Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

I will add, for anyone watching this, that Antidiskriminator is not only aware of this discussion (because Joy obviously advised him), but since it was logged, he has been busily working away in areas that are not the subject of this discussion, with over 75 edits in less than two days. I am afraid that he has no respect for consensus-based processes, he just soldiers on regardless, in the hope that it will just go away and he can return to the same pattern of behaviour. God help the editors that work in late 19th century/early 20th century Serbian history, because that is what he is editing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by IJA

I think it is fair to say that me and Antidiskriminator don't see eye to eye. I'm no angel, but then again Antidiskriminator is certainly no angel either. He isn't the easiest editor to work with, but then again, neither am I. In February he went through a phase of harassing me on my talk page making weird comments, making false accusations (mainly that I was personally attacking people when I hadn't) and just general spamming. [1] and [2] I warned Antidiskriminator back then to stop harassing my talk page [3]. After this, he stopped harassing my talk page. I had previously told him that "Your harassment and spamming on my talk page is irritating. I will be deleting anything you post on here." I just wanted to be left alone and not have a constant barrage of comments from him on my talk page. It is like he has to have the final word on everything.
I recently spent ages upgrading the history on the "Prizren" article and Antidiskriminator just out of the blue reverted it and he tried justifying it by saying that the history added to the article makes Serbs look "particularly bad". All I was trying to do was upgrade the history section and he wanted to censor bits he didn't like. As a Brit, I know we have one of the darkest histories in the world, but I'd never say we shouldn't include something on Wikipedia because it makes Brits look "particularly bad". This was blatant stonewalling by Antidiskriminator.
I'm in no position to say whether or not he should be topic banned and I certainly don't think it would be fair of me either as I tend to have disagreements with Antidiskriminator. This is Wikipedia, everyone should be free to edit. I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times. Regards IJA (talk) 22:17, 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)

I agree with Joy and Peacemaker, but Fut.Perf. has really hit the nail on the head. Antidiskriminator occasionally does something blatant, like adding hoax content, tag-teaming with obvious socks, using fake numbers, creating pov-forks &c.; but really the main problem is the pervasive low-level pov-pushing on Balkan history and geography, and the stonewalling. It's been going on for years. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pm67 proposed a three-month topic ban above. The previous topic ban, narrower in scope, lasted between 2012-11-02 and 2014-01-10, that is, 14 months. If there is consensus that the previous topic ban had no positive effect, I see no point in a new topic ban that is shorter than 14 months, and the scope also has to be wider. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get. IJA (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin, IJA. WP is run by the community, which empowers admins to do certain tasks on its behalf. They are a bit like the police in that respect, they operate with the consent of the community. If community consent is withdrawn, the mop is taken away. That doesn't mean we are governed by the admins, or that they are the only ones whose opinions matter. For Joy and Bob, I believe a shorter but much wider ban would permit the community to see if Antidiskriminator can edit outside Yugoslavia in WWII without being disruptive. That topic is my concern here, because that is where I deal with his behaviour. However, you and others may be aware of other areas where he is being disruptive, in which case the scope of the ban should be widened further, perhaps to include anything to do with Serbia or Serbs (broadly construed). If he returns to the behaviour demonstrated after the ban ends, then I think the only answer is an indefinite site ban, just as he has on Serbian WP (for similar behaviour). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT the topic area that encompasses the articles where I've noticed Antidiskriminator to have been disruptive would be 20th-century Serbian history, broadly construed. That should cover both the '09 Dedijer book stuff at Talk:Skaramuca and the '90s war stuff at Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. Since we have a pretty clear case of recidivism here, I just don't see a point in a short length ban, but obviously anything is better than nothing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't work on the World War 2 stuff if you paid me, because the editing environment there is so toxic. I work on other topics, for instance more recent Balkan history; but where that involves Serbia, it involves Antidiskriminator, and similar problems appear - kneejerk reverts, stonewalling, pov-forks, misrepresentation, &c. There is also highly asymmetric use of sources - where content fits a Serb-nationalist POV, sourcing requirements are very low; but where it doesn't fit that POV, suddenly even the strongest sources are somehow disqualified and the content swiftly removed. More frustrating is that when some other (more blatant) pov-pusher (or sockpuppet) appears on the scene and other editors are trying to contain the damage, Antidiskriminator gives the POV-warrior support and helps them with a few reverts. For instance, the most destructive Balkan POV-warriors who have been kicked off the project seem to have one thing in common: Antidiskriminator gave them barnstars (Example 1, 2 3, 4 5). As far as the scope of a topic ban is concerned, I am pragmatic. I just want to make it possible for other editors to fix some of our neutrality problems. Half the scope means half the benefit, but that's better than nothing at all. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Serbia and Serbs from 1900-? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. There are probably some potential conflicts in the 19th century (or in the Ottoman era), but I think your proposal would tackle the most serious problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate topic ban would be a ban on topics involving/ relating to "Serbs, Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslavia" 1900 to Present? This way it will stop any topic ban from being loosely interpreted. IJA (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator

Consensus from the two involved (Joy) and possibly involved (Future Perfect) admins and the other editors in this thread (bobrayner and I) appears to be coalescing around proposing a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current" (broadly construed). Given we have yet to get any non-involved admin comment on this thread so far, and Antidiskriminator appears to be avoiding the issue, I believe it is appropriate to make a formal topic ban proposal for the admins here to consider. I would particularly like to get User:EdJohnston's perspective, given he was the one who lifted the original, much narrower ban. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I tried to work with to three requested moves and Antidiskriminator's "stonewalling" wasted a lot of time and energy in the moves, repeating things which weren't accurate or had be refuted, and it spread to other pages like user talk and move review. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hours after I supported a topic ban, sockpuppets have started reverting my old edits, like this [4] :-( Now Look What You've Done (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, FP, if we don't make some attempt to progress it, it will just get archived as "too hard" by the admins that work here every day, because those admins aren't willing to dip their toes into ARBMAC territory, because that is generally not where they work. I've been here before, and I'm sure you and Joy have seen it too. That is the reality of bringing anything of mild complexity and longevity to this board. Easy stuff gets dealt with quite quickly. That is why I have tried to progress it, given it is already half-way up the current list, with no uninvolved admin comment at all, even from Ed Johnston, who was the one who lifted the ban. Frankly, I think that the admins that were involved in the original ARBMAC discussion, the ban and the lifting of the ban should make some time to at least give it their opinion. Short of pinging them, what else is a non-admin supposed to do? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, it has taken me hours to read the history of Pavle Đurišić and other pages, but that is the problem: The tendentious editing of Antidiskriminator, and always arguing over any little detail for POV. I am not sure about how long the ban should be. I don't think I'm involved, at worst I did give a WP:3O on a different Serbia page, years ago. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for spending the time reviewing the history, Dentalplanlisa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed much of the material on the Đurđevdan uprising, which led me to the conclusion that a topic ban is warranted at this time. My previous interaction with Antidiskriminator was at The Holocaust, where my perception was that he intended to block the removal of peripheral content from the article, which meant it would be impossible for the article to reach GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was briefly involved there too, and his behaviour there was classic Antidiskriminator, working every angle to retain POV material. The question of "is the mass killing of Serbs in the NDH part of the Holocaust" is a victim-centred Serb POV issue from the 90's which is well documented by a wide range of scholars. I don't think your involvement there makes you "involved", Diannaa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Starting from tomorrow I will be on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries. I expect to be able to reply to questions with not more than 24-48 hours delay. With all due respect for a group of editors (who were all except Dentalplanlisa involved in disputes with me) I don't think they presented valid arguments for sanctions against me. I still believe that Joy should simply initiate WP:RM as explained to him multiple times, also by another administrator in his replies (diff and diff) to Joy's and Peacemaker67's complaint about my conduct. If in the meantime the consensus is reached that Joy was right that there was something wrong with my editing, I sincerely apologize in advance and promise not to repeat same mistake in future. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's good timing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with the tendentious editing accusation being leveled at Antidiskriminator. I don't see much wrong with his contributions overall. Or I should say I don't see anything more wrong with them than with the contributions of the involved editors preparing the groundwork for his ban here. He's clearly got an inherent bias when it comes to Balkan history, as do many of the editors going after him here. Skullduggery and douchery, whether active or passive, that stem from those opposing views and biases have long been the editing norm on those articles and this proposal is basically just another battlefield of a fued that's long crossed over into personal territory.Zvonko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I pretty much expected you to say something like this after how you behaved at Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo - a lot of general claims that just don't hold up to scrutiny. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sinful "behaviour" of utilizing cognitive capabilities and coming up with output different from yours. Oh, the blasphemy! You should seriously consider suggesting a ban for my "behaviour".Zvonko (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If it were only so innocuous. You advocated, in rather strong words, a position that was a essentially a trivially disingenuous misreading of search engine output, which in turn had to be explicitly debunked by myself and several other users - and then you failed to acknowledge the error, let alone change your !vote or even apologize for insisting on something so easily disproven. So, like I said, I don't really expect you to understand what Antidiskriminator's disruptive behavior is, when you willfully engage in it as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Antidiskriminator's comment here is the same old misrepresentation. No, Joy isn't the only person to have issues with Antidiskriminator's editing; many editors in the Balkans have. (All of whom are "involved", by Antidiskriminator's definition). It's not just over one article either, but swathes of articles; misrepresenting sources, cherrypicking, and systematically reverting other peoples' work - regardless of how well it's sourced - if it doesn't fit a radical Serb nationalist POV. Strangely, Antidiskriminator's "vacation" means that he can't explain those problems here, but he still has free time to edit-war over POV-forks like this (He originally wrote it as "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", and still talks at length about pogroms, even though it wasn't a pogrom). Some articles have included hoaxes like Serbia's NUTS regions for years - it doesn't matter whether or not these are actual NUTS regions (they aren't); as long as Antidiskriminator is editing, it stays in wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, reverting those anonymous blankings, which are probably work of some long-time abuser evading a block, was the correct immediate course of action on the face of it. This is why this is not a simple complaint. Perhaps you can invest some time to explain why that "Demonisation of the Serbs" draft is a bad idea - since on the face of it, it looks like a well-referenced article in the making... it's not necessarily immediately obvious in what way it is tendentious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: given you proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted the 2012 ARBMAC topic ban on Antidiskriminator, and he has demonstrably engaged in "further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks", I would like your views on the above proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation on IPT

See the following diffs [5] [6]. User:Serialjoepsycho was advised to not restore the offending comment until consensus had been achieved at the BLP noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism, but he skirted the issue by modifying the statement only to make it worse, and added it anyway. He also included the defamatory statement at the BLP noticeboard. The statement included in the IPT article was never made by Steven Emerson, rather it is an inaccurate "interpretation". See the following article in the American Journalism Review regarding what Emerson actually said: [7]. Atsme☯^Consult 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Not really. What's This? Does it tie to this? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How ever it happened, My post here was reverted and removed on this diff.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Such accidental removals happen from time to time. Don't think too much of it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really expect that it was more than an accident. I posted this while restoring it. It was an accident though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor who removed the contested content after seeing the thread at WP:BLPN. (I'm not a regular editor of this article. It only came to my attention patrolling BLPN.) I removed it because a) it was citing an unreliable source and b) one of the sources (a CBS news article) didn't support the content. It turns out that I was wrong on b). The CBS News report did support part of the content. Serialjoepsycho then rewrote the content removing the unreliable source and rewording the content to fit what the CBS News article said. I do not see a problem with Serialjoepsycho's partial revert since they addressed my remaining concern (citing an unreliable source). Since I don't really know much about this topic, I'm not sure what more I can say about this dispute. Unfortunately, I was the only (previously) uninvolved editor to respond to the BLPN thread. HTH. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pending of course further response by Atsme, I ask this be closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite this instead of the press release: Barringer, Felicity (24 September 2001). "A Nation Challenged: The Journalists; Terror Experts Use Lenses of Their Specialties". New York Times. p. C1. That fury escalated when, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, [Emerson] told CBS News, "This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait, and something that has been generally not carried out on this soil until we were rudely awakened to it in 1993" — the year of the first World Trade Center attack. On Saturday, Mr. Emerson said that he was reflecting investigators' first take on that attack. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually here's a better one: Mintz, John (14 November 2001). "The Man Who Gives Terrorism A Name; Expert's Finger-Pointing Troubles Muslim Groups". Washington Post. p. C01. But Emerson has made missteps. A day after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed in 1995, he went on television theorizing -- wrongly -- that the culprits were Arab. Attempting "to inflict as many casualties as possible -- that is a Middle Eastern trait," he said in one interview, one of many statements his enemies call reckless and biased. No opinion on whether the statement belongs in per WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The press release was actually already taken out. The particular source of issue is 48 hrs. Atsme has an issue with the the source saying that he pointed the finger at Muslim terrorists. My posting of a direct quote from that source is the supposed defamatory statement on BLPN. Under the Same logic your comments Mendaliv are a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff where I quote the source represents his claim of defamation on BLPN. And it's not in the lead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any actual quotes by Emerson that specifically mention "Muslim", or "Arab", and any inclusion of such claims are a violation of WP:BLP. Reporters often take statements out of context and inject their own bias which appears to be what happened in the Emerson interview, especially considering the rebuttals and what Emerson actually said. It is our responsibility as editors to make sure we are not violating WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiable, and/or WP:NOR requirements. If any of the interpretations of Emerson's statements are considered acceptable after a fair determination in this ANI, then any inclusion must respect all requirements, including: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. 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.. Also keep in mind, IPT did not even exist until 2006 which was 11 years after Emerson's 1995 CBS interview, therefore if the statement in question is determined to be acceptable, it does not belong in the IPT article, it belongs in the Steven Emerson article which includes his work as an independent reporter and terrorism expert. It also includes a section about his work as leader of The Investigative Project, a think tank which is separate from The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation organized in 2006 as a Section 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. Any attempt to combine Emerson's work as a CNN reporter/independent reporter/terrorism expert, plus the work he did for his think-tank, The Investigative Project, and lump sum it together with the work he and others have performed as representatives of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation (nonprofit Sect 501c-3 organized in 2006) is not only inaccurate, it is a violation of WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 05:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IPT was founded in 1995. They personally claim as much [on their website]. This has also been reported by numerous sources. They did not organize in 2006. They incorporated as a non-profit then. I'll let ANI cover everything else you have said. On an interesting note this has went from conduct to content.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and see Mendaliv using Atsme's logic you have violated the BLP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It happened in 1995. This group in the article was founded by him in 1995. A counterterrorism expert, his counterterror think tank, and an incident that happened in 1995. A notable incident. An incident that has not only only followed him til now but also this group. The IP that originally put it in found relevant. I and another editor found it relevant. The only editor to respond on the BLP noticeboard did not see a BLP issue. The entry on the BLP noticeboard is still active awaiting further comment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There are clear violations of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH in the IPT article which User:Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge. He continues to revert my attempts to correct them. I made good faith edits, and tried to work things out in a collaborative effort, but he refuses to acknowledge the issues, pushes his POV, and continues to taunt, and be disruptive. See diffs:[8] [9]. He has not made any substantial contributions to the IPT stub, or made any attempts to help make it a good article. His only purpose appears to be in keeping IPT a stub to push his POV, WP:BLP#Attack, against Emerson. Any information about Emerson, including valid criticisms (if the latter can be considered NPOV) belongs in Steven Emerson, especially information relating to something he said or did 20 years earlier, and at least 11 years before the formation of the non-profit foundation. The Talk page and edit history will show my good faith attempts to take the IPT article from a poorly written stub to something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but it has been very difficult to accomplish with Serialjoepsycho's repeated disruptions. The stub itself includes a banner stating This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.

