wikipedia. This case is not as egregious; Ubikwit should be picking up clues that some are unhappy with the way they conduct themselves here, but we should not ban someone without clear warnings. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for the reasonable and supportive comment. Let me also point out that not all of my posts at AN/I can be said to have been counterproductive. Here is a recent post that resulting in action against a long-term disruptive editor [45]. When you edit in contentious areas, there are going to be disputes, and when conduct problems arise, I believe it is better to bring them here before they escalate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has certainly been warned many times about forum shopping and harassment in the past. Going back less than a week we have [46] where Ubikwit is noted as having up to five simultaneous discussions. [47] shows a very interesting example of his civility (Fuck off!), etc. And where one editor makes 200+ posts about another editor in a single month, there is a strong likelihood that he knows dang well precisely what he is doing. As I noted, I was going to oppose draconian sanctions as I generally do - until I saw Ubikwit exemplifying the epitome of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT." Collect (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose -- this proposal is merely a tactic by an editor who is battleground-oriented himself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Supposing that a user has been banned from ANI, and then has a legitimate complaint to register, what is the user's alternative option? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say a more specialized noticeboard, or to directly ask for an admin's intervention. But how about WP:AN? Hmm. Well this generally goes to my concern mentioned above. What they do in federal courts when they deny vexatious litigants access is usually to require prior approval of the suit by a licensed attorney. So maybe here the solution would be akin to a mentorship-like relationship: ask an admin to file the thread on behalf, and make that a specific exception to WP:PROXYING in the ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Thomas.W ^talk 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nomoskedasticity. The disputed page is a disgraceful potemkin village of pseudo-stuff which belies the ostensible (see parallel pages) purpose of registering historical bonds to a territory with recent religious and touristic interests. Ubikwit noticed it, and is paying the penalty. As the recent tendency has it, tweely promish and yuppie p's-and-q's-ism is prevailing in disputes over serious content and scholarly editors.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about Ubikwit's battle-ground behaviour, not about the content of an article. A content dispute over a badly sourced, POV or whatever article does not excuse bad behaviour towards other editors. Thomas.W ^talk 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Do any of those rushing to judgement here know the field where this absurd accusation arose? This is about complaints made by his obligatory cancellation of four trash edits. I'm a trained orientalist, and have now examined the details. Tomwsulcer, I am certain in good faith, googled "stuff" that any orientalist would chuck out at less than a nanosecond's glance, and then complained earlier of Ubikwit's reverts. The battle-ground here is between commonsense (and scholarship) and editor's personal sensitivities about being reverted for foolish edits.

• the first cites Arutz Sheva four times. It is highly disputed as a source at RSN. The additions appear to be promotional, for Chabad and Israeli tourism. Viva Sarah Press is a Facebook page. Everything is screwed up there.
• (2) The second revert is correct again. Moshiach com is a bizarre non RS site for history (WP:Fringe) was infringed. This is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for anything a google search throws up (like the laughable (and mendacious):” Most Kashmir researchers are of the opinion that many inhabitants of Kashmir are descendants of the Lost Tribes who were exiled in 722 BCE..".”(b) Ellen Frankel's article has no value for ancient history (because there is none); Alan Silver’s Jews, Myth and History: A Critical Exploration of Contemporary Jewish Belief, p.2 is falsely cited for an irrelevant comment, about the ‘hippie trail’ that leads to the ‘almost secret kingdom of Nepal’ (confusing Nepal with Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan). He’s talking about his wanderings in 1972, not about ‘accounts in literature of Jewish persons migrating to Nepal and the Himalayas’ (under Ancient History) (c) Destination Yisrael is not RS for anything but its own non-notable existence in the blogosphere, and not even for for the bizarre speculation that Ezekiel got past the Caspian Sea to Nepal!!! That is extreme weirdo fringe belief. (d) A certain Robert Mock from the same insane website speaks of speculation that the Buddha is of Jewish descent. Hey folks, wake up and read what the plaintiff got upset at, Ubikwit’s deletion of the idea that the Buddha was actually born from the genetic loins of the Lost Ten Tribes of the House of Israel,’ which is never stated in the vast body of historical Jewish literature. The idea arose among Telegu Jews who got it from modern Christian proselytisers. (e) there is no historical literature connecting the Kaifeng Jews with Nepal.
• (3) The revert was correct for the same reasons as above. Stuff like ‘However, there is speculation that links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham (a myth, not an historical figure), as well as speculation that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.( name=Birnbaum)' is worse than WP:Fringe fantasy: it's drunken trash. Jews did not exist as an ethnos when the caste system, which developed from the tripartite Indo-European ideology the Aryans brought to India, was developed and the idea that the word Brahmin has a Jewish origin defies the precise results of the science of philology.
• (4) Again, correct and obligatory. There is nothing in the Bnei Menashe traditions (whom genetics rules out as having any gene-markers with high frequency in Jewish populations) that identifies Nepal as a transit point. It was a clear WP:OR sviolation.

Worst still, behind all of these edits, unwittingly or no, lie the arguments of Rabbi Eliyahu Birnbaum, who has a direct interest in promoting conversion in those countries. It may be a coincidence, but objectively Ubikwit was reverting blobs of material directly or indirectly associated with the wild fantasies of figures like Birnbaum, ideas that have no place on an article dealing witn Nepal, since they are proselytising, and their presence here consists in self-promotion. Proof if ever that wikipedia is increasingly a control society where face and etiquette and avoiding stepping on toes is far more important than scholarly content.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • @Nishidani: Correct (functioning, at any rate) link to webpage on Rabbi Eliyahu Birnbaum, and the affiliated organization.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's still just a content dispute that should, and can, be handled through the proper channels. It doesn't matter how fringe a theory is (and I've seen lots of really fringe theories here on WP...), it is still no excuse for behaving the way Ubikwit does. Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Your comments above, here where this started some days ago, are all radically indifferent to the fact that Ubikwit was absolutely correct in his removal of trash and blatant POV-promotional pushing. You do not appear to be disturbed by the presence of trash. You appear to have an eagle-eye for 'good form' apropos Ubikwit, who is being singled out here, but not for the obvious elephant in the room. Content is not written by Emily Posters. It's written by people with some understanding of both commonsense and scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighting POV-pushing is what I usually do here on WP, so your comment is as far off the mark as it could be... Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Idem, and I have specific competence in both these areas. I identified flagrant POV-pushing, inadvertently or otherwise, in several edits on the page which lies in the background of the complaints against Ubikwit, and showed his defence of the neutrality of the encyclopedia by his reverts was perfectly policy compliant, both commonsensical and informed by an eye for nonsense. It would appear this counts for nothing. Examine everyone's contribution, in a POV- issue, which, in this regard, requires some basic understanding of the subject, which is not apparent in the many comments in this thread, where one editor's behaviour (WP:Boomerang) is focused on, to the exclusion of the absurd material he rightfully expunged, in what was not edit-warring, but the application of encyclopedic criteria.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment To those who has expressed support after I pointed out that the user has never been warned, are you really supporting the notion that someone can be banned without being warned, or did you see someone warning I have missed? Isn't it generally accepted than when an editor engages in "bad" behavior, they are warned first, and stronger measures enacted if the warning isn't heeded? Has that general approach been changed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Sphilbrick. Ubikwit's talk page is Warning City. here, here, here, here, here, here, blocked from editing, generally for disruptive editing, 3RR, wikibattling; the Wikipedia community has been more than patient with her/his behavior. Was the warning specifically about AN/I? Not sure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. I see some warnings, but I haven't seen one stating, or even hinting that a topic ban might be considered. And while your list of seven diffs looks long on the surface, did you actually read them? The first was from me, posted AFTER this thread started, because I felt we owed a warning. That doesn't count as a warning before the ban consideration. The second and third are warnings from someone who was blocked as a result of a report by Ubikwit. One is a friendly 3RR warning, one not so friendly, but violations of 3RR can lead to a block, not an ANI topic ban. And so on. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a bureaucracy. When you get warnings repeatedly on your talk page. And when you generally have a focus on one area its not hard to imagine you wont end up topic banned from that area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. Editors can reasonably be expected to read the atmosphere and conclude from the total failure of prior ANI threads that starting another in the same manner will not end well. If Ubikwit cannot or will not do this, it is entirely reasonable to consider sanctions to prevent the sort of repetitive disruption that will surely result otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: As mentioned above (twice now?), a recent report I filed that resulting in a long-term disruptive editor [48] being indeffed. It is simply not the case that my participation here is no more than disruptive. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, substitute "near total failure" for "total failure". You need to learn to read the atmosphere. Go elsewhere first. Settle your disputes through the normal dispute resolution processes. And work on civility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't have the energy to read all of this but I would advise anyone to making decisions to have a good open minded resd of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_ of_the_Jews_in_Nepal . I am about to leave my comments.... IZAK as you must be completely aware there were many polite and decent comments on both sides of the argument yet you consistently used derogatory language and then with unabashed hypocrisy criticised others for the very actions that you were guilty of. As for red herrings, you sure know how to fish. Please look at the others that were supporting the keep argument. You could learn from them. Gregkaye (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose seriously a ban from ANI? Unworkable and unrealistic. If you're going to ban someone for something then do it, essentially telling them they're banned from administrative functions is way out of order. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  "Unworkable"? In what way? BMK (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The comment is made that Ubikwit has not been warned. He has been criticized. No thread filed by Ubikwit here has been closed with a warning because his constant threads alleging personal attacks and abuse (which often have some merit, but do not rise to ANI) just tire everyone out and we just want the noise to go away. In this particular thread, whether the consensus to keep was right or wrong, there clearly was no consensus to delete, and Ubikwit's immediate reopening was tendentious and forum shopping. If Ubikwit really identifies an issue that requires ANI action, I am sure that he can get someone else to file it. I am not proposing that he be topic-banned from commenting on ANI threads, but only that he be topic-banned from starting them (or subthreads). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The assertion that my opening a DRV discussion "was tendentious forum shopping" is baseless, and I request that it be struck.

First of all, I contacted the closing admin and asked for an explanation of his reasoning, then I asked him again a day later after he failed to reply. After being denied an explanation, I filed the DRV request(thread here), according to standard procedure. The first comment by an uninvolved editor, User:S Marshall was

It's been re-opened absolutely bloody everywhere else. Those extraneous discussions should all be closed. DRV is the correct venue to dispute an AfD outcome, and Ubikwit is entirely within his rights to begin a deletion review, so this is the only place the discussion should be re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)(underlining added)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• And that's how I feel about discussing whether History of the Jews in Nepal should be deleted. There appears to be a conduct dispute as well, which I think should probably take place at RFC/U. I'm afraid I'm not interested in the conduct dispute, although I do have a fairly strong view on the article.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure this is a good precedent. He should have been given a warning prior to the discussion of a topic ban, and I'm not convinced that his disruption is severe enough that it rises to the level of such a sanction. He has apparently annoyed a lot of people, but that seems more like an issue for an RFC/U. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: following the reasoning in the post above me by NinjaRobotPirate. There is contentious behaviour by more than one editor involved in the inclusion or exclusion discussion regarding this particular article on Nepal, but again that is just user conduct. I agree that we should not topic ban at this point because of lack of enough correct warning. Fylbecatulous talk 12:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The above ANI thread opened by Ubikwit could even have some merit, as the IZAK's words show some battleground behaviour and some lack of good faith. Probably there is not enough for having IZAK blocked, but surely not enough for a BOOMERANG. --Cavarrone 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad precedent, and Cavaronne (above) has a point. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not that I endorse bringing every quarrel under the sun to a notice board, but there has to be venue for everyone to seek intervention and advice from uninvolved users. If not here, then where?- MrX 17:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. Sphilbrick's comments above of merit, within this discussion. ANI is an awful place; wikipedia is an awful place, that's what I get out of this kind of stuff going on. --doncram 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved please sort out person with 3 accounts?

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Background info on me and the "Siduri Project" a well-meaning editor who is struggling with their understanding of how Wikipedia works. Thanks. The accounts are User:Wiki-proofer-and-tagger, User:Siduri-Project, and User:Gilgamesh-for-the-World. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that editor is not so much that he has three accounts, nor that he's apparently been using some of them as shared role accounts, but that he is trying to use the editing of our Gilgamesh-related pages in order to advertise some bizarre personal program promoting an obscure passage of text in one Gilgamesh texts as if it was a religious piece of life advice for the modern world, trying to give greatly undue weight to that passage and maximizing the visibility of his external website in the process, all the while covering his campaign up with grandiloquent walls of text about what grand schemes of reinventing Wikipedia he has. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect, I am indeed passionate about Siduri and Siduri's advice, bizarre as that may be, hence the primary goal of the Siduri project to improve Wikipedia's "Siduri" page with new multimedia (images, audio, video etc). The reason I am excited about the "Siduri Project" from a more general Wikipedia perspective, is that we may be able to use the same model and step-by-step user-friendly processes to improve other Wikipedia pages. Please judge me based on my past, current and future actions. I am here to: 1) improve the Siduri page (which I am passionate about) and 2) hopefully export these processes to other Wikipedia pages to improve Wikipedia. Every edit from every account (no they are not Role accounts) speaks that intent. I do appreciate your perspective on me and this project and will do everything in my power to alleviate your concerns. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the beta-testing account "Gilgamesh-for-the-World", I propose it is in Wikipedia's best interest to have this multimedia beta-tested on a non-public page before being integrated into the actual Siduri page. This way, if I, or any of our contributors, makes a mistake, it will not interfer with Wikipedia's publicly accessibly Siduri page. Perhaps "Gilgamesh-for-the-World" is not the best name for such a page, if this is in any way a concern, would "Siduri-Beta-Testing" be a more acceptable account name? Siduri-Project (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't need nor should you have multiple accounts for the reasons you're stating. You simply use a personal WP:SANDBOX for testing in non-article space like everyone else who read the policies and guidelines does the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Could multiple people see and modify this sandbox page, or would it only be limited to one account? The concept of the beta-testing page was to get feedback from Siduri Project contributors regarding bugs, improvements, copyright etc, before posting to the public page. Does this make sense, or should I elaborate?Siduri-Project (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no 'Siduri project'. Contributors wishing to edit the article in question will have to do so as individuals, as with any other article. And sandboxes etc are emphatically not appropriate places to sort out copyright issues - if material is copyright, it must not be uploaded at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy:

1. Yes, you are of course right, I would never upload any copyrighted material that might hurt Wikipedia. My colleagues and I will make sure all copyright regulations are followed.

2. Yes, you are correct that no "Siduri Project" has yet been approved, we still need to propose this project (once the regulatory issues are resolved) at Wikipedia's village pump.

3. No, I don't think that beta-testing increasingly sophisticated multimedia and applications live on the publicly accessible Siduri page is in the best interests of either Wikipedia or the Wikipedia visitor. Personal sandboxes may be ok for text and images, but audio, video and other applications should we checked by multiple people before being integrated into the public page. This may not be Wikipedia policy, but it should be, in my opinion. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is precisely zero possibility of any 'Siduri project' being approved by Wikipedia. We have no need whatsoever for projects based around a single article, and neither do we need projects clearly intended to promote the subject of the article in ways entirely incompatible with the objectives of the encyclopaedia. If you want to start a new religion, do so elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm more and more concerned that the editor doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia ... sounds like WP:NOTWEBHOST. Siduri: your current userid fails WP:U and can be blocked at any moment. Any other accounts that appear to be role accounts can also be blocked. No pages that you create on Wikipedia are "private" in any way - that's why we use WP:AFC and sandboxes to create new articles. Be careful about editing in concert with each other - we do have rules against that that can lead to blocks the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if "Siduri-Project" was not an acceptable username. Would "Jim-Siduri" work?Jim-Siduri (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, etc.etc. Don't know where to start. Well, perhaps if I was an admin by blocking two of the three accounts. --cyclopia^speak! 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Shades of Tumbleman. EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish now I'd done that. I thought I was talking to 2 editors at Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh, I can see now that I was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as article-fixing goes, I'm going through the contribs and removing/rewriting/reworking now. Feel free to revert if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. Woodroar (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a number of copyvio links to sidurisadvice.com - these were to pdfs of copyright works. We shouldn't be linking to copyvio sites. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Off topic

Irrelevant sideshow Blackmane (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Panda, how's your WP:SOCK account doing? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Do you really need to highjack this for your beef? Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Are you his lackey or another sock account too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Always fun when someone refuses to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. But hey, whatever the panda ₯’ 19:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I've read that. Several times. I'm just pointing out to people who may not be aware of your other account. Always fun when someone refuses to read WP:AGF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User name User:Siduri-Project

Question: wouldn't it be fair to call User:Siduri-Project a name that implies a shared use? Right now, it may be a single person but there's no reason why the project couldn't share the account. It's also arguably promotional but I don't think projects qualify under that policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the editor is now going by the moniker User:Jim-Siduri. However, they are still editing the User:Siduri-Project userpage under some kind of impression that that is some kind of wikiproject or something. Hurts to think about it too much. Rgrds. --64.85.214.37 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the 3 older ones, redirected their userpages to the new account's userpage and copied material over as well. Maybe this will sort it now. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for potential interaction ban or topic ban of some kind; or some kind of intermediate action

I am here to request an interaction ban and potential topic ban between myself and the user Cebr1979. Said-user and I just cannot seem to get along, despite my best efforts to avoid said-user and the pages they edit. However, we both edit articles of soap operas, etc., so a topic ban may be a bit complicated to pull off. But said-user continues to make accusations of Wikihounding and reverting just their edits, while I am merely following topics pinned into my Watchlist, articles I've had a large hand in either editing, maintaining or creating. It has become a complete uncivil situation, despite my best intentions to try and just avoid situations with said-user. Should be noted user was blocked for a period of 48 hours following Personal and harassment, something I feel they are still on-going in. This evening, I edited the pages of Kelly Andrews and Summer Newman, both characters of The Young and the Restless, to make their edits comply with {{Infobox soap character}}, which I noted in my edit summery ([49]) while the second on Summer Newman, I was under the assumption I was merely fixing disruptive edits of another user from the day prior, and was left with ou have been told by a site admin to stop following my edits. If you really feel that strongly, you have to take it to the talk page. No more reverting! and Again, you have been told by a site admin to stop following my edits. If you have a problem, take it to the talk page. No more reverting!.

Following, I was then accused of Wikihounding said editor and that I "continued on with my usual ways of just reverting", which is another assumption, which said-user was advised by an Admin to refrain from making assumptions on their talk page (and here and here) -- user ignored those warnings and posted this, which later resulted in their block. Assumptions continued being made again, and I went to User:DarkFalls, and inquired about it, where I was told to ignore them. The mere simply fact that the pages they choose to edit on are on my Watchlist is not me Wikihounding them, which I am continually accused of doing, as well as other things.

I am requesting the interaction ban for Cebr1979, as I do not wish to be part of the user's postings or editing any longer. As for a topic ban, that one may be a bit more complicated, as we both edit within the soap opera fields, and as a longtime member of the Soap Project (a project I have been with since August 14, 2011 and editing with prior to joining the project), I have had a hand in the re-structuring of several U.S. soap opera articles alongside User:Arre 9, User:Creativity97, and User:SoapFan12, and have several other articles currently in the process of creation/re-creation. I am over feeling like I myself am being personally attacked by said-user concerning any edits I may make, and am now editing in fear of being accused of things I am not doing. I have loved and enjoyed editing on Wikipedia, making it a more resourceful and notable place, especially for soap articles and music-related articles. However, this situation with the user in question has severely diminished my editing desires out of mere fear that my actions are being seen not in good faith, which they always are intended, while mistakes can and probably have been made in the past. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop bringing up former events, they've been dealt with by admins. Your own talk page states, "the past is the past." A site admin told you two days ago to stop following my edits. I never made that accusation, he said it first! He also told you that if you felt strongly about something I edited, you should take it to that article's talk page. You went ahead and reverted two of my edits without going to those article's talk pages. You ignored two things an admin told you to stop doing and continued on as though that conversation never happened. Me saying this to you now is not "making accusations." As I said to you earlier, I'm stating facts. A site admin told you to stop doing something and you didn't listen. Have a good day, livelikemusic. I won't be returning to this conversation either.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I can tell someone likes soap-operas. Howunusual (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The only issue I have with an interaction ban between the two parties is that it would likely be ineffective considering the similar interests of the two - they are bound to edit the same articles and come into conflict in the future. However their interactions in the past has been rather toxic, something must be done before communications deteriorate even further. —Dark 11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, something must be done, because no matter what I edit, or edit summary I use, I'm told I'm automatically reverting them and Wikihounding them. I simply cannot edit without the fear of being accused of things I am not doing, especially when said-edits I make are following template guidelines and requirements that have been implemented for years, yet now ignored because I'm "Wikihounding" and "bullying". It feels like a very personal vendetta against myself, and I an interaction ban and potential topic ban may diffuse the situation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope this is truly considered, as I would not be asking if I did not believe it were the only option, as I'm truly feeling more Wikihounded now than when I originally made this case. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

A few years ago, I had been part of a group who uncovered a campaign by David Horvitz to have photographs of himself looking at various beaches along the California coast posted on Wikipedia. This culminated in this deletion discussion at the Commons (there may have been a discussion regarding the photos locally but I cannot seem to find it). Horvitz then turned this into an art project when every single photo he had uploaded got deleted, but it turns out that he fully intended to reupload everything.

Binksternet recently uncovered the disruption had happened once more locally and on the Commons with a slew of sockpuppets that he has been documenting at his talk page. I also uncovered other photographs he had posted across the project and other language projects, as he did in his previous disruption in 2011. This has disruption occuring from the past 2 years, including photographs of similar quality taken of his international journeys including one of a beach in Hong Kong. I also discovered that Horvitz had been contributing to Wikipedia as early as 2006 under the account Rasputinfa, which he had explicitly linked to his own name. There was also some minor disruption late last year when he used an intern to get his article deleted.

I am proposing that we officially ban David Horvitz from the English Wikipedia. We should also attempt to coordinate bans on other projects, as he has uploaded his photographs for a beach in Hong Kong for which there is only an article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well as constant disruption to the Commons, but I am not as well versed in the means to get that sort of ball rolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Whale Beach (Nevada) has a photo of a naked guy facing, thankfully, away from the viewer, looking out to the water. The camera is not the same model as the ones Horvitz has used (usually a Canon EOS 40D professional or Canon PowerShot consumer model), but the layout of the photos and the physicality of the person is the same. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So he actually created a whole new article just to host a selfie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And it's a crap selfie at that. Between the dust circles, sharpness, exposure settings, lens choice... while I agree with some of this guy's compositional and subject choices in some of the images displayed at that "art project" page, this is just dreck being passed off as fine photography. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question I understand people are miffed, but I'm not sure I see the disruption. (I read the discussion at the time, but it's a distant memory.) If he is replacing pictures with worse ones just to have his picture included, then it's disruption, regardless of whether it's art, self promotion, or exhibitionism. If on the other hand the pictures are improving the articles, then we should offer a lukewarm welcome... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

He's using Wikipedia to promote himself and his work by only uploading photographs of himself at these various locations with his back turned to the camera, forcing editors who want to use the photos to crop them to where the subject is himself absent from the photos. Or his odd artistic photos like the one he had at melancholic depression for 2 years of him fake sobbing into his hands, the photo he posted at solitude of just himself standing on a beach with no one else, or this photo of himself looking at a sculpture. There is no point to any of the photos he has uploaded here or at the commons other than making sure that he is included in them.

He was not welcome 3 years ago when he was indefinitely blocked. He is not welcome now that he's spent the past 3 years using sockpuppets to discreetly reupload everything that had been deleted and then go out to more locations to take more photos of himself in the same manner and then post them to Wikipedia, making screencaps of them prominent in his artwork and his fame. If he wanted to be welcomed by the community his homepage would not have a screenshot of our article on the Irish coastal town of Howth with a photo of him looking out at Dublin Bay with his back facing the camera to gloat about how he's fooled Wikipedia again. He made it his full intention to disrupt Wikipedia after we gave him the boot, and immortalized our words in his gallery when we realized we had been had.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's still not clear how we are "fooled", or how anyone is "forced" to crop his images (though go ahead if the results are better, it is a moments work after all). It's rather like saying one has "hacked" Wikipedia when one edits an article to improve it. And maybe someone should tell him about the "preview" feature if he just wants screencaps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

He had his photos on the project for the past 2 years after we found out about his "Public Access" installation that he was using Wikipedia for and had them all deleted the first time around. Then his first act after whatever automatic block expired was to add back the photo that led to the discovery of his stupid art project in the first place. And no, screencaps aren't what he wants. He wants to have photos of himself on the various Wikipedia articles live by being in the photographs. That's why he added the photo to Howth. That's why when he went to Hong Kong, he took a photo on a beach there and then added it to the Chinese Wikipedia page as the top image on the article. He's not here to contribute. He's here to disrupt and have his backside across Wikimedia projects. The fact that we could not catch this two years ago means that there are an untold number of lovely photographs of beaches across Wikipedia and its sister projects that have the same man looking at the horizon away from the camera just because he wants to make a statement about web 2.0.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question - Is there a policy reason why he was not notified of this discussion, or was that just an oversight? He should have been notified, and has been. It is important for anyone reporting a disruptive editor to be sure that they follow both the spirit and the letter of our policies and guidelines. Was he not notified for a reason, or by oversight? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Robert; as you saw, I directed his talk page to the conversation, but with the "gaggle of sockpuppets" Modus operandi he uses, creating a whole slew of accounts, often only using the account to upload 3 photos then its never used again, how do you really notify "him", he is Wikipedia:Gaming the system, an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards. talk→ WPPilot  03:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ban?

• Support ban. This guy is an outstanding example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He has been socking for years now, with no indication of quitting. Let's get the proper leverage to rush his stuff out the door immediately in the future. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban per Binksternet talk→ WPPilot  20:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. I agree with the two prior users on this question. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Using Wikipedia for pranks or promotion is unhelpful, and it is obvious the user will never voluntarily stop—if they got one selfie on every article, they would then want two. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban as per proposer. Disruptive and narcissistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Has anyone ever been banned from Commons? It's a real question, even although I think I know the answer. I think that Commons is a cesspool, but that is my opinion, and the WMF's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. BMK (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, definitely. A user named Xanderliptak comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  That was the name I couldn't come up with!! But I've heard of others as well. One was mentioned recently on AN or AN/I, where it was commented that they were banned for X behavior on Commons and now the editor was doing the same thing here. Can;t remember that name either. BMK (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Has he not figured out Flickr yet ... or even The Yellow Pages ? ... Anyway there's only so much rope one can offer till it runs out!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Ryūlóng and Binksternet. Long term misuse of the project for self promotion and some sort of personal project using Wikipedia as performance art through years of socking.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban Horvitz is not here to improve this encyclopedia, but rather to promote his self-absorbed absurdist art project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I thought this was already done with, long ago. Close the book on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The pictures should be the stars alone on Wikipedia, not be some artist's bizarre opportunity to insert themselves to make unneeded social commentary. Nate • (chatter) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though only because of the crap images and promotional intent. There were a number of decent images that just happened to have the same person in there. Such an insertion could absolutely be useful to give a sense of scale in landscape photos (and these seem to be the photos that were the focus of the "art project" linked above). In other words, I do not consider landscape images featuring a person standing in them to be disruptive per se, and I would oppose the adoption of a rule of that character. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose reluctant to disagree with esteemed worthies above, but until there is demonstrable (or should I say demonstrated) disruption, I see no reason to ban. The guy is interested in California beaches, we need articles on them which he is prepared to start. Win-win. If we don't like his photo's we can crop or replace. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
  