I recently proposed a merge and delete, but Serialjoepsycho has disrupted that as well. He called for an RFC before the merge discussion was finalized, and while the BLP noticeboard discussion was still taking place. The following links validate my concerns over the WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH issues with the IPT stub, and recently added infobox as it currently exists: [10] under the heading "Unusual arrangement". The following links also validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [11] [12], and also in the closing credits/disclaimer in the article at the self-published IPT.org website [13]. It is with great disappointment that I must conclude the edits and actions of Serialjoepsycho have not been performed in good faith, rather it appears he has made a game out being a "talk-page expert" according to his user contributions. It is very difficult for me to get any meaningful editing done in light of his repeated reverts and other disruptions over my good faith attempts to correct problems. He has actually shown up in my discussions with other editors where he had absolutely no involvement, which leads me to believe he is also violating WP:Hounding. His comments on my Talk page are second only to his own Talk page. Also see the following example: [14] I do hope the problems can be resolved here. Atsme☯^Consult 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Atsme is a POVPusher with an unquestionable bias towards the topic of Islamophobia. [15] [16] The conversation is old and the diffs are buried. It's easier to just direct you to the conversations. Atsme's language makes clear a motive to whitewash wikipedia of claims of Islamophobia. There's other conversations if you need them as well. Atsme's current attempt at the IPT article is to Merge it with Steven Emerson, delete it, and create a new article titled the Investigative project on terrorism foundation. Creating that new page is exceptionally puzzling. The current article Investigative Project on Terrorism suggests that it is one in the same as the 2006 foundation that Atsme wishes to create a new page for. His merge rational is original research. He offers one source that suggests IPT was not founded in 1995. It does not mention the 1995 counterterrorism think-tank "The investigative project" that atsme is trying to differentiate from The Investigative project on Terrorism Foundation. The rest of his sources tacked together with that simply amount to original research. Unless exceptional claims no longer require exceptional sources that Tennessean article doesn't cut it. It does not discount IPT's own claim of 1995 founding or that of the other sources. Atsme's claims are subordinate to his/her commentary. All of this with Atsme's unquestionable and purposeful bias really begs the question of what their motives are. I did open a RFC while the BLP was open. To ask the neutrally worded question,"Do you support or oppose the above proposed merger of Investigative Project on Terrorism with Steven Emerson and Why?" I'd rather just speed up Atsme's tiresome effort. As Atmse's claim is groundless it's unlikely that BLPN will respond to it. Further opening this RFC balances out Atsme's previous canvassing effort: here, here, here, and here. But then I also missed the policy that forbids opening an RFC for a merge. Could someone point that one out real quick? Did I mention Atme's Tendentious editing? Removing this template after there was a consensus to keep it and that it was not an NPOV violation. They did nothing that changed the consensus. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't be sure what she/he is getting at by the "talkpage expert" bit. Seems like an accusation of Metapedianism. I'm not sure. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The only POV I've been pushing is WP:BLP policy. Following is another link that supports my position regarding a distinct separation of entities between Steven Emerson, The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation which Serialjoespycho wants to lump sum under the IPT article as being one in the same with the common denominator being Steven Emerson, a BLP issue, and why he refuses to respect WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. [17] Last sentence in the 5th para states: He subsequently set up the Investigative Project, an earlier, for-profit predecessor of the IPTF that evolved into a robust operation devoted to tracking and documenting alleged connections of American Muslims to international terror groups. He is also a frequent commentator on Fox News. If other sources understand that The Investigative Project was Emerson's "for-profit" think tank, shouldn't Wikipedia at least try to get it right without violating WP:SYNTH in the existing IPT stub? Will an administrator please stop Serialjoepsycho's disruptive behavior so I can get back to working collaboratively with good faith editors? Something needs to be done about his policy violations, his relentless false allegations against me, his WP:hounding, and recent threats about what he plans to do if I create a new, correct article for IPTF under the proper name, making it worthy of inclusion via accuracy without all the WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. I have already started the article, and would like some assurance that I will not have to keep dealing with this disruptive behavior. Atsme☯^Consult 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The only POV? Lol I linked two of your conversations above. Let's see what you have to say about Islamophobia, "The word can best be summed up rather succinctly by the following quote: "A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons." - Christopher Hitchens" There are many gems in those conversations. Hell there are even some questionable comments that seem rather racist. No I have absolute respect for policy. I just have no respect for you. You've already made your soapbox clear. This has been on BLPN since the first and no editor as of yet has endorsed your position. Oh you found another source. I'm sure that you could cherry pick more given time. I'm surprised that you haven't yet. Again I don't see that you have offered a compelling reason to ignore IPT's own claim and the claim of many other sources that IPT was founded in 1995. With your previous history there's no good common sense reason to assume even the remotest glimmer of good faith on your part. Commenting that I would put the islamophobia template up before nominating it for deletion was smarmy comment. I wouldn't waste the time. I would simply nominate it for deletion. This conversation between me and you is over... And that's not because I don't have anything to say but that you have consistently proven you do not have anything to say. This seems curiously similar to forum shopping. You imply that opening an RFC before a Merger discussion has taken place for 30 days is forum shopping. I disagree but that is your position. While that Merger discussion is going you take it to BLPN. Then you take it to ANI. It's almost as if you are hedging your bet. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The above comments really show Serialjoepsycho's true colors, and why I had to bring this incident to ANI. While he is busy WP:Hounding me, and no telling how many other editors he has been harassing on various other Talk pages and noticeboards, I've been working on correcting the inaccuracies, and blatant WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYNCH violations that he refuses to acknowledge in the pathetic stub, Investigative Project on Terrorism. The article I'm working on now is nowhere near being complete, so please don't review it judgmentally. There is quite a bit more verifiability that needs to be done, and more information that needs to be added. [18] If nothing else, my work should speak to Serialjoepsycho's ridiculous allegations which are nothing more than a smoke screen to turn the focus away from his own behavior, and repeated policy violations. Atsme☯^Consult 02:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your work speaks for itself. The writing is on wall clearly in black and white. You are a POVpusher. You already announced your soapbox. It doesn't get more simple than that. You're unquestionably bias. I notice in your new article has alot of the material comes from the current article. I notice the Islamophobia template is missing. The people that developed some of that article don't get the history attribution and you may be able to remove the template without bothering to get a consensus on it, even though one already exists. This seems similar to wp:game Gaming the system. The article is bad. Alot of which I would attribute to you personally, but the article will get better eventually. If I recall that's the deadline on the articles completion. There's nothing blatant. Except for you, a bad faith editor, everyone's concerns have been met so far. There's no smoke screen. If I have done something wrong I do hope that it's addressed so I can adjust accordingly. I'm not really going to pay much mind to your position. No reasonable person in my position would. Hell they can go to the IPT talk page Second topic. They will see you arguing from authority based off your strange assumption that I was an admin. They will see you misrepresenting a policy argument of mine to another editor. They will see you break your back to paint that editor in a bad light. The same editor that you canvassed here. It's interesting that at your last time here at ANI that same editor was listed as your mentor. But then in that same ANI You're kissing my butt at the beginning and then switching to accusations half way thru. Should I even mention where in the current BLP where you break your back to discredit Sepsis II because they got a temporary block in an unrelated article due to discretionary sanctions in an active arbitration case? I wonder if they dug thru your interactions how many times they would find you accusing someone of something because you're trying to win an argument? I can find quite a few that don't involve me rather easily. I actually have evidence. Smoke Screen? Let's quit bickering back and forth here as well so don't waste everyones time. Just comment enough to keep this active. That's once every 36 hours. There's really no point in me and you saying anything else.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever paused long enough to read your incoherent slop before you hit the send key? You really need to stop launching personal attacks against me, and focus on your own policy violations. You have added nothing to enhance either the IPT article or Emerson article. All you're doing is pushing your own POV which is nothing more than consistent criticism, and attempts to discredit others, whether it's in an article, on a Talk page, or about another editor. Your behavior is worse than disruptive. There is no need for you to make further comments to me/about me at the ANI. I have articles that need editing, and will leave this debate in the hands of the appropriate editors/admins. Atsme☯^Consult 20:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose a Topic Ban on Atsme

Unfortunately it seems issue has to be pressed. I'm not sure what wrong you'll find that I've done. I'm not going to say I've done no wrong. It's certainly possible that I have. If y'all don't tell me I certainly can't do anything to change it. With regards to me y'all do what y'all think is appropriate.

With that said there's plenty of evidence to show bad faith on Atsme's part. I have to propose a topic ban for any articles related to Islamophobia, even in the remotest way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

All any admin has to do is use the analysis tool on the IPT article to see who needs to be topic banned for disruptive editing and POV pushing, and it certainly isn't me. You are the one with the WP:BLP violation currently being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. I've been working diligently to improve the IPT article, and take it from a stub to something worthy of Wikipedia, just as I've been doing with several other articles in recent months - one of which I just edited to GA status, and nominated for DYK. Regarding the analysis on the IPT article, I am 1st in "Top Editors by added text" with 58.8%, and you are 7th with only 0.1%. Those numbers speak volumes with regards to who is being disruptive.

I have been very patient throughout this ordeal, but I have articles to edit, and cannot do my job as an editor while you are hawking my every move, reverting my edits, calling me names, and violating WP Policy at every turn. Most of your time on Wikipedia is spent cruising Talk pages and noticeboards, not editing. A quick analysis of your user contributions is a good example of how you've been hounding me. Your edits under User Talk shows your own page 1st with 41; and Atsme 2nd with 26. More than half of your edits were on my talk page. It has to stop.

• Analysis on the IPT article shows: Max. text added: Mar 22, 2014, 8:32 PM • Atsme • +11,940
• Top 10 by added text: Atsme 58.8% (Serialjoepsycho 7th with 0.1%)

It's real easy for you to point a finger at another editor to divert attention away from yourself, but the stats don't lie. You are disruptive, and have repeatedly violated policy, and something needs to be done. In the interim, I've got five articles waiting for my attention. Atsme☯^Consult 08:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish

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

---

Last month SMcCandlish moved hundreds(?) of animal breed articles to different titles without seeking any consensus to do so. A good number of these moves were reversed after community consensus was reached in separate discussions at Talk:American Paint Horse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. Disclosure: I participated in both of those discussions in favour of restoring the previous titles.

In closing the American Paint Horse discussion, Jenks24 made this comment:

@SMcCandlish: please don't move articles without an RM when you know that there is very likely to objections. It's all very well to cite WP:BOLD, but the the RM page is quite clear that you should only do so "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move".

For what little it is worth, I had earlier written in the same discussion:

There are probably several others that SMcCandlish has moved without discussion or understanding ... I suggest to that editor that from now on any move of a breed article that he/she may be contemplating should automatically be regarded as contentious, and be subject to a move request in the normal way.