  He's not interested in California beaches. He's interested in Web 2.0 and disrupting Wikipedia by having his posterior side on as many pages as possible, or his face in his hands on several articles on depression.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, agressive promoting of own pictures is a big problem on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban - He's obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and we can do without the disruption.- MrX 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban - I found a couple more of his photos just now and started DNs. This user (group of socks on hand of one user) is not here to contribute, but to disrupt and use for self-promotional purposes. I will look at every beach photo from now on for his bum. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support though it will probably have the same effect as banning Putin from your restaurant - in other words, none. Someone who is socking like he is seems unlikely to stop when we throw a ban at them. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, but there's a greater chance of Mr. Horvitz uploading his photos for use on Wikipedia, again, than Putin going to Buffalo and buying a taco.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wry amusement. Great discussion. You made me smile.--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Okay, this user is claiming to be Mr. Horvitz in his recent edits. It is clear that he's just here to gloat and he has more accounts than previously accounted for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  The User:Nowa account has been in use for a while now.[50] User_talk:Nowa#Personal_information.3F: in that conversation the user claims that his true ID had already been made public. talk→ WPPilot  08:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Then what's with this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  I agree, in that is a admission of his/that users ID. talk→ WPPilot  18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't get it. Is Nowa or is Nowa not another account operated by the photographer David Horvitz?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  This is just another component of his manipulation of Wikipedia. It is safe to accept the admission of Nowa=David Horvitz taking into consideration now the number of admissions, as well as the users history editing the David Horvitz page. talk→ WPPilot  21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Nowa is a longstanding Wikipedia contributor, a patent holder and patent attorney who happens to hold the same name as the bothersome photographer. Don't ban Nowa! We don't need collateral damage against good editors. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rich Farmbrough and per some of the photographs which are absolutely stunning. Caden ^cool 18:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  They really weren't. Really. None of them were candidates for featured, or even quality pictures. At 100% they all had awful quality problems (typically bad exposure, terrible edge sharpness and chromatic aberrations, indicative of using a kit lens to shoot landscapes, which should be sharp from end-to-end). While I thought some might be retainable, they were almost all duplicative of higher quality work we had elsewhere on Commons. It's essentially the same rationale as COM:PENIS: unless there's some overriding reason, we don't need yet another picture of some random guy's genitals, or some random guy's vacation picture of something we already have plenty of. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  And nearly all of the photos are unusable if they are cropped because he places himself in the middle of all of the landscapes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if “stunning” is the right word but some images are museum quality. See Mood Disorder which is currently under consideration for undeletion so it can be included in his bio.--Nowa (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  It's only under undeletion because you requested it and it's only in a museum because of the disruption of Wikipedia. So are you or are you not Mr. Horvitz who is going to be subject to this ban?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  This is fascinating. If I say nothing, would you ban me?--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  That's up to the community. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  OK, then I think I'll just wait and see what the community decides.--Nowa (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban - I was on the fence about this, the "disruption" seemed minimal to me, but based on his behavior in this thread (there's little doubt that Nowa is Horvitz), it's clear that this person's entire purpose is to troll and disrupt Wikipedia for the fun of it - so let's please ban him so getting rid of his "contributions" will be that much easier. BMK (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated disruption on Jai Prakash Menon

A number of obviously related user accounts and IPs (with most IPs geolating to New Delhi, India) have for a very long time caused disruption on Jai Prakash Menon, a BLP about an Indian IT executive, first repeatedly adding promotional content, as if Wikipedia were a resumé site or social networking site, and then, since December of last year, repeatedly removing a properly sourced controversy involving Menon. The article has been through WP:BLPN ([51]), with no support for removing the content, and has been protected as a result of a report at WP:AN3 ([52]), which prevented edits by IPs and new user accounts, but instead brought out an autoconfirmed SPA, Theamigosinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is now causing disruption on the article. Over the past couple of days that user has repeatedly added a BLPPROD-tag to the article, in spite of me equally repeatedly pointing them to WP:BLPPROD ([53]), with quotes and all, in an attempt to make them understand that BLPPROD does not apply since there are plenty of reliable sources in the article. I am now at three reverts today, and don't want to break the 3RR-rule, so I would appreciate some help there. Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be some WP:CIR issues. There are more eyes on the article and the user now; the user has been amply warned and hasn't edited since. If they (or by any chance another newly autoconfirmed account) should return to make the same kind of edits, I'm pretty sure they'll be blocked. Please ping me if I miss it, Thomas. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Will do. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen and Thomas.W

• thank you for the intervention. I have been raising following issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis
• Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/jai-menon-quits-vodafone-heads-back-to-airtel/article1628493.ece http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/global-cio/181177/dr-jai-menon

• WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
• As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
• 1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
• 2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
• 3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives.

• Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 on the article which included sourced content with valid references, however all were deleted by Thomas W. without any written explanation. I tried to reason, however he stopped responding on the talk page.

• Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.

User:theamigosinc9:35, 5 July, 2014 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You have not at all addressed the issue of your disruptive repeated insertion of the BLPPROD tag when it is clearly inappropriate. There are numerous reliably published sources that specifically mention Menon - they do not say "some unnamed corporate executive". If you dont think the coverage is notable, the proper place is WP:AFD -it is NOT to keep improperly reinserting the inapplicable BLPPROD tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

All published reliable sources have 1 thing in common - they are referring statements by anonymous people... The issue which I have raised is who are these people. In our primary research as one of the most respected publication in the world, we have not found any statement on record, or by company or lawsuit.

The insertion of BLPROD tag is attributed to my limited knowledge of wikipedia platform and has no linkage to my intent, what so ever. Kindly refrain steer dicussion away from the main issue as you have writeen a factually incorrect article only basis news paper articles violating the 3 rules of BLP content. User:theamigosinc 7:20 am, 6 June, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is NO violation of those rules in the article, it is well sourced, factual and well balanced. The article has been through WP:BLPN and has been examined by multiple editors, none of whom supports your views. So stop your disruption, including stop posting walls of text with allegations against me all over the place. Thomas.W ^talk 10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

An outburst of vandalism

Might need a bit of help with an outburst of vandalism to 492d Fighter Squadron, Jahanabad, Pilibhit etc, etc. from the range 78.85.... (Rostelcom). TIA  —SMALLJIM  16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

78.85.247.195, 78.85.80.49 still need blocked. James^x12345 16:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also 78.85.104.229 James^x12345 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've laid down an inclusive range block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. James^x12345 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew someone could work it out faster than me :) I think that between us we haven't left anything in a vandalised state. Thanks, Jamesx12345 and The Last Arietta.  —SMALLJIM  16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

The vandalism started again a few minutes ago from 78.85.246.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I've reinstated zzuuzz's rangeblock for another 24 hours. Happy for anyone to change it if this is considered to be inappropriate.  —SMALLJIM  19:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: for info.  —SMALLJIM  19:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of article Yank Barry

Note; I am not here to judge the merits of the legal dispute or the dispute on the article. All I'm here to bring a discussion about is the protection type which is currently used on the article. On June 25th, 2014 User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry fully protected the article until August 29, 2014 and used this as the reference to do it in their edit summary; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank_Barry. Note that the discussion did not mention full protection the event of legal dispute, and only did the end of it actually link to an administrative noticeboard, which unfortunately I can't find the archives to at this moment. I went to the protecting administrator's talk page and they declined to unprotect the article, citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants. Then, I went to WP:UNPROTECT where I proposed that the protection be removed. It was declined, and was instructed to go to WP:ANI, so here I am. Yank Barry has been mentioned on multiple admin noticeboards as the subject has brought Wikipedia users to court for defamation, and is currently an ongoing legal proceedings.

My main qualms with the current protection is that there was seemingly no policy justification for it and that it creates a bad precedent. Chase me ladies used WP:LEGAL as the policy justification for on the article. There is no protection policy outlined on WP:LEGAL. I objected to the protection type and a few other editors have as well. The reason why it creates a bad precedent is that people will see the Yank Barry article and may just use legal proceedings to ensure that the article is locked. Full protection locks out everyone, including the valid contributors who were trying to ensure the article adhered to WP:BLP, WP:V and other content policies. As well, as outlined at WP:GOLDLOCK, fully protection is only warranted in degrees of content disputes and in case of 'history only review'. This article does not outline nor meet that criteria. I propose that the article be unprotected/reduced to semi protection due to the lack of justification in policy for the protection type and the bad precedant that it creates. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps pending changes would be more suitable. If we can review anything before its put up thats potentially libelous etc might be a way forward. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the benefits of PP on this article, or in general. Speaking to WP:LEGAL there is little benefit, indeed WRONGVERSION constraints could make the protecting admin liable. However this specific article is pretty much only edited by consensus, so I don't see much harm either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Per "citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants", I doubt, from a position of ignorance, whether it is possible to sue someone for acts not yet committed, though of course additional defendants can be named, and indeed this is presumably the reason for the "Does 1-50" in the original application to the court. I would imagine the court would look dimly upon a plaintiff who had not taken the trouble to establish at least the user names of the defendants, but then I am not the court. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, I added that back in due to the fact that I wanted to be fair to Chase me ladies and make sure that their side was accurate and told. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• While there are no policy-based justifications for protecting an article under these types of circumstances, I consider this a case of IAR and common sense. On the other hand as far as I know, the supposed legal actions are based solely on the conduct and comments of individual editors in the talk page, not the article content, and the edit war, such as it were, was between several Yank Barry-friendly accounts and some of the regulars there. There are also precedents to this type of admin action - Donald Arthur for example was stubbed and fully protected for weeks while Wikimedia Legal duked it out with the subject's lawyers and eventually bounced it back to us. So let's call this a bit of justified cautiousness, set up pending changes just in case and move on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the primary distance with that case is that there was an OTRS ticket which I can speculate was a specific legal threat, and that the blanking and the stubbing was done by an WP:OFFICE action, which override consensus. If the WMF foundation sees it fit that the article be fully protected in the notion of the legal dispute, I will respect that, but not when an administrator sees it fit on their own thoughts and reasoning. I do support semi protection/pending changes as a solution. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an Office action, it was an admin realizing the severity of the problem and responding to a temporary semi-protection request from me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• My concern is that a non-pseudonymous editor might be added to the suit for what we would consider to be a benign edit. I consider page protection to be a reasonable tradeoff between inconvenience and benefit, but setting up pending changes would accomplish the same thing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• While I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I consider the possibility of editors being unknowingly dragged into this ongoing lawsuit real and dangerous, not hypothetical and unlikely. I endorse protection per WP:IAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• BLP states: "As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article." This is like allowing the subject to choose who gets to write the article by taking legal action whether it goes to court or not. A straight across the board lock seems appropriate here for now. I endorse protection as well per the Foundation's Resolution:Biographies of living people which states: "Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems". When a subject is taking legal action against editors of their page, this may well be the best mechanism for this instance.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am against pending changes as an option in this case. There is already a clear chilling effect and as a reviewer I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Other's might be willing, but doesn't that just add potential issues such as a reviewer passing through content that then also becomes a legal matter and now we have two editors involved and not just the one?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - The real problem here is that the WMF has not said anything after the lawsuit was filed. They should have said something, as to whether they would protect the named editors or the Does, or would not protect them. Shame on them. They can cure the shame by saying either that they will defend the editors, or that they will leave the editors on their own. In the mean time, Shame on them. They should have responded quickly, rather than consulting for ever. That is my opinion. WMF: Can you say something to the sued editors, or do you really just plan to leave them hanging? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Robert, if the WMF has had any communication with the defendants (I don't know if they have), I'd expect it to be private. I wouldn't get worked up about this without actual knowledge. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I generally despise full page protection as many of the best content people are not administrators and protection is often used as a tool in edit wars to lock down a favored version over an alternative version. In this case, however, with a pending lawsuit which lists "John Does #1 to 50," I think full protection can be rationalized as a protective measure to prevent passersby from actually becoming embroiled in an ugly legal situation. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to protecting the page to reduce the risk of people getting themselves involved in a potential legal case without realising. That said, it seems to me very have an interesting situation. I believe, and it seems to be supported by some of the comments above that the legal case currently is only supposed to involve talk page comments. While I don't see any reason talk page comments will be pursued but not article edits (if anything the opposite), is it possible we may actually be increasing the risk of editors becoming defendents by pushing them to the talk page rather than editing the article directly? (I presume we're not planning to protect the talk page.) Also while I'm generally a strong supporter of PC, I have to agree it seems a bad choice here since we risk just increasing the people who may involve themselves. While perhaps there would be a small number of editors willing to accept that possible consequences and monitor the PC, I don't see a way to prevent others just thinking it's a normal situation. In fact, is it more likely an editnotice will be missed by reviewers? Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You raise an interesting point, but I think the distinction is a bit of a red herring: the suit concerns not talk page comments, but defamation. It's pretty meaningless where it is alleged to have happened, whether on the article, talk page, or even here on ANI: the risk of getting swept up in the suit, all else being equal, is equivalent. But all else is not equal: someone forced to go to the talk page is going to see, writ large, that something is going on and that they ought to act accordingly. Yes, that will chill commentary. Forgive me for being paternalistic, but I think in this situation, a brief period of chilling isn't too harmful if it means keeping our valuable editors from being SLAPPed around. But all said, I think the points raised by this incident at least make clear that we're just not sure how to approach these situations. What should we do during the pendency of a potential SLAPP? There are policy arguments favoring multiple approaches. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To be clear, my concern wasn't much to do with chilling commentary (except that I'm not convinced we're willing to go so far as to fully protect the talk page). Rather I'm not sure we have any particular reason to think people are less likely to write the allegedly defamatory stuff on talk pages? If anything it seems they may be more likely to do so since they'll feel freerer on the talk page. Experience editors may recognise that full protection is rare, and try to work out what is going on. But one would hope experienced editors will also read an edit notice and perhaps hidden commentary. I'm less convinced inexperienced editors are going to realise there much be something going on. And while I'm not sure how likely it is inexperienced editors will read an edit notice, I'm also not sure how likely it is they will notice existing discussion on the talk page about the legal case. If anything it may be easier for them to miss, since they'll just click "add section" write some crap and be done. (I mean how many times have you seen an editor post something which is discussed one or two threads above? Heck some editors still manage to post to the top of the talk page.) In other words, the more I think about it, the more I'm unconvinced protecting the article is actually going to achieve what we are hoping it will achieve and in fact could actually do the reverse. The only chance it may is if enough people just don't bother because they can't edit or are aware of the situation but don't take it seriously but do when they see full protection because they believe it must mean there is something serious. P.S. Let's remember that there is potentially a risk outside the article on it's talk page too and so people may need to be careful with their commentary. I've purposely avoided saying anything about the merits of the case for that reason (like possible SLAPP issues). Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose protection, propose semi-pro and an edit notice instead an edit notice notifying editors of the pending litigation, paired with semi protection to block brand, new editors, seems adequate without the more drastic action of the full protection. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While I prefer full protection for this because of the concerns mentioned above, I'm not as in favor of an editnotice. Call it WP:DENY-like reasoning (though I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling that rationale with my approval of protection). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • But if you're interested in protecting editors, does it really make sense to choose the option which may put them at more harm based on some weird principle which you admit you aren't really consistently applying? Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As one of the people named in the lawsuit, I can say that 1) it's a mess, and 2) it's being dealt with. I'd suggest maintaining the protection for a while longer, pending further developments. As of right now, nobody has a request for an article edit on the talk page, and there's not much controversy. So there's no urgency to do anything. John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose protection, propose semi-protection and an edit notice instead Word for word agree with User:VQuakr.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The "edit notice" concept is worrisome. What will it say? "You may be sued if you edit or comment on this article?" That's more intimidating than full protection. There are major policy implications to such a notice. It might well encourage other suits against editors. John Nagle (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This, absolutely. I knew there was a reason I had a visceral revulsion to the idea of the editnotice. It's not so much a WP:DENY issue as a WP:BEANS issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the edit notice contain an attention grabbing (stop sign with exclamation point?) icon, and say something similar to, "Please note that per the Terms of Use, you take responsibility for your edits. Be aware that as noted in this article, in the past editors who have edited this page have been subjected to legal action. More information can be found [[<link to archived discussion about lawsuit>|here]]." WP:DENY is an essay about vandalism, and is being given undue consideration in this context. My take on this is pretty simple - we do not need to big brother the article by fully protecting it - if WMF legal thinks it should be locked, they can do it via office action. Otherwise, nothing in the protection policy supports this protection. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with either John or my points to which you're replying. I already said the issue is more a WP:BEANS one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: yeah, weird; the second to last part of my reply above does not really follow. I must have misread your post. Of course WP:BEANS is just an essay, too. The example it gives is not to write, don't click on this link or you will crash Wikipedia - pretty different than please don't sue the editors. I do not really see how it applies, or how an edit notice could in any way increase the probability of legal action. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a great big banner saying to other article subjects "Hey, this guy sued and got a big ol' fancy banner on his article to scare away people who said things he didn't like. Why not you?" That's where the beans come in. In my mind, protection is a bit different because it doesn't make absolutely clear why the article's protected to anyone who happens to click "edit". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment I support the protection as a means of reducing both the potential for drama as well as the potential for there to be further publicity generated as a result of edits made to the article while the lawsuit is pending.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones

User:Smallbones has reverted an article without an edit summary, and when then the editor has raised the revertion on Jimmy's talk page as part of a wider discussion (I think), Smallbones has reverted not only the raising of that issue, but also a post from another editor directly commenting to Smallbones on another editor, claiming that they are socks of a banned editor, and has also reverted an article with the same banned editor sock claim. I can see no report at WP:SPI on this, and it simply appears to be a case of Smallbones removing information from venues that he doesn't particularly like, and making unfounded accusations against others. I concur with Muhammed that his behaviour is not welcoming to new editor on this project. Smallbones needs to be reminded of civility and assuming good faith on this project. 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just a note, you are both on dangerous grounds of violating Wikipedia's policies of three-revert rules. Please take discussion to talk page, and attempt to settle out the issue, instead of edit-warring. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic that is very advice thank you, I will follow that. I have suggested to User:Smallbones that he leave the article as is, but he has now reverted four times, throwing accusations around at numerous editors. This is not very inviting behaviour for Smallbones to be engaging in, and given he is a long-term editor I think a block might be in order as he has no intention of stopping with the edit warring, discussing issues, or stopping with accusations about people being banned editors. This is disruptive to the project, plain and simple. 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you attempted to discuss the reverts on either the talk page of the article, or their own talk page? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to discuss this with User:Smallbones any further because he has told me to stay off his talk page. I fear that he will simply continue to attack myself (or anyone else) on this issue. I am saying this judging on his behaviour on Jimmy's talk page where he talks about other people talking "BS" (which I guess means bullshit?). He does not seem like someone who is open to conversation, only attacking. Should I file a 3RR report on his edit warring on the article? 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would not, only because he wasn't issued a warning until the past few moments, from myself. However, his actions seem to be more on the side of uncivil. I say ignore the page, for now, until more guidance can be given by the Administrative team of Wikipedia (a team I can not apart of), as continuing to edit-war with the editor will only provide more incivility on their part, and potentially lead the a block for the both of you. Best of wishes and luck with your future editing here at Wikipedia! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are about 5 one-time anons editing Education in North Korea and Jimmy's talkpage, and User:190... a new SPA quoting policy at me. User:Thekhoser has a very distinctive trolling style and loves to use it at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I revert him on sight and have been doing so for several months now. He's been banned for about 7 years now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones it would appear that you have erred greatly here. The initial editor from Iran who has posted on Jimmy's talk page, clearly mentioned that he was posting from a net cafe in his first post, and then from another (expensive) connection in his follow-up post. You said this follow-up post was from Thekhoser, but no such person exists. You have accused what appears to be a good faith editor of being a banned editor...this Thekhoser person. There is no evidence indicating this. The same thing with the person from Ireland who has responded to your accusation of them being a paid editor; their IP is different, perhaps due to a reconnection. Again, you accused this of being Thekhoser. The only connection between these two different editors is that they both made comments which don't portray you in a good light. And your comments here only further serve to portray yourself poorly, in addition to your blatant edit warring. I think you need to be blocked for disruptive editing and for making a hostile environment for others. 89.180.49.12 (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, I would be very surprised indeed if that was Thekohser. You need to widen your horizon. Andreas JN466 09:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's just trolling. Close and move on. The best trolls are those which make plausible claims that editors can fight over, and it is plausible that Education in North Korea might have a factoid added concerning what Jimmy Wales said. However, the IP is also active on Jimbo's talk, and that rather gives the game away, not to mention that the article talk page has not been edited since November 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Question

Has anyone notified User:Smallbones of this discussion? I am not notifying him, because I am not persuaded that he was wrong. Someone should notify him, or I will NAC this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He was notified, but removed the notice : Diff of User talk:Smallbones -- Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He has commented above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi protect article, no action on editor I think that reverting obvious socks and banned users is justified under WP:3RRNO's #4. Indeed, I think that this ANI was intended to scare Smallbones to not proceed, but I hope he/she will stand firm in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:L'Aquotique community ban

This user has so far created 19 socks [54] and has accused me, and about 4 other users for socking as L'Aquotique in order to try and cover his/her tracks. [55] I feel at this time a community ban is in order as the user seems to have no intention of being here to build an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He's already banned. They are all socks of banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

They don't seem to be linked, these socks are confirmed as linked to L'Aquotique, it is possible though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin please fix the ban discussion link at User:Don't Feed the Zords since the page is locked? title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=455252297#Community_ban_proposal_on_User:Don't_Feed_the_Zords needs to be replaced with title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=455252297#Community_ban_proposal_on_User:Don.27t_Feed_the_Zords for the section link to work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Destructive edits by new user Deleteasaur and unregistered user 65.220.37.9; possibly company editing its own page

I am concerned over a new user (Deleteasaur) and an unregistered user (65.220.37.9) at the GMAT page that have continually deleted credibly sourced items or entire sections from the page. Given their take that the page should exclusively reflect the opinions of the primary source, there is the concern that they are representatives from the primary source (GMAC). They may even be the same person as they both spell cite as "site" on the talk page.

The Deleteasaur's deletions:

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

--TDJankins (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very interesting issue in light of the recent change to the Terms of Use (see Paid contributions without disclosure)

As I read it, @TDJankins: is accusing @Deleteasur: of being a paid editor for the Graduate Management Admission Council which owns the Graduate Management Admission Test, and Deletesaur is accusing (somewhat more subtly) TDJankins and others of working for The Princeton Review a test prep provider. Both the Princeton Review and GMAC sell GMAT test prep material.

After reviewing all 3 of the articles mentioned above, it is not hard to conclude that all of them rely on primary material from the owners of the company and/or test. The marketing style text is the main give-away. Talk pages and edit summaries reveal this in vague and not so vague ways, e.g. see edit summary at [61] for a very active editor there.

Note that the only dispute since June 15, 2014 (date of the ToU update) is for the GMAT article.

I hope everybody can see the applicability of the ToU here. No way can an NPOV encyclopedia allow dueling paid editors to determine the contents of these pages. The solution to the problem, as always, starts with polite notifications on user talk pages, and hopefully that will be all that is needed. Further steps are available if needed - and I hope admins understand that it is best if the Wikipedia community takes care of this. I will ping @GeoffBrigham (WMF):, just in case even further steps have to be taken later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No Smallbones, it sounds like you are accusing me of being a paid editor. And just who the heck would I be paid editing for? As it stands right now, the GMAT page is heavily reliant on primary source material, so much so that it has earned the primary sources tag. Deleteasaur seems bent on removing anything that doesn't come directly from GMAC.--TDJankins (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Deleteasaur is a bit more subtle but the idea comes through, e.g. in the following recent exchange of 3 messages on the talk page:

I agree that citing the Princeton review about what the GMAT measures is inappropriate. This should not be a page of opinions. Or at the very least if there is an opinion it should be presented as such. Furthermore, citing the Princeton review's opinion about the GMAT is like citing McDonalds' opinion on food. In general a test preparation company shouldn't be sited on a GMAT information page. This section strikes me as a bunch of unsubstantiated fluff that should be removed. I would like to hear other people's ideas on this. Deleteasaur (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Deletasaur. A page is not to exclusively have opinions from the product owning company itself. This page has even earned the "This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources" tag because it is so out of whack. So yes, we need opinions from other experts on the test such as The Princeton Review.--TDJankins (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Calling the PR an "expert" or "credible" secondary source is a massive stretch. This page should focus on the facts about the GMAT exam. It is even struggling to get those straight. If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies I would have more time to help get those facts straight so that this page could help more people get credible information about the GMAT. Please help me do that. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Particularly the part, "If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies..." Correct me if I'm wrong but that refers to an edit of yours? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine as to what he is referring to. I'm not aware of any advertising on the page. He may think that any information sourced from a test prep company is essentially advertising, but even if that's what he believes, to accuse me of advertising for all of those companies would be wacky even for him.--TDJankins (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what Deleteasaur believes, you shouldn't have written a sentence that presumes that I'm a paid editor ("No way can an NPOV encyclopedia allow dueling paid editors to determine the contents of these pages."). Clearly I'm not a paid editor. I contribute to many, many pages on Wikipedia while Deleteasaur contributes to one (if you can call deletions contributions).--TDJankins (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Deleteasaur is removing blogs and advertisements from the GMAT page. I see no problem with that. I think a curved object may be heading for TDJankins as he (or she) insists or putting the advertisements back in. Kosh Vorlon    21:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually there's no advertising to speak of unless information sourced from any company's website is advertising. I think that nobody cares what a banned editor thinks.--TDJankins (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Examples of advertising from [62]

• "Test preparation courses can be very costly, but very effective."
• Changing the "Registration" section to "Registration and Preparation"
• "The GMAT does not measure business knowledge or skill. Nor does it measure intelligence. The GMAT is simply a test of how well one takes the GMAT." referenced to a Princeton Review link.

That edit (all the text) is essentially all you've added to the article during a month of slow motion edit warring. One of the problems with paid editors is that they get so used to adspeak that they can't distinguish an advert anymore from just regular text. My product is "very costly, but very effective" is an advert and always will be. Another problem with paid editors is that they never quit arguing, even when they are caught in the act. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• That Deletesaur and all employees and contractors of the Graduate Management Admission Council be banned for two days for sockpuppetting, edit warring and/or undisclosed paid editing. This should be just enough to get their attention and prevent it from happening again. Note the IP in the title of this section traces back to the town that's their HQ, and there are many editors in the article history adding public relations type material cited solely to GMAC. If GMAC responds here in time and says they won't do it again, then no ban or block need be imposed. (I'll notify Deletesaur on this proposal)
• That TDJankins and all employees and contractors of The Princeton Review be banned from editing for two weeks for edit warring and undisclosed paid editing. This should be just enough to get their attention and prevent it from happening again. The "extra time" is because TDJankins's complaint here shows that he knows that edit warring and undisclosed paid editing is against our rules, but did it anyway (aka boomerang).
• Support as proposer Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour of 50.128.184.140, part 2

50.128.184.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please note this user's behaviour has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Behavior of 50.128.184.140.

I came across a dispute between this IP and a number of other editors regarding addition and deletion of sourced material in article content, when the user posted the dispute to the talk page of a noticeboard I have been watching ([63]). I went to check on the dispute and found this edit, in which the IP tried to source a deleted section of an article to an editor's opinion. That's somewhat minor as an isolated incident, but this user has a history (see previous discussion) of adding their "humour" in mainspace, and generally being disruptive. I reverted their edit and posted a level 3 warning on their talk page (because other editors had already posted level 1 & 2 warnings for separate recent incidents).

In response, the editor posted a new section on my talk page insisting that they were right and demanding a response from me in "adult, thoughtfully argued" language (original in all caps). You can see my usual "respect or gtfo" response there if you want.

Following this, the editor seems to have followed a WP:FRS link on my talk page and arrived at Category talk:Antisemitism, where they posted a fairly serious antisemitic and racist diatribe, which I rolled back and will not link to. I have given the user a level 4 warning in response to that. If that's their style of "humour" then we don't need them around.

Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it was a registered account, it would indef blocked for being a VOA. Since it is a static IP, good judgement forces me to limit it to one year, based on their long history of vandalism and trolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, an excellent block. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • 50.128.184.140 is User:BruceDavidWilner; he said so himself. I believe you should block that user account as well. -- UKoch (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • We can't just take that at face value as it could be someone trying to joe job a registered editor, however, after doing a great deal of comparison, they do appear to be connected, so I blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, their behavior is identical. Thank you for the block. -- UKoch (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, Vandalism by Jumada

This user had added several towns on the Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map without any type of source. When I removed them following WP rules (content must be sourced), he started accusing me of vandalism, when I suppose that adding unsourced content is what could be considered vandalism (I have warned him about it). And his final serious wrongdoing has been deleting two sections I've added to the talk section about the attitude of him and another user, claiming that, quote: "removed unnecessary sections. Everything related to HCPUNXKID vandalism will be discussed under section HCPUNXKID". Of course, he aint made a cut & copy of the text of the sections I added (that could be acceptable), but simply deleted all the content, in a clear attempt to avoid other users to see my arguments, funny thing, when he claims that I dont have discussed issues on the talk page. It seems difficult to me to discuss with someone who deletes your writings, dont you think so?. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just scrolling through your talk page I can see a dozen other users with similar complaints regarding your edit wars and unwillingness to compromise. I am merely one out of many, and since I stood up to you and didnt give up after a week, you have taken it personal. I am glad you brought this here and I hope someone will look through your profile, your talk page, your history and contributions and examine the amount of confrontations and edit wars you are involved in across an array of articles here on wikipedia. You have been warned by wikipedia staff multiple times in the past, and also blocked for 48 hours for edit wars. Your talk page is full of your unpleasant history and I am sure this tells us a lot about you as a user. Jumada (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so instead trying to refute my accusations about your behaviour on the Iraqi insurgency map, you try to bring here my past blocks as an argument against me. WOW, so poor, and then its you who talk about "taking it personal". If WP worked like that, everyone wich had being blocked in the past would not have any option on a discussion against any other user without blocks, for example with new unexperienced users, even if they are veteran users with years of work on WP. It would be a mess. And beware, talking about that is a double-edge weapon, as reviewing your talk page shows that adding content to WP without any type of source or explanation is something very common to you, in blatant contradiction with one on the main rules of WP: Content must be backed by sources. I can only assume that's a recognition of your vandalism & POV-pushing by adding unsourced content and deleting other user edits on the talk page, otherwise you would have tried to refute my arguments, I repeat. Honestly, if you accept the advice, you should try to refute the arguments of other users instead of using ad-hominem attacks...--HCPUNXKID 16:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Rekkiem

User repeatedly changes the cast of The Inbetweeners 2, removing actual cast members and inserting comical footballing figures. I have told him to stop before and it seems to be a single purpose account. Semi-protecting the page will do nothing as this is not an IP nor a new account. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a vandalism-only account. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good, accounts are easier to block than IPs. Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

Review of application of BLP to remove talk page sections

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

---

On the page Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian, there have been people who have been removing sections of the talk (not a single edit made it into the article) while citing them as BLP violations. One of them is an administrator. The diffs of this are here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615657759&oldid=615653485
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615711152&oldid=615700550
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615720831&oldid=615720200

The entirety of the section that's been questioned a potential 'blp vio' is this;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615716011&oldid=615711152

Additionally, User:Dreadstar (the admin) who has removed them has said that they will block the next person who attempts to readd the section. I sincerely believe the comments are related to a content dispute and per WP:BLPTALK should not be removed as blp violations. The reasoning why I have brought this here instead of further discussion at the talk/BLPN is due to the fact that it's a complicated matter reasoning policy and guideline and administrator action and needs review by other uninvolved admins/experienced users. My main question to be proposed is; Is this reasonable application of BLP and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The removed material makes unfounded, anonymous, unsourced and original research criminal allegations against the article subject. Entirely-unsourced allegations have no relation to any potential content issue on the encyclopedia. The BLP policy was written specifically to address the fact that such things are unacceptable in any fashion on Wikipedia. The administrator in question should be commended for his or her commitment to sanity and human decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Not one potential WP:RS was proposed, just rants and unfounded accusations. Precisely what BLP is designed to prevent. Also seems to be another round of the very harassment that the article discusses. Solid and appropriate administrative actions. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Put yourself in the position of Anita Sarkeesian. How would you feel if an anonymous poster could accuse you of criminal behaviour on the sixth most popular website in the world - without giving any source for their accusations? Common decency says we remove those sort of edits and the editors who did the removal should be thanked for their humane concern for the subject's feelings. The "not related to making content choices" clause in WP:BLPTALK is not a get-out clause for retaining such completely unsourced comments, because without a source, nobody can be using them to make content choices for the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's not a complicated matter reasoning policy and guideline and administrator action at all, but a simple matter of following the BLP policy. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

I understand the point you're trying to make, but is there at any point where a removal of a talk page section per BLP would be inappropriate? Such as when they are discussing a source? Does the sourcing need to be exceptional to even make any mention on the talk page of criticism? Tutelary (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a hypothetical question. There isn't even an unreliable source provided for the claims in question. It's entirely made-up nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a hypothetical question, but relevant given the context. If IP edits and section be removed for BLP vio if there is no sources, can they merely be removed because it was sourcing to a blog? In what degree is there a line? Note also I'm not contesting the others' thoughts; I'm in the minority here and I acknowledge that it'll probably stay gone. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Blog sources for contentious or defamatory BLP issues? No. There are rare exceptions, but blogs are almost never acceptable as sources anywhere on Wikipedia, much less for potentially defamatory content on living persons. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked via email to delete the intervening edits starting with the initial defamatory comment and ending at Dreadstar's final removal. While there was significant discussion in between, I don't see anything that can't be restated (without defamation) if needed. Given that there was a clear-cut BLP violation, it would meet revision deletion criteria. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Do be bold along with it. Consensus is against me and I'll need to accept that. Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

e.c. This is the wrong forum for this. You raised the original issue here (at ANI) and it seems clear that the actions taken in deleting the material from the talk page were correct. ANI isn't the place to ask further hypothetical BLP questions. Meters (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So would you mind if I close this then? Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits redacted, we can call this closed. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Dozens of deletions of "as of" today

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

---

An editor is of the view that the phrase "as of" is unacceptable. Just today (though this behavior clearly precedes today) the editor has changed dozens of such references, because of his view. I've tried speaking to the editor here, including pointing to the dictionary definition, but he has simply continued with his practice. I'm at a loss, and the changes are piling up. So I'm bringing the matter here for the attention of others. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped now and we are having a cordial conversation on my talk page. It seems bringing the matter here was slightly premature, if you don't mind me saying so, Epeefleche. UglowT (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "as of" clearly can be used in phrases such as "as of July 4". See here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We even have a template {{as of}} that is "used to mark potentially dated statements", so I'm pretty certain the phrase has a real use on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor at Air Serbia

I thought it would be suitable at this stage to seek for admin intervention regarding the behaviour of the IP, which has clearly become disruptive. Despite being told not to add orders in infoboxes the IP keeps defying the messages left at their talk page and the ones left at the article's talk. My three reversions for the article and the comments I left at the article's talk page can be found here. I intended to request page protection but don't think that will work, i.e. it will prevent constructive edits from other IPs.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's disruptive. Never an edit summary nor a talkpage post, I see. Is it me or has this type of editor become more common lately? It's a static IP, so blocking seems better than semiprotection. Blocked for a week. (I'd make it a couple of days, except that they don't edit every day, and I want to make sure the block gets their attention.) Thanks for the report, Jetstreamer. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Thanks to you, Bishonen. A similar edit pattern led to the current semi protection of Aeroflot, yet the IP was dynamic in this case.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Help! I share an IP address with a blocked user

I haven't been on in several days, as I was on vacation and without WiFi access, but when I returned i found a message saying that my IP was blocked at my new workplace. I recently got transferred to a new facility and I cannot edit. Please help!! The Newspaper (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you posted this question here, the you aren't blocked. --Jayron32 00:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try working while you are at work, and edit from home? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:ABK and {{unblock-auto}}. You'll probably have a faster response using the template. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Create an account. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Some kinda assy responses here. If I was still an admin, I'd handle this myself, but it's because of responses like these that I decided that involvement with WP wasn't really worth it. Nice. Sorry, Newspaper. GJC 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gladys j cortez:: I am still uncertain how they can't edit articles but can edit here. It would look like the op is mistaken, if they are auto blocked, we cannot help them on this page, as they need to use the auto block notice to let the admins know the source of the problem. So, as I noted entirely without snark, if they are editing here, they are not blocked. As Mendeliv noted without any snark, they need to use the template and copy the auto block number correctly for any admin to help them. I am not sure why you called me and Mendeliv assy, because there is nothing incorrect in either of our answers. If someone else said something you are unhappy with, use their name, so you are clear who you are talking to. --Jayron32 01:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

They probably left this message using their own mobile, an internet cafe, home computer after work etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But if an account gets autoblocked on an IP, the autoblock will then migrate to the next place the account tries to login from. Or at least that's my understanding of WP:ABK. I think the only likely possibility is Newspaper's work IP is hardblocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well autoblocks expire after 24 hours, if I recall correctly. Newspaper's autoblock might just have happened to expire by the next time he tried to post at home or from his phone. The other possibility is that the IP that was blocked wasn't anon-only. Either way, there's nothing that can be done without more information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Trolling or just cannot get the point?

At Sexual addiction I got the strange feeling that User:TBliss would be trolling. Seems like a case of WP:IDONTHEAR. Anyway, tried to make him/her as clear as possible what the US medical consensus was in 2013, based upon a quote from DSM-5. We all know (or should know) that DSM-5 states the consensus in US psychiatry, so if there any medical consensus on sexual addiction, it is to be found in DSM-5, since psychiatrists are the MDs who deal with such problems. I compromised the original wording till now I have put a direct quotation from DSM-5. If you ask me, it was fine the first time I have put it in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DSM-5 is the US medical consensus, as far as sex addiction is concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Its a bit early for ANI, but I went and tried to explain to him. You are correct on the merits, lets see if he will take my advice and slow down a bit and use the talk page. If not, the burden is really on him to use WP:DRN since he is the one wanting to change the tone of the article in a fairly radical way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize http://pornstudycritiques.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-fractured-fairytale-posing-as-a-review/ was a blog when I cited it, a professional in the field had pointed me to it. Once the issue was pointed out, I didn't cite it again so mellow out. That blog does bundle together many peer-reviewed studies from legitimate sites that support the legitimacy of sex addiction, so I will have to go through and provide those citations directly someday when I have time. As to the DSM-5 quote-- Tgeorgescu's first edit said that the medical consensus disproved the theory of sex addiction - citing the DSM5. The DSM5 doesn't say that at all. It's a totally erroneous and misleading statement. He changed it now to state there wasn't enough peer-reviewed evidence to include it in medical diagnosis. That's a true statement -- very different from his first effort. If anyone is trolling with a manipulative and radical agenda, it's Tgeorgescu. Why don't you explain it to him.TBliss (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • I think enough explaining has been done, now that you realize "Porn Study Critiques.com" is a blog and not a reliable source. The rest is about content which should be discussed on the article talk page, not something for ANI and not something that is decided by admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Moderator misusing Wikipedia content for profit.

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

---

Hi, I found the following information about moderator Sitush. <<Malicious lies removed - we don't want to give this stuff publicity — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)>>

The first link dates back to 2011 when this moderator along with his group started providing/moderating false information for monetary profits.

The third and fourth link states claims by various communities that he is misusing his position for moderating/displaying defamatory/false content to general public. Lastly please go through the revision history at the following topics: Jatav Yadav Jat people Although a lot of people objected to the information given by this user, he didn't changed it. Some of the terms used are quite derogatory/defamatory.

Thanks, Jerry Jerrysharma (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm off to bed so will leave to another admin, but after looking around, I can't help but think this is a POV troll that needs a block. I just watched a documentary on Bigfoot that had more credibility than the sources and claims here. In the event I'm missing something and because I can't be here for the fallout, I will let someone else look and pull the trigger if needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would this edit be an example of what you're talking about? Where Sitush removes completely unsourced material and replaces it with sourced material?

This appears to be in a bad-faith attempt to out an editor that's preventing you from using this site to promote your own social beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The links you provided offer ill-informed speculation rather than evidence, and they contradict one another. I am grateful for the work of an outstanding editor like Sitush, who strives to maintain neutrality and reliance on reliable sources in our contentious articles about the castes and ethnic groups of India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was actually tempted to just revert this when I saw the links. Instead I notified Sitush, which Jerrysharma failed to do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's quite the boomerang you got there...is that Sitush-specific noticeboard still a thing? You might have better luck with it over there. 72.17.156.179 (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen deleted her Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard subpage: I think the problem was that the necessarily clueless complainers took it seriously. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

...wasn't the point to try to stop the community's time from being wasted with these ANI posts? 72.17.156.179 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• I've removed the links to those malicious lies — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal 201.239.30.37

Someone please block Special:Contributions/201.239.30.37. This vandal is just changing dates as vandalism and has not made a single constructive edit (every edit has been reverted). Please block ASAP. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 11:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked for a week, but it's unfortunately a dynamic IP (obviously used by the same person since 20 June, though). Bishonen | talk 12:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

The IP geolocates to Santiago, Chile, and is most probably the latest incarnation of an IP-hopping long-term vandal from there who has tirelessly been doing that kind of vandalism on a large number of articles for years. So it won't be long before he's back again... Thomas.W ^talk 13:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand they're back, as predicted. Now as 190.96.34.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The same geolocation and the same old vandalism, introducing small factual errors in multiple articles... Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the IP hopping nature of this person I have given a 72 hour block. Sometimes I wonder if 80% of the vandals on Wikipedia are the same 9 people changing IPs. Chillum 18:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. One of the problems with the kind of vandalism this person in Chile, and others, engage in, with small changes of years, weight, displacement and so on, is that most editors who revert them don't issue warnings or report the IP anywhere, so the vandalism can often go on for weeks or even months before being noticed by someone who can stop them. Thomas.W ^talk 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Special:Contributions/190.96.12.66 is the latest IP for this one. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD's behavior on Jasmuheen talk page

This exchange neatly summarizes the issue: Article itself naturally has a history of vandalism due to controversy surrounding its subject, but that is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. What is strange is one user policing the talk page and censoring content. That talk page had not been edited for thirteen months, yet SummerPhD responded within three hours of my edit - either the user is at one with the cosmos, or they've set the talk page to be monitored.

That monitoring in itself demonstrates a level of personal investment in the content of the talk page, and sentimentality is normally no problem at all, but the user has, for many years, carried out a bizarre censorship campaign, (censoring material like so), on the insistence that it protects Wikipedia. If this user, or any other user, had done this on any other pages on this entire site, I would be more inclined to believe that this wasn't just a case of one user going Gestapo on a pet article; that SummerPhD has a long history of association with pseudoscience-related articles, and has in fact recently edited Category:Inedia practitioners (to which Jasmuheen belongs), only reinforces this assessment... as does the fact that the user has only ever censored unsourced criticism of Jasmuheen, and not unsourced praise or agreement - the latter of which has gone unmolested for years.

The justification provided for this censorship is that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. Again disregarding that this (censorship) has never been done outside of this specific talk page, it appears that WP:BLP does not, in fact, apply to talk pages. Quoting the policy article:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

The citation given for that bit at the end about talk pages does not actually say anything about talk pages whatsoever. How it is being used as a citation for that purpose is a complete mystery. Is there a relevant citation somewhere else?

If SummerPhD's behavior is inappropriate, the censorship should be undone, and it should be made clear that it is an unacceptable practice. Additionally, if there is no relevant citation for WP:BLP's applicability to talk pages, then the article should be amended to reflect that it does not. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP does apply to all pages on the English Wikipedia, including talk pages, user space and templates. Calling a living person a "woo peddling psychopath, or a sycophantic fan" was also not warranted, so the removal of that post was totally justified. Apart from that I don't see any "censorship" in the edit history of the talk page. Unless you can provide diffs of problematic edits by SummerPhD, this thread should be closed. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Can you provide a citation for WP:BLP applying to talk pages? Many editors below have stated, in a strong consensus, that WP:BLP applies to all pages. I acknowledge the citations given. The problem remains that, in the quotation I provided above, the citation given is not appropriate or relevant. At time of writing, this has yet to be addressed by any other editor.
2. Do you mean to insinuate that I am the person who wrote the "woo peddling psychopath" bit? I am not, and you are of course welcome to confirm that with whatever tools you have available. I have never added any content to the talk page before this edit, and I did so in response to the persistent vandalism and censorship of the talk page over the entire lifetime of the page, not to a minor dispute that occurred over two years ago and hasn't been mentioned since.
3. Did you actually read the talk page? The censorship (looks just like this), is currently all over the talk page, and SummerPhD has been the only one doing it for years. Every edit SummerPhD has ever made to the talk page has been to implement that censorship, and I'd like to reiterate that SummerPhD only censors critical opinions of the article's subject and not consenting opinions or praise. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #1, this from WP:BLP, in the section "Where BLP does and does not apply" ought to be sufficient:

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, article titles and drafts. (emphasis added)

BMK (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno—calling someone who makes a rather lucrative living from selling breatharianism – which has killed a number of its followers – a "woo-peddling psychopath" probably isn't far from NPOV (or, for that matter, the truth). That said, the comments on the talk page could probably be phrased in a more diplomatic manner that – more importantly – is directly focused on proposing specific changes to the article, based on specific references.

As for manually hand-censoring individuals words and phrases from years-old comments (original posts were from 2005-2007: [64]), wouldn't it have been more sensible just to archive the darned talk page? I mean, instead of doing some deliberate pot-stirring by replacing the text with a bold "(censored)". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the very first comment to address the primary issue. Thank you for reading. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The comments from 2005-2007 were not "hand-censored" recently. That was done years ago. The anonymous editor who started this thread restored comments that had been removed back then. I had not labeled them with a bolded censor, that was done by another editor claiming First Amendment issues. (because I'm a member of Congress, I guess). Archiving them would move the problem from one page covered by BLP to another page covered by BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have 19,569 articles (plus their associated talk pages) on my watchlist. I suppose I should do some cleaning, but I'll keep this one.

WP:BLP is a policy and directly states that it applies to talk pages. If you feel it shouldn't, you can work to change it, though I doubt you'll find much support. (I don't think you have disputed that the material I removed was unsourced and derogatory. As BLP is primarily concerned with libel (and protecting Wikipedia), I am not as concerned with unsourced positive material. If you have a favorite celebrity and want to say they are kind to puppies and kittens, BLP isn't much of an issue.)

Actually, I created Category:Inedia practitioners and added this article to the category. I noticed the deletion of Category:Pseudoscientists and the associated recommendation that former members be added to categories directly describing them, with the category added to Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, which I also did.

I'm not sure what "personal involvement" the editor believes I have with the article. I have no direct or indirect connection to anyone or anything connected to the subject that I am aware of. The closest connection I can find is that I once read a book by James Randi, who is cited in the article.

I have removed material from other talk pages based on BLP. The talk pages for Anderson Cooper, Michelle Rodriguez and Perri "Pebbles" Reid come to mind, among others. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@IP 2607: Please read the WP:BLP page. Already at the very top there is as a box that reads "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research" (emphasis as seen at WP:BLP). De728631 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The citation provided, in the quotation I provided above, does not have anything to do with talk pages. A relevant citation needs to be added, if available, but the citation provided now is inappropriate.

If you were as dispassionate and disconnected from the article as you assert, you would not have reverted the first edit made to it in 13 months within a mere three hours of the change. Your justification for allowing unsourced praise is incongruous with your actions on the talk page in question - essentially, for the better part of a decade, you have been putting a censor bar over the word "cunt," on the principle that you disagree, not that it's unsourced (I would like nothing more than to shower the article in citations from reliable sources or opinions from recognized experts in the field who have are qualified to have the opinion that she is a cunt). That you have been doing so on the talk pages of multiple specific BLPs serves to highlight the problem. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence on the BLP page says "any page", emphasis in the BLP page. Any page means exactly that, including talk pages. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SummerPhD, come to think of it, the "(censored)" approach appears to be a bit heavy-handed imo. but you are correct to remove such material from talk pages. IP, in fact the 2006 arbitration case used as a reference found that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages,..." (emphasis mine). That is where this policy was established and it has since been applied to all content about living persons. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read over this once more. Also, thank you for providing insight into the citation - this is knowledge that a casual user would not have, because those not involved in Wikipedia's internal drama (this accounts for a distinct majority of users, and of human beings) have no reason to know about it. The in-line citation in question links to a sentence fragment within an RfA decision. That sentence fragment did not demonstrate, on its own, the rationale for the policy. That is why I raised the question. Can that in-line citation please be changed to make this more accessible and clear to casual users?

On the subject of the (censoring), what is to be done? Is that practice unacceptable, and can I undo it? There must be intervention in this matter, because my undoing has already been undone by SummerPhD, who has a history of undoing these undoings by others, of which I am just the latest. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear on the subject as well. You restoring the contentious unsourced material does not exempt it. WP:BLP is one of the few exceptions to WP:3RR for that very reason. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The "(censored)" approach was not mine, I had used unbolded links to WP:BLP that an editor citing the First Amendment had changed to demonstrate their displeasure. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If we both think it's stupid, why is it still there? 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current version? Would the term "BLP redaction" be better? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That this issue has fallen to a matter of opinion makes obvious the need for a concrete procedure. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry for blaming it on you then. But let's sum up what we've got here. Some inappropriate phrases on that talk page are currently hidden by "censored" tags which SummerPhD did not introduce [65] and which must not be fully restored for reasons of the BLP policy. Their appearance, however, isn't very pleasing either and might lead to assumptions that Wikipedia is largely censored. So instead of fiddling back and forth with old comments I suggest we follow TenOfAllTrades' approach, archive the darned talk page, and move on. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively we could go with "courtesy blanking" or with "BLP redaction" as suggested by NeilN, both of which should link to the BLP policy. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The semantics used in all policy documents is "remove," and redaction is not removal. Neither is censorship.

I absolutely agree that it looks sloppy, and that it definitely would "lead to assumptions that Wikipedia is largely censored." This entire exchange has served to demonstrate a need for concrete guidelines on the actual execution of these policies as they stand. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Experienced editors (who are generally the ones modifying comments so that they conform to policy) usually use their judgment. If the comment is unsalvageable it'll probably be removed. If portions are useful, then the editor might opt to excise the other offending portions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User is out of control

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

---

There is no administrative action needed here in a content dispute where neither of the two involved editors were innocent. So wait a few hours to cool down and then use the talk page of the article to discuss your edits in a civil manner. De728631 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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

---

It is obviously true that I am not the only editor who has had problems with this user in the past, and recently one editor suggested to Behind my Ken that Wikipedia was not their personal therapy session. I reported an incident a few months ago which was ignored and because of the Administrators inability to do their job this editor is once again making disruptive edits and being uncivil. Most recently this user reverted the Copy Edits of an official Copy Editor who had accepted a request for the page The Rules of the Game to be worked on. Their reason was "generally better before", in other words "I don't like it". This user then proceeded to move the majority of the lead section into a new section of the body of the article and then complained that the section had no sources, as well as making several arbitrary and pointless edits. I could go on but I am certain that the facts speak for themselves. I demand that this user be put on suspension until they are able to conduct themselves in a more rational and reasonable manner. This user has unfortunately left a small mess on the page that I had been editing and had requested the Copy Edit for and is clearly attempting to both block a legitimate Copy Edit and is oh so cleverly attempting to set the page up for an edit war. Again, this user is out of control. Do your own research to see how many incidents their have been that were entirely provoked by this user. It is absolutely ridiculous that editors like this re allowed to conduct themselves in this manner and attempt to own pages by consistently reverting edits based solely on their personal whims. I do not care how many "allies" this editor has or how long this editor has been contributing. The reason I am not going to list a series of links to previous incidents or examples is that that is supposed to be the job of the Admins, please do your job yourselves. And many of these examples have already been brought to peoples attention. The facts speak for themselves. This editor clearly needs a time out until they can act like a grown up.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• What is an "official copy editor" mean? And how does "I demand that user be put on suspension" work? I do see you trying to create a cloud of doubt around Beyond My Ken by repeatedly talking about his "history", but I'm not sure what that has to do with now. You say "The reason I am not going to list a series of links..." blah blah blah. That isn't how ANI works. You've come here with this rant, presented zero evidence, made a lot of unsubstantiated claims, then demand we "suspend" him....after telling us that last time the admin didn't do their jobs. Then you say "the facts speak for themselves". I must say that you've certainly left an impression here, although it isn't likely the one you were going for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Move to close, nothing to see here, let's all go back to writing articles. Ken's behavior here appears to be irreproachable. Without diffs, my mind is not going to be changed. I don't think this is ripe for WP:BOOMERANG action either. There's obviously a dispute here, but not one within ANI's competence to handle. I would advise you to follow WP:DR as a guide for how to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you prefer that I canvass all of the many, many other Editors that Behind My Ken has had incidents with over the last few months alone? I assure you, this page would be flooded with complaints. I am asking that you Admins, at long last, do your job and deal with this User. I stand by my choice of words and am not going to drop this. I find it hard to believe that you are not already familiar with this User and I resent it if you are going to compel me to list every single example here.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A half-dozen example (supported with diffs) should be sufficient. Probably best not to WP:CANVASS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) D. has twice accused me of trying to "own" the article The Rules of the Game. [66], [67] This last time occurred last night my time, and I pointed out to her the absurdity of her accusing me of trying to own the article hard on the heals of her posting many, many edits to it, and then trying to chase me away by reverting a legitimate edit of mine with the edit summary "Please stop attempting to own this page and let the Copy Editor finish their requested job". If anything, that's ownership-like behavior. I also pointed out to her that, at that time, according to the revision history stats, she had made 237 edits to the article -- which is 37.1% of all edits -- while I had made only 66 edits or 10.3%. Looking at the material added to the article, she had added 56,619 bytes to the article (65.4%), while I had added only 1,528 bytes (a mere 1.7%). (Since then, I've copyedited the article, bring me to 89 edits (13.4%) and 1,743 bytes (1.9%).)

  I have no beef with D. in terms of content, she has added an awful lot of good material to the article in the last couple of months, but it did need to be copyedited, and some of her excess needed to be trimmed, and I've undertaken those tasks. I'm more than willing to discuss any revisions I've made with her at any time on the article talk page, and to work together with her in a cooperative and collegial manner to improve the article, but I'm not willing to allow her to try to browbeat me from editing the article -- which isn't going to happen in any case. BMK (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deoliveirafan, again I would say that making claims without producing (diffs) is considered a personal attack, so either produce diffs or back off. What little looking around I did seems to sync up with what Ken is saying. So produce the diffs, or back away from the claims. It isn't our job to do your homework. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Why does my comment keep getting blocked? Howunusual (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Please don't just sweep this under the rug before I can respond and then block other User's that are potentially agreeing with me. I will indeed begin canvassing since this is a problem that needs to be addressed in a serious, fair manner.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Because you reverted an admin close without a summary, based on the history here that you could have read. If you did check the history at that article, you would see that Ken made two edits after a two week break and in a summary was told "Please stop attempting to own this page and let the Copy Editor finish their requested job)". I would say Ken's comments were in response to someone else trying to WP:OWN the article. At the core, it is a DRN issue, so BBB was right, and it was a mistake to revert him, btw. And Deoliveirafan, I strongly suggest you drop the stick as you have provided no evidence, thus continuing to pound the table is inching you closer and closer to your own "time out". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. There was an "Edit Conflict" so I pasted the bottom text into the the top. I did in fact research the case, which you would know if this hadn't been abruptly archived while I was in the middle of contributing my thoughts, and you are wrong that BMK made two edits. He made a dozen, all without consensus, and accompanied by several rude WP:OWN comments like "Back off...now" . Howunusual (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see diffs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You would have seen a diff, if Bbb23 hadn't deleted it while archiving. It's now on the article Talk page. BMK has now reverted my revert of his "Bold" edit....still without ever using the Talk page. Should I revert his revert? No wonder Deo complained about admins.... Howunusual (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I was also in the process of responding and listing diffs before the discussion was closed. Someone needs to make a decision.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I saw those diffs, even before I saw you present them. The problem here is primarily one of content. Both editors are frustrated, but it hasn't reached a point that anyone needs any action. Directing the editors to use the talk page (which hasn't been used enough) is best, even if they get a little ugly. Editing is ugly sometimes, and admin shouldn't get involved at this stage. Deoliveirafan is not innocent, Ken was blunt as well. "No action" is the best solution, a drawn out fight at ANI is not. A decision has been made: use the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I do not wish to continue this after the discussion has allegedly been closed, but I have been vaguely been accused of "something", please clarify what. How am I not innocent? I requested a CE of this page on May 24th. On July 5th User:Miniapolis agreed to CE and put the appropriate "working" tag under the request. This user had just begun their CE, specifically the lead section, when BMK disruptively reverted ALL of their CE. I simply reverted BMK's revision and asked that BMK not disrupt a CE. On the Copy Edit Requests page it clearly states "When you accept a request, please place the  Working template immediately beneath the request so that other copy editors know not to take it on." How am I not innocent? And please clarify where this discussion can continue.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The "working" template? Now I'm getting what's going on here. You're honestly wondering what you did wrong? When you reverted BMK, did you care to inform him that you had filed a request for copyediting at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Until you just quoted their instructions, I didn't even know what you meant with your "request for copyedit" before, let alone the "Official Copyeditor". How was BMK supposed to know about that from a cryptic edit summary about some Copy Editor doing his job? That edit requests page is just the subpage of one of many voluntary WikiProjects without any official function at all, so how was BMK supposed to know about the upcoming copyedits? How were the administrators reading this thread supposed to know about it when you only wrote about "a request for copyediting"? Which copyediting — anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. And as a result of all this, Miniapolis has now declined the job. So next time you revert someone and come straight to ANI with it, please remember that people might not even know about your past activities and your future intentions for an article. So now that I have done your job of uncovering the backstory of this grand misunderstanding, please continue at the article's talk page. And you might also want to ask Miniapolis to reconsider their involvement. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have no intention of "reconsidering my involvement" because it was BMK who reverted my copyedit of the lead (a couple hours' work) with the vague explanation that it was "generally better before". All Deoliverafan did was to request a copyedit, and IMO it's BMK who's exhibiting ownership behavior in this case. All the best, Miniapolis 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Antidiskriminator