I am curious to know, therefore, why SMcCandlish has without discussion (that I am aware of) recently moved dozens more breed articles. I suggest that making a vast number of page moves while knowing perfectly well that they are contentious, and after being clearly warned that to do so is a misuse of the process, comes very close to being WP:DISRUPTIVE. I'd like to propose that SMcCandlish be deprived of the right to move pages until and unless he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what collaborative editing is supposed to mean. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it even possible to revoke the ability to move pages without blocking someone? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it's possible technically, but that doesn't mean a Move Ban can't be instituted, it's been done before. BMK (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As far as I can tell, no. Unless you can remove someone's autoconfirmed bit. Which would be kind of cool. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to take any action. He gave an acceptable reason to move and it doesn't seem he expected any controversy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• (Struck as I was thinking this was about a different set of moves)Seems like reasonable moves based on existing guidelines and policies. There was recently a large RFC that reinforced MOSCAPS over a very similar issue and these moves seem quite in line with the results of that discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And these moves don't even raise capitalization or any other MOS issues at all; they're pure WP:AT policy. As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I had assumed they they were more of the same based on some of the articles linked at the top. Sorry. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• This set of moves looks like the typical fiddling with things that does not help the reader one iota. It's nothing but "busy work". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota. It's nothing but policy-unrelated "noise". Do people seriously have nothing better to do than hang out here and kick good-faith editors in the shins just because we're not doing precisely the same kinds of editing they'd prefer themselves? Is that really why you're here? Is that rewarding for you?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Bugs' commentary, while a bit more candid than I would put it myself, is pretty well on-point. I'm looking at some of these pagemoves, and if they're clearly supposed by policy, I'd be surprised. Even then, policy is supposed to be descriptive of practices: If you're finding just that many pages that don't conform to policy (or your understanding of it anyway), your response shouldn't be to ram it down everyone's throat, but to question whether the policy is still an accurate reflection of community consensus. Especially when people are complaining. And I frankly question whether your interpretation of WP:AT (specifically, I think you're referring to the WP:NATURAL subsection) is correct; it seems at odds with WP:COMMONNAME. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's SOP; see WP:AT#Deciding on an article title at "* Naturalness", and search that page throughout for "natural", including in WP:COMMONNAME (and yes, WP:NATURAL of course). If you think that "Hebridean (sheep)" is somehow a more natural or common name that "Hebridean sheep" good luck demonstrating that. Somewhere else. Whether my interpretation of the policy turns out, after some hihgly subjective, nitpicky debate, to not be absolutely 100% perfect, is not an ANI matter, nor any kind of enforcement or disciplinary matter, it would simply be a WT:AT discussion the conclusion of which would be that some wording at AT/DAB needs to be tweaked. Anyway, then see WP:AT#Disambiguation and WP:DAB about not using disambiguators unless necessary to begin with, as in the other kind of move at issue here (see details in longer post below).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point somehow. I don't care what your personal understanding of WP:AT is. When you stumble across a large number of articles that in your view violate that policy, it falls to you to first verify that your understanding of policy isn't wrong. Based simply on your responses here, and your past issue with pagemoves, I don't believe you did that. You made a bunch of controversial pagemoves that you knew or had reason to know would be controversial based on your past issues that were squarely on point with this matter. Attempting to deflect this by arguing that it's not an ANI issue is not addressing the problem, nor is vomiting up the a wall of text below (which, frankly, is curious behavior if you believe there isn't an ANI issue here). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already addressed all this in the "vomit" (nice attitude!) that you apparently won't read (if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia, which mostly consists of paragraphs of text?!) I accept that you're developing a contrary opinion on the fly about what AT really means with regard to such unnecessarily parenthetical page names, but I'm not, and have sat on this and thought about it for a long time. You having a different take on it all of a sudden (one that's gone from tentative to condemnatory in the space of a few hours, perhaps simply because I'm standing up to you and you're looking for an argument?), it does not make for a case of wrongdoing or negligence on my part, and shaking your fists at me about it won't change any of that. If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. BOLD is policy for a reason. Filibusterers would block all action on anything except the most obscure, boring topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. Except that you were on clear and unambiguous notice that your novel interpretation of WP:NATURAL was controversial. And frankly, it's incorrect based on a plain reading of WP:AT. Nothing, I repeat, nothing in that policy puts WP:NATURAL on higher ground than WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue that the contrary is plainly the case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No one ever made an argument in this discussion that NATURAL is "on higher ground" that COMMONNAME. The only notice I was on related - I've told you this, what, three times now? - to capitalization, not parenthetical disambiguation. This is essentially moot now anyway; I have no more breed-related articles to move for these or any similar reasons. Most of these moves have stuck, as they should. I notice now that the dogs project pollstacked an RM in their own back yard to move various dog pages back to parenthetical disambiguation, but oh well. It's not like I'm going to go revert an actual RM decision, bogus as it may be. This question basically needs to be settled in an RfC. That is clear now, but only after I boldly made changes, in good faith compliance with AT, and some of these changes were reverted, so now a discussion is in order, e.g. an RfC. This is WP:BRD in action. Before I did anything, all of these categories were not only inconsistent internally, they were wildly inconsistent with each other. We're now much closer to a standard, which editors and readers will understand. So, please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you. See WP:MASTODON. I don't need to be browbeaten by you any further with your WP:IDHT circular arguments and borderline accusations of bad faith, so good day and please drop it. No one else here is agreeing with your take on this, and I have way better things to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• [EC, and my actual first response; the above is later interpolation]: The American Paint Horse and related moves and disputes about them have nothing to do with this sort of move I was doing earlier today. No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles, so my expectation would be that any that were disputed (on valid bases) were about the same issue as the horse ones, namely perceptions about how to capitalize based on what the alleged "real" or "official" name of the breed is (with or without "[H|h]orse" or "[D|d]og" at the end of it). While I don't agree with the pro-capitalization crowd on that, I chose not to fight with them about it any further, because of the level of bad-faith-assumptive and attacking invective they were engaging in already (for which several of them could have been sanctioned under MOS discretionary sanctions against personalizing style/titles debates), among other reasons, like just being busy off-wiki, the issue probably being moot eventually the way that downcasing is going, and the kangaroo-court nature of the canvassing-stacked RMs).

  Capitalization changes are not disambiguation fixes. Not every edit to an article that happens to be about an animal is the same thing. Get your facts right before you run off histrionically to ANI.

  Let's be very clear here: I have absolutely no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move from a name that patently violates WP:AT policy because it uses parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation is available (e.g. moving from Hampshire (sheep) and Hebridean (sheep) to AT's preferred Hampshire sheep and Hebridean sheep, especially when numerous articles were already in the correct format, and there's no record of a discussion at WT:AT or WT:DAB coming to a "special exemption for sheep breeds" rule), or because it violates both AT and DAB by using disambiguation at all when there is nothing to disambiguate it from (e.g. moving from Meatmaster (sheep) to Meatmaster, and Perendale (sheep) to Perendale). There are surely several more of the latter sort that need to move from "Whatever sheep" to "Whatever" because their names are trademarks or nonce words that do not actually need to be disambiguated from anything (e.g. Perendale sounds like a placename, but is actually a portmanteaux made up for the breed). Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, wikiprojects cannot make up their own anti-AT/anti-DAB rules, and I did not even see any attempt at one at WikiProject Agriculture or WikiProject Mammals anyway. Similar moves of cats, ducks, chickens, turkeys, goats, donkeys, etc., etc., have been uncontroversial, as they logically should be since they're moving policy non-compliant articles to policy-compliant titles. Note also that admins fulfilled all or almost all of the {{db-move}} requests I used for those I could not move myself, so there did not seem anything problematic in these requests to them, either.

Sarcasm:

I am curious to know, therefore, why User:Justlettersandnumbers has come here to enforce...whatever, while not actually understanding applicable policy and guidelines. For what little it is worth, I suggest to Justlettersandnumbers than from now on any issue he/she has with some another editor be brought up on their talk page instead of running to admin notice boards to start formalized trouble. We have loads of dispute resolution methods, and ANI is principally for vandals and nutjobs, and is toward the last-resort end, not the "this bothered me and I'm in a bad mood" end. I'd like to propose that Justlettersandnumbers be deprived of the right to file noticeboard cases until he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what ANI and the other boards are actually for, what a frivolous case is, how dispute resolution works, what our article naming policy says, how consensus works and does not work, what WP:Be bold policy says, and, yes, what collaborative editing is supposed to mean.

Seriously, has it escaped everyone's attention that virtually no WP:MOS/WP:AT regulars ever come to ANI (or AN, AE, etc.) to try to get people punished for failure to comply, only for utterly tendentious, disruptive behavior, meanwhile any number of topical wikiproject editors who do not understand that WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy prohibit them from dictating article titles and content that contravene policies and real guidelines (that they rarely if ever participate in crafting), will turn immediately to admin noticeboards to vindictively punish and muzzle anyone they disagree with? How long is this going to go on? It's time to start judiciously applying WP:BOOMERANG with regard to all this anti-MOS, anti-AT, anti-DAB battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: A warning to Justlettersandnumbers against any further frivolous and vexatious noticeboard filings is probably sufficient. I don't mean to imply anything stronger. As it is, I think ANI and some other noticeboards issue too many non-trivial sanctions against editors who are not habitually disruptive. Many good editors quit over being administratively rough-handled.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Then again, that was before I saw Justlettersandnumbers's blatant canvassing proposal.[19]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I point out that the report was filed by User:Justlettersandnumbers, not by User:G S Palmer, who was merely the first commenter. BMK (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Right! Fixed. I mis-copy-pasted. D'oh. Apologies to User:G S Palmer! <sheepish grin>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's my "blatant canvassing proposal", posted on the talk page of G S Palmer:

Anyway, a quick question which I hope you can answer: is it appropriate to notify the various animal breed Wikiprojects of the discussion, or would that look like canvassing?

As it happens, I've only had one answer to that question, and that was from SMcCandlish, whose reply could hardly be taken as dispassionate. I've not notified the WikiProjects affected, nor do I know if it is appropriate to do so. But if it is, would some kind person do it for me? I'd be grateful. Those would seem to include Agriculture, Equine, Dogs, Cats ... and, oh yes, I almost forgot! ... Birds. Thanks either way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is a strong indication that the answer was corect, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Disappointing to say the least. I completely fail to understand how you, SMcCandlish, thought after the kerfuffle surrounding the exact same type of moves to dog breed articles, that it would somehow be completely uncontroversial for sheep breeds. Use this process [RM] if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. It is that simple. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And upon further review, I'm reasonably certain the moves were against policy. The claims that they were in line with WP:AT are little more than VAGUEWAVEs. That parenthetical disambiguators should not be used where any other title is possible seems to directly contravene the policy that we should use the common name rather than something made up out of whole cloth. Even if the dog breed pagemoves were a reasonable mistake, to turn around and do precisely the same thing with sheep breed articles one month later is inexcusable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision directly applicable here? "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes." SMcCandlish does exactly what that says not to, moves first, discusses later (with lengthy posts full of alphabet soup and "personalizing" comments such as on this very page "That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota....if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia?...please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you"etc.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the arbcom decision you cite appears to be talking about avoiding overly bold edits to guideline pages, not overly bold actions in actual page moves, but other than that, I agree that SMcCandlish's behaviour is exactly what that case was about, and it has to be stopped. From my position as a distant observer, it sure looks like a long-term pattern: SMcCandlish's attitude to these issues is a classical battleground approach; time and time again he gives the impression of perceiving of his actions as a kind of crusade to bring some corner of Wikipedia under the control of the MOS, and if I remember correctly he has quite openly expressed that he conceives of opposition to this – especially when it comes from the corner of some wikiproject – as some kind of insubordination or "insurgence" that needs to be squashed by the legitimate power of the MOS-wielders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• General comment: when it comes to contested page moves, you're only permitted to be bold ONCE. Not once per article, once per species, once per genus ... just once overall per type of move. The first time someone complains about a move, you stop. Then you have to gain consensus for any similar move in the future. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• For I believe the fifth time, these were not the same type of move. The previously disputed moves were about capitalization, a MOS:CAP matter. These moves were about improper disambiguation, a WP:AT matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not SMcCandlish's first rodeo, or even his second or third. This is not about what he does, it is about how he does it, and his behavior toward others when challenged. I think SMC needs a restriction from moving articles or posting requested moves for articles. He is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND all over the place. As noted, he led a contentious battle over bird names, then next created a circus over capitalization of a few exceptions in horse breed names. Though his current set of moves constitutes natural disambiguation, which I normally favor, SMcCandlish is returning to a bad habit of making massive page moves without discussion or consensus-seeking and then attacking anyone who disagrees with him, usually referring to policies that he was active in writing, usually by bullying others into submission. Here, JLAN has worked hard on the sheep and other farm animal articles and SMC should have posted at article talk before moving, and particularly before moving and "salting" so they couldn't be moved back. SMC knows full well that the animal articles are contentious; for example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation for breeds, and just had a discussion about the matter reaffirming this concept, while WP:EQUINE has long preferred natural disambiguation for breeds and parenthetical disambiguation for individual named horses. But in other past rodeos, this user wasted endless bandwidth arguing over what constituted a "breed" and at the time, argued for parenthetical disambiguation for quite some time, though after the discussion moved here, he appears to have changed his mind on that issue. Given his history, a restriction of some sort if appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I also believe that it is appropriate to notify wikiprojects where this has been an issue (based on current moves and my past knowledge) and I have taken it upon myself to post neutrally worded notifications at WP farm, mammals, birds, dogs, equine and cats. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with editors above - there was a bunch of controversial pagemoves - and not even a note at the Wikiproject page. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• "[F]or example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation" = "WP:DOGS pretends that WP:AT, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are not real policies".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support a page move ban on User:SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish has clearly caused enormous disruption across the project with their non-consensus moves, battleground tactics and personal attacks against those who dispute the moves. IF SMcCandlish believes a page move is necessary, then they need to engage the appropriate WikiProject and file at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dreadstar ☥ 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support move ban, with deference to other discussants as to the terms (i.e., length). The evident battleground mentality and refusal to develop clue after the last controversial set of pagemoves indicates that this individual should not be making pagemove for the foreseeable future. His attitude towards the entire RM process evidenced above is frightening, particularly in light of the refusal to hear that anything could be wrong with his personal interpretation of the article title policy: Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and matters of project-wide importance require stakeholder input. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But, you're the one advancing the argument that my interpretation is incorrect. Your !vote amounts to an attempt to shut me up so you can win the dispute you started with me above about this, which I remind you isn't a matter for discussion here anyway but belongs in an RFC, the very kind of stakeholder input you know is needed. You're the furthest thing from an uninvolved party in this, and the other side of the "battle" can't rationally accuse his opponent of battlegrounding. NB: I frequently use RM for both potentially controversial and unlikely to be controversial moves, so your "frightened" hyperbolic false claim about me and RM should be retracted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Sigh - Support - reluctantly. I am not happy with this. I don't LIKE doing this kind of things. But I can't notice any difference in the editor's discussion above. Can't see any I am sorry, it was a mistake. And I don't like moving back a lot of pages either. Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm conceding throughout that I do of course agree that there is presently a dispute about these moves. That's a matter for a discussion; whether someone disagrees with my interpretation of AT is also a matter for that discussion. I boldly moved some pages, some of which are being moved back, and a discussion will result. That's BRD actually happening. Why would say I'm "sorry" or claim I made a "mistake", when I simply took action upon a good-faith interpretation of policy, which to date only one person has made an argument against (and a non-convincing one that "X (sheep)" is more natural than "X sheep"? I've also conceded both above and below that any further page moves in these categories should clearly be by RM. You've come to an ANI that is accusing someone of bad faith, of violating policies or admin orders (not true - moves about MOS:CAPS issues are not related to moves predicated on AT compliance), and futher assuming in terrible faith that said editor will refuse to cooperate and will continue to moving such articles, and even after all of these issues have been addressed, you're only looking to see if I'm expressing some kind of shame for having simply made an incorrect assessment of whether consensus was as clear as I thought it was.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support move ban - Unless he asks first, each time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That doesn't even make sense. One either moves a page, or one "asks first" (goes through RM or some other formal process). A requirement to "ask first, each time" even in cases where this clearly is not necessary [cases more clear than these were!] would be a move ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I came here to say a few simple things:

• That the only thing that matters here is the non-collaborative behaviour of SMcCandlish
• That the moves may have been right or wrong, in accordance with policy or not, but that that is not relevant; they should, as McCandlish is perfectly well aware, have been proposed as move discussions
• That I've met rudeness before, and am confident that I will again before I die.

But I find that the situation is not so simple. My attention has been drawn to [[20]]. There it appears that SMcCandlish is under warning of Arbritration Enforcement for all pages relating to article titles, broadly construed (which at this point must include this one), and that he has been specifically advised to "to avoid commenting on contributor"; does not, for example, his description of Mendaliv as an "ostentatious firehose" now come under the scope of those sanctions?

I originally brought this here because pages were being moved against consensus. I now understand that the problem is more serious. SMcCandlish may for all I know once have been a productive editor, but it's clear that he has now lost his way, and completely lost sight of what we are here to do (build an encyclopaedia, right?), treating this instead as a sort of bare-knuckle arena. The degree of belligerence with which he came to this discussion is to some extent understandable, but quite excessive, and serves to confirm that those page moves were indeed not made in good faith. I suggest that he take a break from Wikipedia; and that if he is not prepared to do so of his own accord, that he be obliged to do so until he is able to demonstrate understanding of collegial editing and community consensus. Yes, I'm suggesting an indefinite block. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? Last I Looked, WP:AT is pretty clear on not using parenthetical disambiguation when natural will do, and not disambiguating when doing so is unnecessary. The burden is on you to prove that this policy somehow magically doesn't apply to sheep articles. Your belief that "the only thing that matters" is your bad-faith accusation of non-collaboration is telling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree SMC's conduct here has been atrocious, I don't think it's severe enough to merit an indef when a move ban will take care of it. Should he not respect the move ban, or start playing games with RMs so as to impede stakeholder involvement, then we can start talking indefs. I think a temporary indef might be called for as well should SMC come on tonight and go straight back to controversial pagemoves, but I'm going to AGF that he'll try to work things out here first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense in English. "Temporary" and "indef[inite]" are antonyms. There is no consensus for either of the punitive actions you'd like to see taken, only a blatantly canvassed dogpile of editors with a bone to pick against me personally and MOS generally, and there's an ongoing discussion about a negotiated close.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support move ban, as it seems that SMcCandlish will not otherwise follow the normal procedure - to request a move first if there is reason to assume that it may be controversial, and SMcCandlish seems not to understand that if a move is contested it has to be reverted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already stated repeatedly that I would follow procedure, though. Doesn't this then constitute a bad-faith assumption about both my word and my future actions? Nowhere have I ever, in any form, stated anything at all like a belief that if a move is contested it should not be reverted. (At some RM, I think it may have been the one on horses, I objected to moves taking place while the RM was still open, and the closing admin admonished the mover for doing so). Please get your facts correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I only went thru a few of the reverted changes. I have to note it seems that more than few while reverted were not reverted to their original. It seems very reasonable that SMcCandlish did not expect any controversy. Over all the effort seemed good faith to me. It seems removing his autoconfirmed status has to be removed to physically ban him from moving articles. This would restrict more than his ability to move pages. If there is an actual need to take any action, I propose... Let's call it probation. SMcCandlish can not move any page for 3 months with out discussion. You can raise the time frame if you like. And if he violates that you can then talk about removing his autoconfirmed rights. There's no need to be unnecessarily punitive. If there actually is a disruption here there is no need to do more than what it would minimally take to end it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Serialjoepsycho, he wouldn't have his autoconfirmed bit removed. Keep in mind that a ban is different from a block. Basically, the move ban would be "Don't move pages." If he moves a page he gets blocked from editing. Honor system and all that. As to whether it's good faith, I have no doubt that it was. That said, there's an evident history of trouble with SMC and pagemoves, and he was on notice that future pagemoves of the same sort would be controversial. Assuming good faith, that means he at least negligently if not recklessly disregarded the existing controversy over his pagemoves. In light of the other matters brought up here, a move ban does not seem unreasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was speaking off the basis of the language used early on in this post.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be a case here of "I didn't hear that", and it doesn't seem likely to change without an official administrative decision. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What is it that you think I didn't hear?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I missed the limit above. I suggest a limit be set or an appeal right after a certain predetermined tie period.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Whether SMcCandlish is correct or not is immaterial—the point is that without collaboration the community will degenerate as more energy is put into fighting and less into building the encyclopedia. No diff shows sanctionable behavior, but their overall approach is based on a belief that a uniform style (MOS) is of paramount importance, and contributors are to be bludgeoned rather than persuaded. For example, at Editor retention, SMcCandlish says "If some of them are threatening to leave because they are not getting their way, I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL, encourage them to take a WP:WIKIBREAK instead (it's quite refreshing) and come back when their egos have settled back down and they're ready to contribute without fighting for fighting's sake." (under "Itemized response to Tony Wills"). That approach damages the community, as does aggressive page moving. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've never once stated that style is of paramount importance. It's simply an area I have a lot of patience for. I don't feel you're in a position to castigate me for having a topical preference in my editing here. Characterizing me moving some pages to comply with the plain wording of WP:AT, in a category with chaotic naming that followed not convention at all, and for which there isn't even a sheep wikiproject trying to assert some made-up convention, as "aggressive" is an unsupportable personal attack.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Enough editors were driven away or put off editing the last time a project was annexed by the MOS battlegroup, we don't need any more, and the "we are right and if you don't like it then you can always leave" sentiments are not acceptable in a collaborative environment either. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another WP:BIRDS editor with a scapegoating bone to pick.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't claim to be neutral on this, but SMC's single-minded MoS fiddling is incredibly disruptive. Although his changes to bird articles were done with due process, we have lost several editors as a result. He doesn't care about that, as his comments show, because he only cares about style, and doesn't give a toss if we lose voluntary content creators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclean hands and WP:KETTLE. You waste few opportunities to get into it with me and other MOS regulars. I am not personally responsible for two editors deciding to quite after not prevailing in an RFC that their own supporters started, in response to an RM that I had nothing to do with. If there's an award for scapegoating, you're in the top round of nominees. PS: The accusation that I "single-mindedly" do nothing but style "fiddling" is a blatant lie as my editing stats demonstrate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support per comments of Black Kite (talk),Jimfbleak and others above.Smeat75 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Too much self-righteous disruption, too little cooperative spirit. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Whom or what did moving some "X (sheep)" articles to "X sheep" disrupt? There isn't even a sheep wikiproject, and even if some dispute these moves (I observe that they do) that's a simple RM discussion, and the case Mendaliv made above for the basis of such a dispute succeeding is actually transparently weak (there is no way that "X (sheep)" is a more natural disambigation than "X sheep", except in a case where the name of the breed/variety already means sheep in some other language and would thus be redundant, and of course I made no such moves). Application of reasoning is not "self-righteousness", it's simply logic. Neither is defending against an enormous pile of false accusations and other miscarriage of ANI's purpose; that's just self-respect and an expectation of fair treatment. A claim of disruptive editing is an accusation of bad faith. Can you back yours up? Wasn't this vexatious ANI filing more of a problem, waste of time and generator of strife than some moves that can easily be undone if somehow they weren't the trivial WP:AT compliance cleanup they seemed to be? This ANI has certainly sucked up far more time and energy and made many more people unhappy than a calm RM discussion, or even simply administratively reverting the moves and telling me they should have gone to RM to begin with, which I actually agree with now; my assumption that they'd be uncontroversial was clearly incorrect. But that doesn't make it bad faith, stupid, or terrible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the above, but two editors have offered a "negotiated close" on SMcCandlish's talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support the idea of a negotiated close. In spite of all the supports above, it is not clear to me in the absence of a proper sequence of diffs that SMcCandlish has done anything wrong or that we have "lost several editors as a result". I go further and suggest the closer disregard such comments where they are unsupported by diffs. The idea of an indefinite block for this user is quite ludicrous. --John (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I should clarify, I don't think anybody's proposing a block: the proposal is considering a simple pagemove ban. And really, while I would be fine with a negotiated outcome, unless that outcome involves SMC agreeing to use RM for all multipage moves for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's going to be accepted by the emerging consensus here. And frankly, this isn't conduct that can simply be summed up in diffs: it involves too many actions. You have to actually look at the logs and see the sheer number of controversial moves being made. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, can you please point out exactly where someone has proposed an indef block on this user? I'd like to see the reasoning and I can't find the comment. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The comment by Justlettersandnumbers at 21:11, 10 July 2014 mentions "I'm suggesting an indefinite block" (after a well-reasoned statement with the suggestion of a wikibreak), however the proposal is for an indefinite page move ban which I think you started at 20:06, 10 July 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not the first time; see diff below. It's part of a long series of attacks against me personally and against MOS/AT regulars in general. Virtually every time someone has a complaint to raise about me, some style partisan from one wikiproject or another will rush to "indefinite block" or "topic ban" demands.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Clarfied 17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Any chance of some self-reflection? Are all the editors recommending a move ban just misguided? On reflection, aren't comments like "I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL" (diff) likely to damage the community? Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Well of course I'm self-reflecting. I said in the process outlining at my talk page where I might go with a negotiated close that I certainly concede that issues have been raised about the moves and that reasonable people can disagree. I don't have to agree with the rationales behind those concerns to agree that people can legitimately question them. It's a discussion to have, the D in BRD, about why they think that AT doesn't apply to these articles, or that my interpretation of that policy is wrong, or whatever. I cited, in a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with these page moves, and only coincidentally has article naming (of wild species, which have nothing to do with domestic breeds). It's not germane to this discussion to dig up and drag in every potential "transgression" of mine that you can find, regardless what context it comes from. Regardless, if you think those essays are harmful to the community and that the emotional hostage-taking they address are behaviors that are permissible or don't really exist, then they should be taken WP:MFD; it's not appropriate to contemplate punitive action against me or anyone else for citing those essays in response to precisely the behavior they were written to address.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I was especially concerned by User:leak's unsubstantiated comment. Perhaps this user should provide evidence, withdraw the allegation that we have "lost several editors as a result", or face a sanction of some sort. We don't work like this. --John (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Depends how you define "several" I guess, but Natureguy1980, Chuunen Baka and Sabine's Sunbird are three editors who've resigned specifically citing this issue as the reason, for starters. 80.43.195.5 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John neglected to say that he has threatened to block me if I don't apologise to the great leader for my comments above, despite the clear evidence of said leader driving editors away from at least one project (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out). Unfortunately, this is typical MoS bullying as a substitute for reasoned debate. I'll probably be blocked for this post too (or he will remove it, which he has done before when I've criticised his hero) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is Jimfbleak being warned against accusations and other attacks, and repeating the attack in the course of refusing to abide by the warning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Also this reason for leaving Wikipedia was suppressed by John, who unaccountably can't find any evidence that people have been leaving because of McCandlish... not suprised when he's hiding it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask other admins to look at the threat from John referred to? I have suggested that you will want to provide evidence for the allegation you made here, or else withdraw it and apologise. Will you do so please? Could you also refrain from making similar unsupported allegations in the future, especially in such an area as AN/I; such comments are especially unhelpful and I have been known to block on sight for them. I shall certainly do so if you repeat this behaviour, or if you fail to comply with my request above. I think that is really shocking, such bullying from an admin seems totally unacceptable to me. John is the one who should withdraw his comment and apologise or face a sanction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a WP:ARBATC warning. ARBCOM has already decided (multiple times) that such warnings cannot be undone, since, rationally speaking, no one can be "unwarned" of something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 the issue has been a long-running capitalisation on bird name debate which flared up this year and culminated in a vote here. Scroll down to the "oppose" comments and note how many demands/replies/comments each attracted. Also see Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#So_long.2C_and_thanks_for_all_the_fish and Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#I.27m_out. I can't understand why John says he can't see anything here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@John: This is patent witch-hunt. The "lost several editors as a result" nonsense is an attempt to blame me individually, personally and solely for a trio of editors (User:Sabine's Sunbird, who actually "quit" over a year ago citing multiple reasons but still posts still posts insults and more reasoned material, and the largely inactive User:NatureGuy1980, and User:Chuunen Baka) from WP:BIRDS loudly declaring an intention to resign as a result (at least partially) of the decapitalization of bird species common names RfC going against them. That RfC was begun by a pro-capitalization admin, and closed (against capitalization) by a pro-capitalization admin. The RfC came about because of an RM to de-capitalize bird common names in article titles, an RM in which I did not participate at all, nor did many if any MOS regulars, followed by an MR challenging it, in which I was only a late-coming minor commenter. I did participate heavily in the RfC, because this issue had dragged on and on and on for approximately 9 years, and needed resolution. I provided a lot of logic and policy based arguments, and most importantly actual reliable sourcing. So, Jimfbleak's claim is a patently false personal attack, which violates the discretionary sanctions covering MOS/AT disputes. That editor in particular is a frequent personal critic of me especially, and of MOS and its regular editors in general; his statement is essentially wikipolitical activism, and does not address this actual ANI case's facts in any way. Several other respondents here are coming with similar exaggerated claims, false assumption, and accusations of bad faith (User:Montanabw in particular; see his overreactive and exceedingly hostile WP:OWN-laden messages on my talk page last month and last year). The cascade of pro-sanctioning !votes (few of them by admins) includes many editors from wikiprojects that routinely conflict with MOS; they're being led here to dog-pile me. [see proof of vote-stacking canvassing below]. Their posts here are not responsive to the alleged issues raised by the move-related facts at issue in this discussion, they're "damn we hate MOS and that SMcCandlish guy" demonizing, dragging into this everything they can think of that ever vaguely irritated them about me and MOS. I was gone for almost a year, and essentially nothing of note related to any of the disputes mentioned here changed at MOS or with regard to how it's applied. I'm simply being scapegoated now, as I was a year ago when I decided to take a long break, to demonstrate that I'm not some kind of MOS conspiratorial overlord. I have in fact demonstrated that. MOS is written by the editor pool in the community who care to write it; period. I'm happy to consider some kind of negotiated compromise, but it can't have any of this sort of pitchforks and torches stuff in it. Stick to the actual facts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you any proof, such as diffs, to support your serious allegation that people are "being led" here? I suggest that your response here, as well as your response at your user talk page where you agree to a negotiated close... but only if what you agree to has no enforcement mechanism... is evidence that there is indeed a problem with your behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. here is Montanabw from the horse project canvassing the birds project, which he knows is stocked to the ceiling with people who scapegoat me personally for the bird common names decapitalization. That took THIRTY SECONDS to find. Haven't looked further because I'm already running late for meatspace things I have to attend to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That's called "notification" not canvassing. 'Nuff said. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:CANVASS: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support page move ban. Unfortunately this has stepped over into disruptive territory now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support page move ban. Dotting is and crossing ts is lovely - until it becomes an obsession that hurts. If we ever lose a good, expert editor, and their potential contributions because of an arcane clerical argument then the world is mad. This happens far too much here. The world doesn't care how Yoghurt is spelled - it cares whether the article it gets from its Google search is good. This kind of crap is so damaging - and the sad thing is that those causing it genuinely believe they do what they do to improve this place. We need to stop this happening. Begoon ^talk 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • When have I taken any position on yogurt vs. yoghurt? Tarring me with the brush of an ENGVAR dispute that involved ARBCOM sanctions is an red herring/straw man and an ad hominem. Who has been "hurt" by my moving some pages from the form "X (sheep)" to "X sheep", the moves at issue here? You're !voting to sanction me for the results of an birds-related RFC that was closed against a wiiproejct's wishes and which has nothing to do with how to disambiguate sheep names in article titles!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support a page move ban, unfortunately. User cannot currently be trusted with this. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclean hands again. GiantSnowman is another editor who frequently gets into disputes with MOS editors in general and me personally to advance wikiproject LOCALCONSENSUS stuff against wider guidelines (see, e.g., WT:MOSICONS and his failed putsch to permit willy-nilly use of flag icons all over the place in sports, especially association football, articles). Numerous respondents here are seeking to censure me not for any violation of move policy but to punitively restrain a debate oponent in other, unrelated content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite page move ban. In Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves many editors were alarmed about the mass-moves of animal articles, including articles. And Candish says "No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles,"??? Are you kidding me? And don't you remember the discussions about domestic breeds in WT:MOS. This is total blindness to the objections of other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclean hands again; see previous ANI and other disputes over MOS and Naval's disruptive editing with regard thereto.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish discussed dog breeds in a March/April discussion, and I had a discussion with him about dog/goat/sheep breeds back in April. Dog and cat breeds were discussed in WT:MOS Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_127 back in February 2012 while discussing bird capitalization, discussions where SMcCandlish participated actively and talked about dog capitalization. How could he consider uncontroversial to alter the capitalization of all those breed articles, even it was not a full decapitalization. And without warning anyone about his intentions, or discussing the general concept. Now he's moved ~150 sheep articles without any warning or communication with the wikiprojects listed on their talk pages? Didn't he think that all those editors could get a bit upset? Didn't he learn any lesson from the fights with the bird wikiproject? How can I trust him with the ability to make massive page moves, after this sort of things? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • Discussions unrelated to disambiguation, which is what these sheep moves at issue were above. Please stay on topic. The discussions you link to are about capitalization. Note that in these discussions I've strongly dissuaded a renewed capitalization vs. lower case fight. Hardly the actions of someone "obsessed" with such matters as at least two have accused me of here (yet another personal attack).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Update: Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's blatant personal attack and bad-faith accusation by Jimfbleak, an exercise is sheer character assassination, made in a talk page populated by plenty of admins, zero of whom ever, ever do anything to rein this sort of thing at that page, which is a quite common occurrence (and most frequently at my expense personally). It's as if all civility, collegiality and other behavioral rules are suspended at WT:BIRDS, as long as it's MOS/AT regulars who are being savaged. Yet we're supposed to take Jimfbleak's !vote here at face value, and all of the "me too" pile-ons that agree with it? Note that this was not some momentary lapse of reason; Jimflbleak massaged this post of his 6 times or so, over the course of more than an hours, and had more than enough opportunity to retract or even moderate it.