Required reading (sorry):

• Talk:Đurđevdan uprising generally
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: Đurđevdan uprising
• User talk:Joy#My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33#Antidiskriminator
• User talk:Joy#"Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results" + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: "Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results"
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising II + User talk:Antidiskriminator#Re: Đurđevdan uprising

This series of unproductive communications between User:Antidiskriminator and myself has crossed the line between annoyingly bizarre and disruptive. After months of discussion, we're clearly not making any substantial progress, because today Antidiskriminator actually explicitly accused me on the article talk page of conspiring with User:Peacemaker67 to molest him, acting against consensus, having no support outside of a purported tag team, etc. To add insult to injury, that's in reply to a discussion where we actually had a new user (User:Roches) post a lengthy critique of Ad's choices that touched on all the issues that I raised earlier, and then some.

One of the links above is from when I had asked User:EdJohnston, the admin who had last topic-banned Antidiskriminator over unhelpful Talk page behavior, and then unbanned him, to review that decision. He suggested more discussion at the time. In any event, this doesn't have to be adjudicated by a single person, so I'm bringing it up here. With regard to admin involvement, I have to also mention a recent incident where I was blocked by User:JamesBWatson after having imposed blocks in a manner that could have reasonably put my impartiality into question. An unfortunate coincidence is that this story also involved Antidiskriminator, and he's proceeded to use that against me in discussions.

Yes, it's possible to continue toiling away at this rate, engaging in numerous mind-numbing discussions, !voting in numerous RMs, fixing various unreliable source issues, and trying to make sense of user talk. But it's an unreasonable drain on our collective resources. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity, and we shouldn't waste it on repeating the same errors and error corrections all the time.

I have no intention of using my admin powers here (despite the myriad slaphappy accusations by Ad of how I'm abusing them...), and instead I'm asking for others to help. Some sort of a topic ban should be imposed that would break this disruptive pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston. Since the lifting of his topic ban on 10 January, Antidiskriminator has started over 45 new sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, making over 560 edits on the talk page. In the entire history of the article, he has made only 46 edits in article space. A quick skim of the talk page and its two most recent talk page archives will give you a taste of the behaviour, which includes him placing "Not resolved" tags on threads, and refusing to edit in article space despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been no opposition to material being added. It has recently been extended to Talk:Vojislav Lukačević, where Antidiskriminator has started 19 new talk page sections since 17 June. Because of the incredibly frustrating behaviour, circular discussions and constant going off on tangents, my judgement has slipped on a couple of occasions, and I have consequently unilaterally imposed a ban on interacting with Antidiskriminator on both these articles unless he first edits in article space. This appears to have had no effect, but at least now I am not being drawn into more and more discussions that go nowhere, and his WP:IDHT approach. I have also banned him from posting on my user talk page, because he was effectively harassing me there as well. The evidence is that the lifting of the topic ban has only encouraged him to continue with his disruptive behaviour, and that it is getting worse. I consider that a three month topic ban on Yugoslavia in WWII (broadly construed) would be appropriate, and might have the desired effect of getting him to ameliorate his behaviour. If it doesn't have the desired effect, an indefinite ban will probably be necessary. He just isn't making enough of a contribution to the encyclopedia to justify the disruption. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator, I would second Joy's and Peacemaker's complaints. It's difficult to provide diffs because it's just such a pervasive and diffuse long-term pattern of behaviour, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. I've unfortunately got involved in disagreements with him on a small number of occasions myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved (although I have no involvement in any of the disputes Joy is talking about), but I'd say it's high time somebody pulled the WP:ARBMAC trigger on him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Article needing protection?

There appears to be a person or persons trying to edit the Moms Demand Action article against policy: some vandalism and some whining. Multiple IP addresses are being used.[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd for one week, given the disruptive nature of the edits. Next time please use WP:RFPP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A Sock puppet on Alberto Meyer incident (alien_sighting)

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

---

I frequently patrol the new pages section and this morning I saw this article and tagged it for deletion. About 15 minutes later, I looked at the article and it had been deleted and the creator had been blocked as a sock. Well, a few minutes ago, also patrolling the new pages section, I see the article appear again created by a new editor. Can an administrator take a look at it and see if the new account could also be a sock. Thanks. The Newspaper (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like Gogo Dodo took care of it, with a block and a dash of salt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Troll needs blocking

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

Edit warrior adding unsourced information responded to multiple warnings to stop adding unsourced information with "Care to explain what exactly I've done wrong?" I let him know that that's what the warning messages were for, and cited that and the fact that he added the message to the top of my page as a sign he needs to read instructions more often. His responses was to say stuff about my parents and hypocritically tell me to be more professional, and left another message at the top of my talk page making fun of my religious beliefs.

There is already an edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:99.249.219.4_reported_by_User:50.185.134.48_.28Result:_.29, but someone needs to really get across that his sort of behavior is not acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

IP's currently at 5 reverts, still restoring the same promotional content to Vaporwave. Last block was for 2 weeks. Could use a month or two. Geolocate says it's static. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And blocked via AN3. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editting by User:Nikita-Rodin-2002

This editor is repeatedly removing deletion (including CSD) templates from categories/templates they've created (e.g. [78]), recreating deleted category (Category:Wikipedia:Participants-users of Microsoft Windows operating system), creating categories just for their sandbox (e.g. Category:Cartoons 3D). I'm not sure how much it's a problem of WP:NOTHERE and how much WP:CIR. Looking at their sandbox (User:Nikita-Rodin-2002/Sandbox[79]) it appears that this user does not have the language skill to contribute usefully on this wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Said user also seems to be attempting to rename himself through pagemoving his userpage (there has been no actual account change). I have notified this user as required. The actual name of the account is Никита-Родин-2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It would appear this editor's English comprehension is... limited at best. I'd hit him with {{subst:welcomeen-ru}} except from the user talk page it would appear this editor knows of and has already been indeffed on Russian Wikipedia (with talk page access revoked too). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I left a message in Russian at their talk page let us see how he reacts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to know enough English to be able to read messages left in English on the talk page; he has now recreated the same categories and (malformed) templates for personal use three times, with the latest batch of them created and deleted today. So IMHO an indefinite block for both disruption and lack of competence would be in order. Thomas.W ^talk 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's apparently a response in Russian. Dumping it into Google Translate suggests it's something along the lines of "I want [the categories/template] for my userpage". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would he need a user page if he doesn't know enough English to be able to contribute? This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Thomas.W ^talk 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Ymblanter is figuring it out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, we are having some progress.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Doc James obstructing improvements

In the past few months I have made it my pet project to update articles about autism to reflect more current research and maintain a neutral point of view. User:Jmh649 has been obstructing these changes through persistent edit reversion, even after a style-related consensus was reached on Talk:Autism and the changes were specifically in accordance with said consensus. This reversion is one example. He offered the excuse that I've also made other minor corrections (I figured if it's broke, fix it.) Surely there is a reasonable limit to requests for comment; we don't need to halt progress for every minor change in wording. I believe User:Jmh649 is being intentionally disruptive and preventing articles from being improved. Muffinator (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. So what is the issue with Muffinators's edits? If you look at this one [80] he has changed "200 children without autism." to "200 allistic children". I had no idea what an allistic child was. I do know what a child without autism is.
• Here is another one [81] "normal individuals" changed to "neurotypical individuals".
• Muffinators wishes appears to wish to use the vocabulary of the autistic community rather than standard commonly used English. This I oppose.
• Now with respect to Muffinator's specific dif [82] there is no references added. Thus unclear how this is updating to "more current research" Additionally the term autistic spectrum disorder is not the same as autism thus not sure why the change.
• Now Muffinator did get weak consensus to change "person with autism" to "autistic person" but this is not what they have done in the first 7 changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Muffinators wishes to use the vocabulary of the autistic community rather than standard commonly used English." This blanket statement is not at all true. Assuming good faith means not ascribing motivations. The above example was the only time I added the word allistic to an article, which I only did because I couldn't think of a better way to re-word it at the time. As stated on Wikipedia_talk:MED, I'm open to any alternate suggestion, as I do not own the article.
• This is the first time it's been stated that the problem was lack of references. Muffinator (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment it would be helpful if Muffinator could give a link to the style consensus discussion mentioned. It's not on the currently active article talkpage, but there are 14 archive pages and I didn't try to look at them all. I used the archive search box on the term "allistic" and found just one occurrence, here, where it was used only in passing. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The style consensus mentioned is in Talk:Autism under the heading "Autistic person" versus "person with autism". I apologize for the formatting here as I do not know how to link directly to the heading. Muffinator (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Discussion was already taking place here [83] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a content dispute to me. ANI isn't really the right place for this. It sounds like discussion is going on. If there's need for outside intervention, it can be found through the dispute resolution processes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at "Talk:Autism" was about "person with autism" vs "autistic person". That discussion is totally irrelevant to this one. (The analogous implication is that "persons without autism" would prefer to be known as "non-autistic persons". Of course there is no evidence for that.)

From WT:WikiProject Medicine:-

" If you know a more appropriate alternative to "allistic", please add it, because "without autism" doesn't make any sense and we have already determined consensus on person-first language. "

— Muffinator

That's entirely wrong. "without autism" makes complete sense. Also, the consensus was to use identity-first language for autistic persons, not person-first language.

" "Normal" is not a diagnosis and is frankly presumptuous. There is no reliable source to say those individuals were normal. "

— Muffinator

Our articles should include similar text to that used by the sources.

For this edit, the source states "200 children without autism", not "200 allistic children".

For this edit, the source describes "individuals with high-functioning autism", not "[unqualified] autistic adults and autistic children".

For this edit, a source describes "children with ASD [autism spectrum disorders]", not "autistic children". Given the previous consensus about identity first, it would have been reasonable to change this to "autism-spectrum children". If the edit would subsequently be reverted, then it should be discussed on the talk page, with a link to the previous discussion & consensus.

" A person on the autism spectrum is autistic. That's why it's called the autism spectrum. "

— Muffinator

No, that's wrong. The opening paragraph of our "Autism" article states "[Autism] is one of three recognized disorders in the autism spectrum (ASDs), the other two being Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified (commonly abbreviated as PDD-NOS), which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met." Reference. Indeed the "autism spectrum" is so named because it includes more than just autism.