  Here's an example of the sort of irrational, anti-MOS hate-and-conspiracy mongering regularly going on without any repercussions for anyone but those being attacked: " I think some of the most zealous style-over-substance supporters may well be long-term detractors of Wikipedia whose main aim is perhaps to destroy the long-term editor-base.". I couldn't make this stuff up. There's a lot more of this stuff, and it has been going on for over two years; this is just what I can copy paste in a couple of minutes befoe I have to get on the road.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Update, as I stated below, in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar ☥ 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support page move ban (If I'm voting twice, strike whatever I favored before and keep this vote) Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted above, Montanabw has unclean hands in this, frequently attacks me with bad faith accusations and histrionic, OWNy rants, canvassed in this proceeding, and takes generally anti-MOS wikipolitical stances. He's attempting to win a much broader content editing dispute by manipulating ANI into muzzling opponents. Also, even the bringer of this ANI case has not called for any such strict bans, only for voluntary agreements, and this is the negotiated close under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A negotiated close, an indefinite block?

As Johnuniq rightly points out, I came here to ask for a halt to page moves by SMcCandlish, for which I see that there now appears to be an overwhelming consensus. Based on his behaviour here, I subsequently mentioned the possibility of an enforced wikibreak until SMcCandlish can show that he understands, and wishes to edit in accordance with, our basic principles of co-operation and collaboration. John dismisses that suggestion as "ludicrous"; I don't think it is. It's certainly a very unattractive possible outcome, and one that I would be very keen to avoid if at all possible, but I think the reasons for considering it need to be explored.

I believe that SMcCandlish has lost his way in this project:

• instead of co-operating with other editors and giving their arguments equal weight to his own, he adopts (everywhere I've seen him in action, which surely is not everywhere he has edited) the same arrogant, blustering, hectoring and discourteous behaviour that he has shown on this page
• he has remarkable energy and tenacity, and uses those qualities to beat down other editors with innumerable walls of text: in the latest bird names discussion, which Jimfbleak describes as "due process", the string "— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢" occurs 104 times (if I've counted right), exactly twice as often as the signature of Andrewa; the sockpuppet Mama metal modal seems to be next, with 24 posts; several editors seem to be around 15–17; that's not due process, it's filibustering, argument by exhaustion
• looking further up this page I see applied to this editor the words (or phrases) disruptive, self-righteous, battleground, battlegroup, bludgeoning, refusal to hear, crusade; I do not, to my regret, find the words valuable, outstanding, collaborative, productive, good, useful, helpful or even "content"
• I unquestioningly accept that he has made valuable edits here; that I haven't seen them doesn't matter – he has almost 90,000 edits and I'm not going to go through them all; I'd be very pleased if he would go back to making more of them, but I believe it's time for the rest of this circus to come to an end

There's been talk of a negotiated close to this. In my view that'd be far preferable to any sort of community sanction. I very tentatively suggest, for comment from others, a possible basis for such a close:

• SMcCandlish acknowledges that he understands that collegial co-operation and collaboration between editors is the foundation, mechanism and driving force of this project
• he voluntarily undertakes to be unfailingly courteous and respectful in his interaction with other editors, and recognises that their opinions may be different from his, but may also be equally valid and equally strongly held
• he voluntarily agrees not to move any page whatsoever, without exception
• he voluntarily undertakes to limit his participation in requests for comment and move requests to one post of reasonable length

The only thing there that is not a routine part of the normal everyday behaviour of most editors is the restriction on page moves, and I think, given the consensus above, that that is pretty much inevitable at this point anyway. If SMcCandlish does not, as I really hope he will, find himself able to agree to the above, then, "ludicrous" or not, those who have to think about such things should probably seriously consider whether his freedom to edit should be suspended. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: How or why is either of those options better or more reliable than a simple page-move ban, which the community has endorsed above? It doesn't seem from this entire discussion that the editor shows any sign of either changing on the page-move front or taking a wikibreak, so a simple ban on that specific behavior would eliminate the problem without forcing him to make a decision. Of course, if the problem extends beyond merely page-moves to include unrelated incivility, that's another matter, but not the subject of this particluar ANI. Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• • "The community" hasn't endorsed anything. As I already demonstrated, many of the !votes above were canvassed by Montanbw advertising this ANI case to a wikiproject stocked with editors who unreasonably blame me personally for their failure to carry the day in an RfC that their own people started and which was closed against them, on the merits of the debate, by one of their own admin supporters. They frequently personally attack me by name, and have been doing so for over two years, and even more frequently cast aspersions and even advance anti-Wikipedia conspiracy theories against MOS/AT regulars as a class. I've provided some diffs of this stuff already, and can give dozens more if you like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: While this proposal reflects the patience and respect that the best wikipedia editors exhibit, I think it would be impossible to enforce: SMC does whatever he wants no matter who expresses opposition and a move ban would allow him to actually contribute to articles instead of making mass changes. I do think that he needs to be restricted to ONE comment at RfC and RM as well, though; that's a solid idea. If he does acknowledge the above and say he will voluntarily comply, I will be shocked, but anything's possible. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's unsupportable bad-faith accusation and personal attack (as usual from this editor). Notice how, unrelated to anything under discussion here, he wants to censor me in other ways. Given that my arguments have been effective in MOS debates in the past that concluded in favor of lower-case decisions that this editor fears might also be extended to breed names, this isn't surprising. But this isn't about capitalization, or older MOS-related RMs and RfCs. This is like me being in court for an alleged traffic and someone interrupting the proceedings to start a property line dispute against me in hopes that the judge just doesn't like me and will handily go along with him.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• No. A move ban is enough. If he violates it or engages in disruption not covered by the move ban, we can talk then. This subthread is frankly the equivalent of spiking the ball. It's ill-considered and unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'll consider a negotiated close, of course But the above one-side list is farcical. A move ban is not justifiable under any policy-based rationale, and Justlettersandnumbers and co. are going to have to compromise as well; their demands are self-righteous, CYA, vindictive, and proceed from numerous false bases, and don't even stick to the topic at hand. For starters, the first two of the above bullet points would have to be mutual, and Justlettersandnumbers and various other frequently MOS-conflicting parties here could already have been sanctioned under the MOS/AT discretionary sanctions for their firehose of bad-faith assumptions and personal attacks against me as it is (not just on this page). The third point is absurd. So is the fourth, and has jack to do with page moves. Stop trying to shoe-horn in a laundry list of "censor and impede the editing of that SMcCandlish guy as much as possible" nonsense. You don't see me actually insisting any longer that you be boomerang sanctioned much less AE discretionary-sanctioned on top of that. I've never taken any of these or similar parties to AE, no matter how nasty and accusatory their commentary gets. That's called me taking a deep breath and a step toward the collegiality you say you want, while at the same time you're going on a ridiculously extreme offensive. PS: I'm extremely busy right now; first time I've logged in in days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block, massive over-reaction. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block, obviously - "attempting to spike the ball" was a good description of this. For shame. Begoon ^talk 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, but in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar ☥ 20:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's get this straight: One side has proposed an extreme set of deamnds above, and simply for the sin of discussing opposite demands on my own talk page, you want to pillory me? I don't think you understand how compromise and negotiation work. One does not reach a middle ground both sides can live with if one side lays out what they want and the other side is threatened with punitive action for laying out their side as well. That was a draft, immediate, and hurried response, in response to people opening a discussion about what should be drafted. It was not my final statement on the matter. Your attempt to use this userspace drafting process against me smacks of wikistalking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block but strongly support page move ban, and still think a restriction on number of comments should be considered. SMC really doesn't get it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The user in question appears to be headed down the same road as Betacommand. The difference, and the sad part, is that Betacommand was warring over something that matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's the fallacy of assuming your proposition (that style and naming matters do not actually matter) before you've proven it. If they don't matter, just take WP:AT, the naming conventions guidelines, and all the MOS pages to MFD, and I'm sure you'll prevail there in having them deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That's the fallacy of assuming that nitpicky naming conventions matter to either the Wikimedia foundation and/or the general public. The general public might not care about the issue of non-free-content either, but the foundation does. It's one of the short list of items that actually have potential to get Wikipedia in legal trouble. Styles of names and such are not on that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. I'm not sure that this isn't a bit of a red herring at this stage, the move sanction should be sufficient if SMC is prepared to accept it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Update: Several have offered, at my talk page, to help/moderate a negotiated close. I'm amenable to this, though I suppose it should take place here. Negotiation is a two-way street, however. I also have to observe:

  A) A provably vote-stacked ANI case is not a "community consensus", especially when a large proportion of the !votes come from editors with unclean hands, who have been involved in repeated disputes with me personally and against MOS being applied to "their" articles generally. It's the exact opposite of a community consensus, and is an attempt to trick ANI into WP:WINNING a policy and content dispute for them by admin noticeboard fiat.