Summary: Muffinator is pursuing his/her own agenda of re-defining "autism spectrum" as "autism" and "normal" as "allistic", contrary to the sources and in the absence of consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... many people technically identified as PDD-NOS and Aspie (whose only DSM-IV difference to the "Autistic disorder" criteria is that speech happened on time when they were a baby) identify as autistic, and per the DSM-5 at least, people identified as either of those should fit in the new unified "autism" diagnosis, which folded both of the other ones into itself (as in they don't exist separately in DSM5). Further, though this may be relevant within an article that discusses sociological and cultural aspects of autism (though I feel it's difficult for that article to portray either perspective without undue weight and should be split, but eh, very little to do with the price of tea in China right now) or other social model topics for instance, it's true that it's not entirely appropriate to use "autistic" for the spectrum when talking about the spectrum within an article that discusses medical aspects unless most sources in that vein do so. It's nonspecific (or too specific?) and confusing. Shoot, this ended up being more comment on the content disputed than the editor's behavior. Dang it. Oh well. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

With this edit [84] Muffinator has changed all of the section titles in his/her talk page to 'trolling' which 1) they are not and 2) show a lack of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Acting out on my own talk page is irrelevant to this discussion. Muffinator (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User64.4.93.100 - wholesale removal of quotations

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

Regrettably this is a repeat of a very recent report which ended in a short block for User:64.4.93.100 for removal of quotations without any thought for the value of the quotes and failing to add the quotes to Wikquote. Any attempt at discussion by other editors just generates aggravation and no sign of any understanding of the issue or any sign of modifying this behaviour to form any sort of consensus. I could go and revert all the edits but that might be construed as edit warring or hounding so maybe this forum can find a more robust solution.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Velella, there is a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia: Village Pump (policy). Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Dennis_Brown#User:_64.4.93.100. Velella is wrong I have added many quotes to Wikiquote but you shouldn't add quotes without sources there. It is also hard for me to add them to Wikiquote because neither here nor there makes it easy for IPs to use sources. It would be a lot easier for the complainers to do it where they think it should be done which isn't often. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

" Well, all I can say is, in the half-dozen or so random cases I briefly looked at, the removals seemed to be proper. Actually, pace Dennis, I personally find it quite hard to imagine any situation in which a bare list of quotations, not embedded in context and discussion and without a clearly documented policy of selection, would be beneficial to an encyclopedia article, so I'd say that as a general rule of thumb their removal is likely to be beneficial....I also don't buy the claim that this should not be done without transferring them to Wikiquote. I can't speak for the anon, but I personally happen to think that Wikiquote is a crap project with 90% crap content and negligible educational value, so if it was me, I would certainly never add anything there. You can't demand that somebody should volunteer to add crap to a heap of crap as a precondition to be allowed to remove crap elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ". 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't post this here. You should maybe have made it more apparent that this was just quoting something I said over at the other thread on WP:VPP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User harassing another user by mass reverting their edits

Thandi moyo is harassing McGeddon by making mass reverts of their edits, with no edit summaries explaining why. When challenged by me Thandi moyo replied "..I'm showing him how it feels!", offering no other excuse for the reverts. Judging by their talk pages McGeddon, who based on their contributions seems to be an active vandalism fighter here on WP, had reverted one or more edits by Thandi moyo a while back, with Thandi moyo then starting regular mass reverts in retaliation. Thandi has been warned on more than one occasion for it, and has also been blocked for disruption in connection with it, but still continues with his reverts even as I write this. So could someone please put a stop to it? Thomas.W ^talk 14:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for harassment. Some possible sockpuppetry issues there as well; it might be necessary to silverlock the Conor Mccreedy page again. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In a comment this afternoon Thandi Moyo claimed to "edit under another name now", supposedly because of me. If they're keeping the Moyo account to one side for harassment purposes, that may merit a checkuser. (User:Michael J Palmer is the latest of many SPAs to work on Mccreedy-related articles, with Draft:Protecting African Lions PAL using a logo uploaded by Moyo around the same time.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much 100% certain that Thandi Moyo is a reincarnation of Thandi.Zambo, but Thandi.Zambo stopped editing about two weeks before Thandi Moyo appeared, so technically that's not an abuse of multiple accounts. Not sure about the other names listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty69t, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Moyo has explicitly confirmed that Zambo was an earlier account: "they are both me, I couldn't remember my password for Zambo, which is my maiden name, so i made Moyo, which is my married name", which sounds unconnected to the above revelation that my "trolling" forced them to start using a second account. Michael J Palmer registered a couple of weeks after the Rusty69t SPI so wasn't part of it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

harrasment by mass reverting my edits.

The user Shulinjiang under the ip Special:Contributions/198.135.125.122 has been engaged in mass reverts of my edits. he attempted to remove some sourced content without any discusion on the pages CAIC Z-10 and Kamov earlier and attempted to continue his behaviour of disruptive edits by using multiple ip's to avoid crossing the 3rr. he was already banned for 48 hours for this incident. there is also an ongoing spi case already under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang, however this case is still open. Today under the ip Special:Contributions/198.135.125.122 he has been engaged in a personal attack on my by reverting my edits on multiple pages that i have contributed to over the past few days. despite warnings left on his talk page he has removed the warnings and continued in this behaviour. there are too many diffs to list out here however every single edit this contrib page has been a revert of one of my edits from some page or the other. i have brought this to the administrator intervention against vandalism board, however i was advised by another user that this may not constitute an act of vandalism and that i should bring it to this board instead. thank and regards Pvpoodle (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

the ip was blocked for a different reason (edit warring) whereas this case was started for wikihounding. also the main user account Shulinjiang is still unblocked and as evidenced Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang the user will in all likelihood continue this behavior under a new ip. Pvpoodle (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now blocked Shulinjiang indefinitely for this rant made by the IP. The frequent use of "debunk" makes it clear that this is one and the same person. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift delivery of justice. i did wonder if i was the only one noticing the improper usage of the word "debunk". boy am i glad i wasnt the only one :) lets hope now that he will leave me alone and not continue his campaign of harassment. thanks again De728631 for your help. Pvpoodle (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Misbehavior at the Ari Teman AfD

A flock of apparent SPA socks have been making disruptive edits on both the Ari Teman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article and its AfD. There have been instances of personal attacks, legal threats, and creating an illusion of support with !votes and article edits from multiple sources.

Named accounts

These are the five named accounts. While they're all pretty obvious socks, only NYClay770 has any abusive edits. NYClay770 edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman to !vote for "keep" in addition to his "keep" arguments as several anons diff. Then actually tried to !vote a second time with the same account diff. There also seems to be some WP:OWNership issues diff.

• YoHal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AriTeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TemanAri1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NYClay770 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tipclaysailak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (This last one's odd. Created the same day as NYClay770, and only editing the same articles, including the new one NYClay770 created. Not sure of its purpose)

These four were all used for separate "keep" arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman, to attack other users diff diff diff diff etc, to make WP:LEGALTHREATS diff diff etc, and to delete a template from a deletion sorting page diff. They're all from a provider in the Seychelles, and I suspect they're an WP:OPENPROXY.

• 137.63.63.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.63.63.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.63.63.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.63.63.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This one, like the ones below, is from Verizon Broadband IP in Manhattan. Possibly a WP:Straw puppet?

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

The rest of these are the series of IP addresses with similar editing styles to those listed above, that have edited the Ari Teman and associated articles. The first IP is the one that wound up in the edit war that attracted my attention to the article. Their edits all aim to the purpose of promoting the subject diff, removing the WP:PROD with an attack in the edit summary diff, removing maintenance tags diff diff, and deleting any negative material -- even when properly sourced diff diff. Most of them source to Verizon FiOS/Broadband IPs in Manhattan, NYC. One's a mobile edit on a Sprint IP, and one's from a ComCast IP in New Jersey (visiting a friend, perhaps?)

• 173.56.18.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 173.52.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.183.226.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.108.248.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 108.46.17.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 184.75.16.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.193.177.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 173.56.80.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.183.248.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 108.30.243.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.87.117.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From the similar editing style and tone of writing across all these accounts, I believe they're all the same person. To my judgement, this all adds up to a user with a conflict of interest and ownership issues.

I didn't bring this to WP:SPI because with the behavioral issues and open proxy, it seems more complicated than that. I don't enjoy making dramaboard reports, too much commotion for my taste, but I've grown weary of the repeated attacks and deceptions of this user. I think some rangeblocks may be in order. Ashanda (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, there's been misbehavior on both sides of this. ArtTenak, on the delete side, has been blocked, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any credibility to the claim that one or more editors have in fact been sued in connection with this article? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strangely user:Ashanda neglects to mention vandals: user:KLetters, user:ArtTenak, user:Demenac234,user:68.143.198.222,user:108.30.243.78,user:38.96.141.68,user:38.108.195.50,user:47.23.40.34. I have nothing to do with user:Tipsclaysailak, YoHal, etc. and a check will confirm that. Ashada also mentions his bias and loss of temper at ("Striking my personal comments. Sorry for losing my temper at the repeated accusations. Ashanda (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)" . Compare at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ari_Teman&diff=615980220&oldid=615737727 NYClay770 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the polemical subsection heading NYClay770 added the preceding comment under, and moved it to the bottom of the thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And the attacks diff and legal threats diff continue. Ashanda (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Yep that's a legal threat. Not a credible one, but definitely a legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And another attack diff. And another diff, where he gives away the sockpuppetry -- he didn't make the sexist accusation from that account. Ashanda (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am seriously tempted to IAR, close this AFD early, delete and salt the title for six months. Never mind the personal attacks and pointless keeps from SPAs, the chilling effect from that claim about a defamation suit being served to a Wikipedia editor is the kind of bullshit (pardon my French) that we've already seen at Yank Barry. We as a community need to be a lot more aggressive against that sort of thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think that would be an IAR action. The article subject has now made a credible threat of legal action and has asked that his article be deleted. On the basis of the subpoena issue and BLP, I would suggest we take swift action, as User:FreeRangeFrog suggests (tho I was of the "keep" camp). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject's request for deletion at least weighs heavily in favor of deleting even on a no consensus outcome. Since it's been relisted once already we can probably close at any time. I don't think anyone could reasonably say there's a rough consensus to keep. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've struck through my keep to facilitate that, hopefully. There's been appalling behaviour on both sides but this needs to end soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Need help at Oathkeeper article

A recent topic here was an edit-war that had spanned weeks at the Oathkeeper article. It resulted in two editors (I was one of them) being blocked for the back and forth edit war.
At the heart of the problem was a seemingly intractable disagreement as to the use of primary sources as evaluative material and the appropriateness of blog (or dead) links as secondary sources. The other editor in the dispute is under the bizarre impression that she was given permission to make evaluative statements based upon primary sources, and can support said sourcing by using blog and fan and dead sources. There are other editors opposing her usage, but she is unwilling to listen to the consensus.
I totally realize this is a content issue, but I have exhausted the dispute resolution progression, and simply do not know how to proceed. We desperately need some experienced editors to drop by and help guide us in the usage of the aforementioned sources. It would be a tremendous help to the discussion, and prevent other sourcing issues from cropping up - an ounce of prevention, and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Problematic forum- and soapbox-like post at the reference desk attempting to rationalize pedophilia

86.6.96.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has a problem of posting and reposting forum-like posts has made a post about 97% of which (per word count, excluding signature) attempts to rationalize pedophilia with only a nominal question (half of it seeking opinions) tacked on the end.

If the subject matter was something else entirely, it'd still be a problem with WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but I'd assume that this user was a troll if there was no prior involvement (instead, I'll believe he just has no idea that his behavior is inappropriate).

I boxed the thread instead of deleting it (which was my first reaction), but he unboxed it, and then recreated it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I made it clear that I am completely reviled by all acts of pedophilia. Yet, I have been accused of being a pedophile and now am also accused of being an apologist. In response, I say take my IP, report it to the police and when they kick my door in you can personally see I have NO interest abusing kids. If you were from the U.K you'd realize there is a media circus relating to MP's child abuse, Rolf Harris etc and I asked the question in that light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP was blocked already once for 60 hours on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. Since the unblock, he's continued to post questions that are intended to stir up arguments. Maybe his upcoming block will be a lot longer than 60 hours this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)86.6.96.72, 97% of your post (360/369 words) was attempting to rationalize pedophilia, and the entire point was to argue that we should "rehabilitate" it, citing societies that incorporated pedophilia into their culture. You were not there to ask for references about pedophilia, its role in society or evolution, or how society has tried to deal with it -- you preached about it. If the subject matter were something totally harmless (like clowns), the post still would have been inappropriate for the reference desk. Regardless of what you are or are not attracted to, the behavior is absolutely inappropriate and disgusting, and your continued failure to see that only makes you look more suspicious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why hasn't someone indeffed this troll? Were neither a forum nor platform for promoting... well, anything.- MrX 19:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NOTFORUM, I tend to agree that there should be definite consideration of a very long block. We are not here to right the wrongs of the world, or any individual country, and any attempt to use wikipedia to do so is inappropriate. Repeated attempts to do so are strictly problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Take back your claim that I am attempting to rationalize pedophilia. As someone who utterly condemns such vile acts (and has made no effort to hide pointing that out) I am grossly offended by your accusation.

I will re-iterate for the last time : you have my I.P. I can be tracked down in a heartbeat. File a complaint with the police (Metropolitan police) and wait for them to raid my house. They can then use their forensic software to examine my hard drive in minute detail, and what will they find? Nothing. Please do it.Take back your claim that I am attempting to rationalize pedophilia. As someone who utterly condemns such vile acts (and has made no effort to hide pointing that out) I am grossly offended by your accusation.

Sigh. And someone was just telling me at WT:Child protection how that policy has so neatly closed off and put a stop to all these issues..... Let's be clear: this OP didn't phrase the question properly to get a good Refdesk answer. Even so, there is a good Refdesk question in there. We know that a few ancient societies i.e. Greece had a remarkable incidence of pedophilia, and any genuine humanitarian desiring to see the condition cured and these endless reports in the press put to an end should recognize that it would be scientifically useful to understand why some societies had so much more than others. Is there a way that trauma or some kind of virus can damage the brain and prevent a child from changing his sexual desires as he ages to match his own social cohort? I am sick and tired of year after year, politicians and athletes and popes begging for forgiveness, but so few people even willing to think about the problem let alone do real research. Please do not close the door on such discussions and thereby ensure Wikipedia cannot contribute any part of the solution. Leave the OP unblocked and encourage him to put more question in his question, then try again. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

First see if you can convince the OP to sign his posts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wnt, read his original post. It includes multiple sentences outright calling for more accepting reconsideration of pedophilia in society, with the only question at the end being a vague and tacked on "Any comments, or pointers to research in this field?" He did not ask what role pedophilia played in certain societies, what roll it might play in evolution, or what attempts have been made to try to make it more mainstream or less harmful or something. He stated that society needs to accept pedophilia, and then asked for opinionated discussion about the matter. There was no question in there. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting me and reading into your own narrative. Conformation bias. If I didn't make the question direct enough for pond life, I apologize.

(edit conflict)Anon, your post includes: "Perhaps it is time to redefine what place child-adult relationships have in our society" and "I can't help but wonder if it is simply a part of the human condition. And, dare I say it is merely a normal behavior within the range of human behaviors." You cite societies that included degrees of pedophilia as why you believe "that somehow the conditions of pedophilia evolved with us and improved our survival." You conclude with "Perhaps we need to come to terms with pedophilia, and rehabilitate it somehow."

That is only attempting to rationalize pedophilia. No sane and reasonable person can deny that. If you are not trying to promote it or troll us, you'd back off, apologize, or otherwise admit that you totally fucked up in phrasing your question.

And again, even if the post was about whether or not clowns are acceptable to society, your behavior would still be inappropriate. With the subject matter, and your continued failure (apparently deliberate refusal) to understand (or consider) this, I can only conclude that you're either a troll or you're protesting too much as a cover. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh here we go, using false logic to back up a non argument 'if a duck is a duck...yawn'. Please, I think the tin foil hat elves want their leader back. If you truly thought I was a pedophile, I hope you have reported my I.P address to the relevant authorities. Otherwise you are simply hot air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)