  B) No self-respecting, rational adult can be expected to kowtow to the kind of dog-piled attacks, false accusations and incivility as the above is laced with, and the debates in the background are littered with. Most people won't do this unless their very livelihoods are on the line (and many won't even then), so expecting a volunteer to do so is untenable. The idea that I'm to be punitively censored, not because of any actual clear policy violations, but simply because I'm angry at my treatment here and declining to shove my nose up a long line of backsides, even after conceding that the moves are now clearly controversial and that of course I won't move more such articles, is completely preposterous.

  C) A large number of the above comments are attempts not to solve any ongoing problem (there isn't one – I say it now for the third time that the actual issue here is moot to begin with, as there are no more breed articles I would move, since sheep were the last category in which may articles had WP:AT problems to address, even if I weren't already clear that there's a dispute about the moves anyway). Rather, they are demands by MOS/AT debate partisans to vindictively stick it to me, for supposed transgressions many of which date to months or years ago and have nothing to do with moving breed articles, or simply for having disagreed with them in the past, and often prevailed in disputes they're still sore about.

  D) Non-admins cannot impose sanctions. And non-admins cannot close any discussion that's ongoing or not clearly completely non-controversial (see WP:Non-admin closure). User:Mdann52 should probably have this explained to them by an actual admin. I've reverted his bogus closure attempt, and am drafting a counter-proposal to Justlettersandnumbers's, above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Non-admins make up the majority of the community of editors and the community can certainly impose sanctions. We only need admins to enforce them. When this discussion imposes a page-move ban - and it will - the sanction will carry the weight of the community, not of any admin. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Per WP:Compromise, I'll try in good faith to meet Justlettersandnumbers half-way, and drop my (and discourage others') call for WP:BOOMERANG or WP:AC/DS consequences with regard to that or any other editor involved here (provided that the attacks and bad faith accusations actually do stop; Jimfbleak's most recent behavior here in repeating attacks after being warned to stop engaging in them is not a good sign). I'll even look to proposing some steps to getting us well-past this entire debate into the territory of future conflict prevention. @EdJohnston, John, and Jenks24: As the admins who approached me about this negotiated close on my talk page, please let me know if you think these three ideas below are viable. They get at the heart of the bullet points I outlined at my own talk page in our discussion there, while also addressing the actual reasonable aspects of Justlettersandnumbers's own points, and the valid concerns raised here by others (as distinguished from the various invalid ones). They could be more formally drafted as one-liners, but that's perhaps something one of you should do.

• I don't have any problem with a voluntary 3-month moratorium on breed-related moves, provides the relevant wikiprojects also understand that more such moves would be controversial and requires WP:RM. Justlettersandnumbers, Jimfbleak Montanabw, Shyamal, Enric Naval, Mendaliv, Black Kite, Johnuniq, Casliber and other breed/agriculture/biology editors (and others with, e.g., sports wikiproject bones to pick with MOS, e.g. Johnu) who are here seeking my hide, and the wikiprojects they presume to try to speak for, cannot insist, against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on making up their own "naming conventions" or other style "rules" that conflict with WP:AT and WP:MOS (not with regard to animals or sports or anything else). Even if someone doesn't agree they actually conflict, it's clear that I and many other MOS/AT regulars are certain that they do, or these protracted debates would not happen (nor usually close in favor of MOS/AT, by the way). Ergo, any such moves by anyone at this point would clearly be controversial. There is zero evidence of any kind of my use of moves in general to be problematic, so this moratorium does not apply outside this topic category. Three months is plenty long enough to conduct the RMs, RFCs and/or other consensus-building procedures needed to clean up these categories. After that point, no moratorium would serve any purpose, and might impede routine, non-controversial moves. If it does take longer than three months, this is probably indicative of problems that, finally, need to be addressed at RFARB, with regard to LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN policies being skirted by certain wikiprojects.
• Of course I have no problem with a mutual agreement to abide by civility, AGF and related rules that engender collegial collaboration, and to recognize that reasonable people can disagree. All parties to this debate are at this point clearly on notice of WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions, and many have unclean hands in this case due to their protracted participation in related debates. Several parties to this ANI case have transgressed CIVIL and AGF and ARBATC with regard to me and to MOS/AT regulars as a class, on a repeat basis, and this has to stop. If the one-sided bashing does not cease, then the good faith major contributors to MOS/AT are going to be left with little choise but to finally start making AE requests to have ARBATC administratively enforced, to put a stop to the BATTLEGROUND-mentality "MOS-bashing" that's been ongoing for some time. Note, however, that WP:CIVILITY does not require sweetness nor overweening courteousness; this is not kindergarten nor the court of Louix XIV. See also WP:AUTIE, which I'd bet almost no one in this debate has ever read. Some of the wording in Justlettersandnumbers' intro and original first two bulletpoints amounts to an attempt to legislate temperament and writing style, and dictate who can rebut arguments that no one else bothered to fact-checked. Imagine applying that latter idea to actual article writing!
• I and the other side will agree that how to name breed articles is a matter for the community to decide in one or more well-advertised, centrally located RFCs at the appropriate policypage[s], with relevant wikiprojects, Village Pump and WP:CENT notified, and that wikiproject-level attempts to impose conflicting would-be rules, or to repeatedly fight out disparate naming ideas in a long series of contradictory RM cases is unhelpful.

I now have a long busy Monday ahead of me (it's about 10am my time), and will not be back to review any more of this until tonight or tomorrow. I trust that the admin's I've pinged on this prevent any more bogus closures while this is still being negotiated. PS: Do we even need to bother dismissing the idea that I should be forced to participate less because I'm seen more in debates that Justlettersandnumbers wishes his side had one, an in which I was the #1 source of reliably sourced facts? Of course I show up that (again not relevant here) bird capitalization debate, because virtually no one else was bothering to fact-check and debunk the claims made by the other side.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: that's yet another wall of text simply intended to try to wriggle out of the straightforward page move ban needed to protect the encyclopedia, supported by at least 17 editors above, with nothing substantial in the way of opposition. It's worth noting that there's been no attempt by SMC to address the problems outlined above, and the regular references to "the other side" show that his BATTLEGROUND mentality hasn't altered a jot. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Problematic IP

68.100.172.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been spamming Template talk:Islam. About 70% of the current page is him posting the same complaint over and over and over...

I asked him to quit posting so much in caps and bold ("shouting"), to which he gave the excuse that someone asked him the same question 22 times (as of this post, there have not yet been 22 posts to his talk page), and that he answered my 22 questions. Nevermind that I have yet to ask him a question.

He's also spamming Atethnekos's talk page, and generally been rude to him and @Dougweller:, saying they're incompetent for not having already done things they way they're done on the French Wikipedia (like we give a damn what they do), and insulting the intelligence of anyone who doesn't do things the way the French Wikipedia does. When I asked him to stop spamming, he again claimed that he was repeatedly asked questions by other users, though a cursory glance of Dougweller's and @Atethnekos:'s contributions reveals that they were merely responding to the IP's spamming.

I cannot assume both good faith or competence here. We've either got a troll, or someone who cannot count nor tell the difference between "Atethnekos," "Dougweller," and "Ian.thomson." Yes, either way, his English isn't so good, but I remember just enough French from high school and know enough about Google translate that I cannot see his behavior just being a poor grasp of English (I can't imagine that the French Wikipedia would tolerate someone starting 14 threads to raise the same complaint either). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

they are asking sama questions again and again but they dont want to accept their mistakes, I said "Why are you protecting this template" alot of mistakes in it. They asked sama questions again and again, when i answer, they rebuff insead of admitting their errors an finally I said go an compare with the French equivalent template, is this a template on islam or what?? ahmadiyya not only me but all world complaining about it, please block me because of this I m really sick of your supervisor attitude please do that!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC) This ip should be blocked...68.100.172.139 (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC) because it does not want to persue discussion with you anymaore not only me bu to all world you are insulting and dont ask the same things again and again68.100.172.139 (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Where have they asked the same questions over and over? I've only seen you spam all over the place, two users respond to a few of your questions, and no one asking you questions until just now.

If you do not want to continue discussion, then quit posting and leave the site. Demonstrate that you're not a trolling child and just leave instead of asking to be blocked. I'm sorry if you think you've been insulted, but it's only hypocritical to say that when you've been insulting everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would like more opinions, but this looks like textbook WP:DE and a slight lack of clue, to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I agree. If I weren't directly involved I would have blocked the IP. And probably reverted most of their posts to Template talk: Islam which have made a mess of the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed that he reverted your notice about ANI, Ian, but there was a lot of text above it and I wonder if he didn't read that far (no fault of your own). In the interest of good faith, I've placed another notice and invited him to join the discussion. I'm not sure of the utility of participation, but willing to keep an open mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He did try to respond earlier (outright asking to be blocked, and saying he should be blocked), but didn't indent (heck, I had to put in a couple of page breaks to make it not look like an addition to my post). this edit, (not the removal, DGAF about that, but the new message) leaves me convinced he's not here to build an encyclopedia. It's in Turkish, but it's disparate and unrelated sentence fragments:

"Is the power of the people" (miscopied bit) "my brother will be dealing with you" (miscopied bit) "got the news from our nation's" (miscopied bit) "It appears from the followers of the" (miscopied bit).

His "bad English" is also inconsistently bad. He occasionally makes posts without any spelling errors. He misspells unscientific as "unscitiphic" and then as "unscientifuic" in the same post. There's going to be some variation in trying to learn a language, but to that degree looks more like someone who knows what they're doing trying to make their English look worse than it is. The ph in "unscitiphic" is a bit telling, being something that many foreign speakers (except certain South east Asian persons) do not easily pick up. I can't find any evidence that PH is used as F in Turkish, and have seen anecdotal evidence suggesting the contrary.

The hodge-podge Turkish, the inconsistently poor English (which gets worse after I brought up that English doesn't appear to be his first language, perhaps as a cover), and that he's in Virginia makes it harder for me not to believe he's a kid who is trying to troll us. It's possible he's a mentally unstable immigrant he is only quasi-literate in both English and Turkish, but his behavior still outweighs any help he might be. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP continues to spam Template Talk:Islam, and has accused me of insulting him by calling one of his statements bollocks despite [apparently knowing how to use the term himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be some very serious issues regarding whether this individual is competent to edit in English, or apparently to understand our principle of NPOV. And unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much to lead me to think any amount of tutoring or other help is likely to improve things. Maybe we just wish him luck before sending him off? John Carter (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that even if he was fluent in English, the only difference would be that he couldn't use that as an excuse for the rest of his behavior. If you mean a good bye block, I'm for it. That'd make five calls for a block (including the IP himself), none opposed, two calls completely uninvolved. Seems like consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Latests post by the IP are in fluent English, indicating that the prior bad English was just an act. He is also accusing me of addressing him with particular racial Turkish racial slurs I wasn't even aware of until he used them. He is a troll, plain and simple, will someone please block him? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support block, which seems to be unopposed, even by the troll himself. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Walter Görlitz's behaviour

I've never done this before...

This editor has a long history of edit warring, which has led to 10 blocks in total, 4 of which have been this year, and one of which only expired recently. I bring this behaviour up here because it appears to be a long-lasting pattern of behaviour that has not stopped despite blocks. I also bring it up here because his last request for unblocking was supported by User:SW3 5DL with the justification that his edit warring was 'in defence of the wiki'. Whilst I am all for ignoring the rules in some circumstances, persistently doing so rather undermines their existence. I would not feel comfortable performing any block without outside views.

This will be a brief (in context) summary of recent edit wars and the behaviour surrounding them. I have no doubt that if anybody went further back they would find more. These are mostly not within 24 hours of each other. Some began before his latest block and have just started again afterwards.

I will put this caveat on this whole report.

• I am aware it takes two people to create an edit war, and others should also be reviewed and dealt with
• I am aware that many of these reverts are done for very good reasons. This is simply to do with the flagrant disregard for the rules

UEFA Euro 2012 4 reverts of same IP from 9th to 11th of July History

• Asked IP address for a discussion on the matter and did not receive one. Took to reverting without discussion with any other parties as the solution.
• In February he had told another editor that it "doesn't matter what you think" when they tried to engage him in discussion on the matter.

Thomas Dooley 3 reverts from 5th July to 11th July of IP 2001:558:6020:1A8:2062:7528:1F0C:40A5 History

• IP attempts to warn user about engaging in an edit war. Comment is removed with edit summary: "Pot meet kettl."
• Zero attempts were made to engage with the IP in a constructive manner.

Shapeshifter (The Dead Rabbitts album) 4 reverts of 68.54.212.75 between 10th of June and 11th June History

• All reverts for good reasons, however, zero attempts made to engage the IP editor in discussion regarding the issue.

Blocked on 5th of July for 72 hours

Julian Green 3rd - 5th of July

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert
• 5th revert
• 6th revert
• 7th revert

10th July

• 8th revert

• Another editor who was attempting to put in information Walter Goriltz did not agree with did follow procedure and use the talk page, where editors did engage with each other to form consensus. The following exchange took place:

"I am encouraged to use the talk page, but get no answer. What does that mean? 64.203.182.106) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you didn't see what I wrote above in the Change of nationality section.

I have fixed those now. Any others? User:Walter Görlitz] 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you didn't immediately get a response is that most wikipedia editors are not paid to do so and so you have to deal with others who may be be living life at Roanoke speed. User:Walter Görlitz 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)"

Obviously that wasn't the entirety of the discussion, but the acidity of the response was rather alarming.

Cem Özdemir 7th June

• 1st revert

9th June

• 2nd revert

12th June

• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

10th July

• 5th revert

Though this is very spread out, I bring it up because it is still an ongoing dispute between the two.

Removal of warning from talk page given by User:Maurice Flesier with the edit summary 'lies' - to be fair, it was not properly used. However, not engaging with the other editor and using words clearly not in the spirit of AGF is problematic.

Rookie Blue (season 5) 2nd July

• 1st revert

3rd July

• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert
• 5th revert
• 6th revert

At 10:14 on the the 3rd of July the IP editor attempts to start dialogue on Walter's talk page It is reverted without response. The IP address then tries to put warnings on the talk page twice, which are also reverted without response.

Then at 18:25 the IP address leaves a message saying: I am trying to talk to you but you aren't listening. Again this is also reverted without response

At 18:35 the IP address finally puts a message on the article's talk page instead. Given that this was likely the editor's first day on the encyclopaedia, and they did not know what they were doing, I find the lack of dialogue disquieting.

Some of these issues were dealt with on the day, some have gone unnoticed, but this is behaviour that seems to be immune to blocks or chastisement. The editor also has a habit of deleting everything they find objectionable from their talk page History, using edit summaries in place of discussion. Whilst they are perfectly within their rights to do so, this hampers or kills any chance of reasonable dialogue with some editors, and leaves open the possibility that administrators, or other editors, who come to the page do not know whether or not the editor has received prior warnings.

I would personally advocate for a long block. However, as I said, I am not comfortable making this decision as it may be thoroughly misguided, so I am putting it here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but first some clarification.

The anon editing on Thomas Dooley is the same as Julian Green.

The anon editing on Rookie Blues season 5 is the same who has been removing referenced material on the Murdoch Mysteries episodes article and has been blocked for that behaviour.

In both cases, I was not dealing with new editors.

In all of the cases listed here, it was my "always on" nature that caused the edit wars. Now that I have a new, full-time job, I'm not always on and have taken the last block to heart. Notice the action on Cem Özdemir. The first revert was based on the discussion and was after several days. Second revert was out of frustration. I brought the discussion to RfC and the first editor to respond resoundingly supported my actions.

In short, more discussion is needed. More civility is needed. If a block is the outcome, I'll live with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Panyd: I have to agree that Walter Görlitz just came off from a 3 days block and has started edit warring again. While he was blocked he made 2 unblock request, first one was like "I'm not the only editor doing so" and other one was more of a parody.[21] In short words, no remorse.

On Cem Özdemir, he was edit warring for the same senseless edit that he used to make before the full protection. He was warned.[22] Something he regarded as "lies".[23] I haven't checked his other recent contributions yet, but his behavior is inappropriate and having a look at his block history, a bigger block shall be imposed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Walter's comment above, he knows what he did, he's repentant, and it seems to me that at the end of the day he has the best interests of the project at heart. My only experience with Walter was on a footy blp RfC and he seemed to handle it very well IMHO. I took the issue to be more of a blp question without realizing it was really a WP:FOOTY issue. He showed great patience in trying to explain the situation but few were hearing him. It finally got sorted. On this matter, I've not read through all that is posted above. I trust the admin's accuracy. But unless Walter is edit warring right now, I'd say this is all moot. Blocks aren't meant to punish, they are meant to stop disruptive behaviour in the moment. If he's not demonstrating that at the moment, then this should be closed. The whole thing can be addressed with a longer block if and when he does edit war again. If it does happen, then I would trust that the blocking admin will take note of the behaviour at that time, plus review the recent past behaviours and make the appropriate block length. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that this behaviour repeats every time he is unblocked. That suggests that the behaviour is never going to stop, and short blocks are in vein as in 3 days it'll all start again. The majority of Walter's reverts are done for very good reasons, but having a good reason doesn't mean you can continuously ignore the rules. His engagement with other editors and lack of co-operation are also very worrying, especially when it comes to his talk page. Again, he's perfectly within his rights to delete things that are there, but he does so in lieu of discussion. If another participant in an edit war wishes to discuss an issue with him, or if anybody wishes to give him a warning, it vanishes shortly thereafter. These are not the hallmarks of somebody willing to engage productively with the community. Continuous edit warring is disruptive. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Panyd:, No, sorry. You might not be intending to, but with this ANI action you're coming across as having some issue with Walter personally. The time for this ANI would have been DURING the behaviour, not status post. He might have been edit warring but nothing now rises to the ANI level. And as @DangerousPanda: correctly points out, behaviour is the purview of RfC/U. And I agree with @Sven Manguard:, Walter does stop edit warring and there is hope he will find more contructive ways to cope. This is an editor who has shown patience, who does work to protect the project, as you yourself pointed out in describing his edits. He's not a hooligan looking to make trouble under the radar, and we've all had to deal with those types. So we all well know the difference. He's making a positive contribution. He's created articles and has shown by his efforts that he's a valuable editor here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Two years ago, I had to warn Walter Görlitz off from edit warring (in that case, upload warring) on Commons. While he didn't take the conversation well (admittedly, out of a lack of patience at the mess he and others were causing, I was more curt than I should have been), he did stop edit warring on Commons. Seeing that he's edit warred on two projects now, and on this one for some time, leads me to believe that it's an engrained behavior that he can't or won't break. Seeing that he's stopped edit warring on Commons, however, gives me a faint hope that he can change. I think his next block for edit warring should be a few months long, but I'm fine with giving him one last chance before that block. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment A "review of behaviour" us the purview of WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

First to address Sven Manguard. My first known exposure to the commons was a case of an image of one of the 2010 World Cup venues in South Africa. The image was provided for use on the commons. It was taken by a private citizen however, there is some copyright law that makes such an image a copyright violation, but only in South Africa. The image was removed from the commons and was not permitted to be uploaded to any project for use there. My takeaway from that event was that the Wikicommons operated on the most restrictive set of copyright laws across all projects and all nations where commons material may be seen. That may have been an incorrect take-away, but that was my impression. So two years ago, I discovered that there were copyrighted logos and crests present on football kits, primarily jerseys, and they were displayed in English Wikipedia. I proceeded to replace those images with versions that didn't break the English Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law. An editor from another project reverted and didn't explain. I was eventually blocked for my behaviour but the other editor wasn't. Seems about par for me. Now, what a good editor would have done is discussed it with me. No such discussion was entered. What a good editor would have done is uploaded the other image separately and asked me to use that image. As an aside here, having two images, one with copyrighted material and the other without, has caused edit wars on the English project as non-English editors or those with little understanding of the interpretation elect to use "the more accurate" version. What a good amin would have done is recognized my edit summaries and opened a discussion with me and filled-in my gap. But none of that happened. That tells me that the commons is a law unto itself and I avoid it. I have also been uploading alternate versions of images there and asking other editors to approach the problem that way, something Sven Manguard has failed to mention. I also have spent a great deal of time sourcing images that are clear copyright violations and nominating them for deletion. I find a great deal of irony in that process since one image that is a copyright violation on English wikipedia is immediately deleted while another one (the jersey) isn't, even though it's a copyright violation on English wikipedia.

As for "engrained behavior", the only ingrained behaviour I have is one to literal interpretation. I believe that any violation of a policy or guideline is disruptive behaviour at best and vandalism at worst. So when I revert, I explain which policy, guideline, MoS or consensus is being violated and revert without fear of breaking 3RR. Apparently no all editors agree with that. In that case, let's get rid of all guidelines, MoSes and the idea of consensus so we can have even more edit wars. If following them is wrong, I'll stop. If I revert and cite the reason and the other editor, usually a new editor or anon, reverts that, at what point do I say fuck it? That's a serious question and I want a serious answer.

Now to address OccultZone: What you perceive as a "senseless edit" is not one to me. Based on what I wrote in the previous paragraph, do you think that editing to maintain guidelines, MoSes and consensus decisions are pointless? Do you even understand that without them the project would look like crap and contain even more outrageous material than it already does? Very few of my edits are pointless, and I certainly don't revert those who change the ones that are pointless.

Finally, my second unblock request was not a parody. It was a sincere effort to be unblocked by listing, point by point, that I understood why my previous request was denied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. The idea that an editor or admin labels an edit as senseless out of preference is ridiculous. Suppose you thought that golf was senseless would you therefore label any edit to an article on that subject as senseless? Even if it were following every other guideline, etc? Keep your opinions to yourself or go back to the playground where that sort of argument has weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, golf is senseless. EEng (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment  I haven't looked at the diffs, but I agree that there is a problem here.  I came into contact with the editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Developer Studio, where issues continued at Talk:Real Time Developer Studio.  This diff seems to be a summary of behavior I found questionable.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I agree to Panyd's concerns. Most recently, he was blocked due to edit war, a week ago but still insists on this issue. When I first joined to Wikipedia, I've blocked several times because of edit war. Görlitz, as an experienced user, I think he should be more careful and pioneer for other users. Last edit war started by Görlitz on article of Mesut Özil. As seen Cem Özdemir's religion, he trying to impose their personal views. I'm not admin but I don't think he extract lessons from sanctions. – Maurice Flesier (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• A report was filed at WP:ANEW by Walter against Maurice Flesier on the Mesut Özil article here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Singer (businessman)

I would like an admin to get involved so we can discuss a pejorative being repeatedly added back to Paul Singer's BLP [24], [25] [26]. It seems other users and I are in discussion gridlock on the issue (on Singer's talk page and on the BLP noticeboard) and need outside input from an admin because a consensus has yet to be reached. User Joe Bodacious continues to add criticism of NML Capital, a hedge fund Singer heads, as a vulture fund. The term vulture fund is a pejorative, is derogatory, and is misleading, with these sources citing it as such Huffington Post, Oxford Reference, and The Law Dictionary. Even on vulture fund's own Wikipedia page, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." A criticism is an opinion, and clear POV. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts", as per WP:YESPOV. Wikipedia is not a venue for attacking a living person.

The term vulture fund is also slang, violating WP:TONE, which states that an article "should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon." The term vulture fund does not improve the BLP and provides no encyclopedic value in any way but instead misleads readers.

The term continues to be added back to the page before a consensus has been met. WP:BRD states that editors must "leave the article in the condition it was in before the bold edit was made." User Joe Bodacious was first to make the bold edit by adding contentious material to Singer's page. The content should be removed first and discussed. User Nomoskedasticity then accused me of edit warring when I attempted to remove the content. I did not in any way violate the three-revert rule that he claimed I was engaging in. Content disputes are not edit wars and we were in the middle of discussion. I simply removed the content to return the page to status quo ante, as it should be. I did remove the content multiple times, but not more than three times in a 24-hour period.

I propose this example, which is very similar: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article so why should Singer's hedge fund be criticized as a vulture fund?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this report be at, maybe it is already, the BLP board? --Malerooster (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is, but a consensus was not met and I wanted to get an admin involved. Meatsgains (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But admins do not get involved in content ... the panda ₯’ 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you want them to do exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To give attention and advice to the issue at hand. Meatsgains (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue at hand has been extensively discused at Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)#.22Remove_POV_content_from_a_BLP.22.3F and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already included the link to Singer's talk page and the BLP noticeboard above in my original post. The issue has been extensively discussed but a consensus has not been met, hence why I'm seeking involvement from an admin. Meatsgains (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It might help if an uninvolved person formally closed those discussions and determined the level of consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This request is out of order in that it alleges BLP violation while admitting that the BLP issue has not been closed to consensus to start with. It is difficult to imagine that an editor holding a position which cannot be quickly dismissed by a consensus of BLPN could be violating policy badly enough to require any sanction whatsoever. And I think Wikipedia should be sympathetic to any editor who provides references to multiple well regarded sources. WP:BRD is not policy. If it were, an edit is not "bold" simply because you disagree with it. BRD is worse than useless if it is a license for any editor to lock down an article against any addition so long as he continues to argue. The one valid point the OP has is the one he didn't make - I think we should not say "is regarded as a vulture fund", but "was described in media reports as^[x][y][z]" in order to keep a certain narrative distance. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once a claim has been made (and obviously it has been made) that the term is derogatory, an admin should enforce the content staying out until a consensus to include is formed. That is the backbone of BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite where in the policy it says that? Because the thing about consensus that everyone knows is that there is no consensus a lot of the time. You'd be allowing any editor to cover up anything that sounds derogatory. But Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the actual sources' coverage, not revise it and cover things up. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I could, but you obviously know where this is. I should have said that there is consensus for the well sourced derogatory content to be restored. If it's this much of an issue, remove the material and start an RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with this request. Is it not considered a common courtesy that when forum shopping, you inform the participants at the previous forums that you are going elsewhere? Also, this is hardly a BLP issue unless you subscribe to the view that "corporations are people." But even if it were, the relevant policy would be WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which has been pointed out half a dozen times to Meatsgains and ignored by him every time. "Vulture fund" is almost universally used by reliable sources to describe NML Capital, and as the Argentina crisis continues, the number of such references is increasing almost daily. Finally, I'd like to remind Meatsgains of what it says at WP:CONSENSUS, that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

One bone of contention with your analysis, is that the article is about a person, so BLP does apply. If we said that Heidi Fliess ran a whorehouse instead of a bordello, that would be a BLP issue.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not if multiple reliable sources also called it a whorehouse. Granted that is unlikely - most would settle for 'brothel'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with either term, but would object to it being called a "health clinic." Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue, considering it is on Singer's personal page. Shall we go with Two kinds of pork's suggestion, to remove the term and start an RfC? Joe Bodacious cites WP:PUBLICFIGURE while I cite WP:YESPOV, WP:TONE, and WP:BRD. At what point does a violation of one policy override a violation of another? Meatsgains (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are citing all three of those policies incorrectly. None of them give you a license to delete well-sourced material that you dislike. WP:YESPOV in fact requires that the term "vulture fund" be included, while also requiring that it be made clear that it is an opinion, as has been done. WP:TONE in this instance is irrelevant and grasping at straws. WP:BRD does not give you a license to edit war after you have run out of arguments. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe, even if Meat does have all of the policies wrong, let the RfC handle this and everyone else will get it correct. If you are correct, then the worst thing you have to do is wait for the RfC to end. You two should definitely agree on the wording of this before publishing the RfC. Make it fair to each of your positions then let the community decide.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I could see your point if the policy were not so crystal-clear in this situation. Meat is suggesting that there is some conflict among various Wikipedia policies that pertain to this, but I disagree and find them to be entirely consistent. I think this is a case of failed WP:Wikilawyering. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nosepea68 and disruptive editing at Anita Sarkeesian-related topics

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

---

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's time to address the problems caused by Nosepea68 (talk · contribs · count) at Anita Sarkeesian and the related Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. He makes no secret that he dislikes Sarkeesian[27] and has been engaging in serious WP:BLP violations at the articles and talk pages off and on for the last 10 months. Among his several disruptive behaviors is introducing unhelpful edits or outright defamatory material to the articles, and he has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He received several "last straw" warnings[28][29][30] about his behavior in March - after resuming his behavior immediately upon returning from a block - before disappearing. These extended breaks are the only reason he's avoided more serious sanctions for disrupting these highly sensitive articles. He returned tonight, making yet another edit that introduced unsourced, disparaging material about Sarkeesian, removed cited material, and made other unhelpful changes,[31] which he has proceeded to revert war over.[32] Enough is enough, administrator action is needed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The last time this editor was brought to ANI (by myself), he was blocked for 9 reverts to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games in 2 hours. Strangely enough, he accuses Sarkeesian of attention seeking and says "I have not made an article about her in wikipedia" even though he created the article. When editors work to keep BLP-infringing material out, they're "white knights". It seems like a mixture of WP:OWN and WP:TE. Woodroar (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban covering Sarkeesian and her work. His first article edit involved falsifying the name of a source, [33] and then some disruption. [34] This year, along with the most recent edits, we have this and this on a talk page. The editor needs to focus on something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban per NeilN and the diffs provided above. If user violates, admins can administer appropriate action. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban, per Cúchullain, NeilN and Woodroar. Single purpose account, not here to contribute constructively. Jarkeld (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support a ban. It needs to include the talk pages, where a lot of his disruption takes place in the form of TPG and NOTAFORUM guidelines and unsourced disparaging comments about the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This would have the effect of excluding the user from any activity on Wikipedia, Nosepea68 restricting his or her own edits to those introducing assessments critical of Sarkeesian and her video series. Personally, I would welcome the inclusion of well-sourced negative assessments of either subject if such existed. Over and over again, this user (like other SPAs and IPs apparently dedicated to discrediting Sarkeesian and her work) continued to insert unconstructive material and in this last case, introduced original synthesis from a source already applied to the page. By itself, not particularly noteworthy; in the context of the user's previous edits and the lengthy talk page discussions surrounding those edits, the last straw. User has demonstrated he or she is here for a reason unrelated to building an accurate online encyclopedia. Instead the user seems to be here to disparage the subjects. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• After reviewing some of the user's past edits, I've blocked them for a week for various BLP/other/personal attack/other various edits. This should not be taken as action intended to make this discussion moot, just that I believe the users actions justify an independent week long siteblock Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Woodroar's comment below, I have significantly increased how long I've blocked Nosepea for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Given Nosepea's further comments after additional warnings, I have revoked their talkpage access. I'll reconsider the length of the block once this section is closed, or they can of course appeal through WP:UTRS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• While blocked, Nosepea68 is continuing with his attacks against other editors and the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• I am someone who has been critical of Anita Sarkeesian in the past, and that's in spite of agreeing with her basic thesis that sexism in the gaming community is a problem. However, my serious misgivings about Sarkeesian and her methods would never justify infringement of BLP by giving articles pertaining to Feminist Frequency a blatantly negative bias. That's why we have BLP in the first place — everyone deserves be treated with basic human decency, regardless of their beliefs or past actions. Nosepea68 has failed to take this into consideration in his contributions to these articles, and failed to reflect on his approach after being cautioned about it numerous times. I have to support a topic ban in this case. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• I have changed the block on User:Nosepea68 to indefinite due to their continued disruption and violations of the WP:BLP policy. User can request unblocking with promise to stay away from this particular subject, but since this is virtually the only subject they edit, looks to be a WP:SPA account created specifically to attack Sarkeesian. [35] Naturally, I'll change if the community thinks otherwise. Admins feel free to undo as needed in case I'm not around. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As the person who initially placed the block, extended it, and revoked TPA, I just want to say that I support Dreadstar's move here. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure offhand who closed this since it wasn't signed, but to add a note under the hat: although indeffed, the tban conversation isn't moot. It's not something that needs to be finished as long as the indef holds, but indef = indef, not infinite - if @Nosepea68: is unblocked at any point in the remotely near future, this section will be resurrected. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of speedy deletion tag

User:PrinceSulaiman marked Reckitt and Sons as reviewed and added an unreliable source tag [36] I remove the tag, leaving a message on the talk page to show that the source has been used by multiple academic sources.

About 1hr later the same editor returned, now adding a speedy deleltion label. [37]

The speedy deletion request is ridiculous, as could be trivially discovered by reading the article.

I consider this tagging tendentious and unhelpful.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock, I was never abusing using the speedy deletion tag, As the article you created at Reckitt and Sons didn't provide any reliable source neither the company is significant, I strongly encourage you to create a draft article using the Article Wizard and then submit for the approval to get it published, If not then the users will challenge for speedy deletion as well your article has successfully met the speedy deletion criteria. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page ? - I explained about the source. The company is obviously significant - as anyone could find out by reading the article -you can see a short list of obvious reasons for notability given at Talk:Reckitt and Sons Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag and left a note on talk page. @PrinceSulaiman: consider bringing it to AfD if you still want deletion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prof.Haddock:, I suggest you to move the source to bottom of the contents which is easier to be verified, Please do not put the source on talk page its only for discussion of the article, But next time if you're going to create new article please use the Article Wizard instead of creating them manually. @OccultZone:, If you think its significant please provide a reliable source of Reckitt and Sons. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I had, looks like you haven't read Talk:Reckitt and Sons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Then you need to move them to the bottom of the main contents not the talk page. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Still speedy tag cannot be justified here. You had to look around before you would tag the article. Sometimes article are written differently and the new editors don't know about the guidelines of wikipedia. Before you add PROD tag to article you have to make sure that the subject lacks notability. You can add a {{refimprove}} tag. I hope you have understood. Next time be more careful whenever you are adding PROD tag to any article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@PrinceSulaiman: why do you keep saying "move to the bottom of the contents page" (from the talk page)? That's not correct. The cited source is at the foot of the article. What's on the talk page is the claim that the cited source is reliable because it is cited in other sources which are claimed to be reliable. Those other sources are not being cited in the article however. That should not go in the article - the talk page is exactly the right place for it. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

NOthing to see here, if they aren't the user Checkuser will unblock but that's pretty strong evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, are you sure you meant the above comment for this section? Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: For new editors who doesn't know about the Guidelines for that reason there is the Article Wizard, A user or editor are permitted to complete the article entirely before pressing save button if it left partly it could led to speedy deletion or challenged by other page patrollers, However providing a reliable source will always slim the chance of speedy deletion like you did at Reckitt and Sons's talk page. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Those editors are still not responsible if you have PRODed without any appropriate reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had the same issue with this user today. Initially La Course by Le Tour de France was flagged for speedy deletion, suggesting the given sources were not reliable, this was rejected by Nthep, Prince Sulaiman then re-added the speedy deletion tag, accused myself of removing it then again suggested that sources such as the sports governing body as well as the event organiser were not reliable enough. XyZAn (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Prince Sulaiman, your tagging of that article for speedy deletion A7 was patently wrong. That criterion does not apply to an article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I can only believe you didn't read the article at that point or look at the sources—a company nearly 100 years old, and the precursor of another notable company. The second source was a book published by Routledge in 2004 with an entire chapter devoted to it. Kindly read WP:A7, and in fact read WP:SPEEDY in its entirety. You were cautioned by an administrator in late June about your inappropriate speedy deletion tagging and the harm it can do "Please stay away from new page patrol at least until you have studied up on all the rules and guidelines (including the advice not to tag new pages immediately after they are created)". You deleted that post shortly thereafter [38] and appear not to have heeded any of it. In this case, you appear to have tagged the article for speedy deletion in retaliation for the article's creator having removed your unreliable sources tag. The editor explained immediately on the talk page why they were removing it. But you clearly didn't read that either. I find it very concerning that you continue to defend your actions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore:, With all due to respect i'm not concerned to defend my actions, However i have made many article deletion which were created unnecessarily (you could see the records if you wish) and the few of them were only rejected from being deleted since the user edits the article later after an hour or so with an reliable source. And i strongly understand your point on my deletion nominations, However in some cases the editors make different way of creating article which leaving partly uncompleted without providing a reliable source or a reference of the content and this puts the chances of the article to be deleted if there were not verifiable content or reliable sources included in the article, On each new editors i also have provided them the guidelines of Wikipedia and about creating new article (much better on Article Wizard), I hope you understand and this isn't my first time issue. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But your reply to Voceditenore, leaving partly uncompleted without providing a reliable source or a reference of the content and this puts the chances of the article to be deleted if there were not verifiable content or reliable sources included in the article suggests that you do not understand WP:CCOS: "not including any sources is entirely irrelevant to an assessment under these speedy deletion criteria". And your latest A7 in Xhulio Joka and your subsequent request on Talk:Xhulio Joka for reliable sources and more informations about his career, I find it insignificant director seems to confirm this. Another A7 from today was on Azis Sadikovic, but I happened to see it before it got deleted under G12, and it had lots of credible claim of significance. Your A9 tag here earlier today is wrong, since Jeff Cardoni has an article. Sam ^Sing! 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, PrinceSulaiman, is a "new account" since he "deleted" his old accounts for "several reasons"? Is that ok or should he disclose his "old" accounts? --Malerooster (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Malerooster: My old account wanted to be claimed by another user whom sent me a request to have it claimed, But i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time. However, I'll not able to disclose the username since i had agreed with the new owner that i'll not able to re-claim or mention it on new pages/talk pages the account in future. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not allowed to "give your account" away to someone else - nobody cares what agreements you have between people. If you were editing under a previous account, you're required as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to link to it. the panda ₯’ 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question -- is he required to do so? Or required except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account? Or is an editor who has multiple accounts for privacy reasons? Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sulaiman, on the very first day you were here as your 14th edit, you redirected your user page to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen. That article was created by Lukman42 (t c) and speedy deleted thrice in 2009. The article is strangely also linked from Sulaiman9 (t c). Following a lead, Apple SK9, from there brought me to Sulaiman7799 (t c), also chairman of Apple SK9 judging form this revision of User:Sulaiman7799. He created an article titled Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen that got speedy deleted five times in 2010. Now, back to where I started, why did you redirect your user page to main space? Sam ^Sing! 23:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor:, I have no idea why you're mixing the topic, This topic was referred to Reckitt and Sons's deletion issue not my account. Therefore please do not mix topics. you could discuss this account issue at my talk page --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As the heading suggests, all topics related to the behaviour can and will be brought up - as you can see, while investigating something somewhat minor, a very major situation arose - that wolverine is out of its cage, and needs to be addressed here the panda ₯’ 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• No mixing of topics is taking place here. In a reply to Yngvadottir, here, you said you deleted your old account, technically something impossible. Malerooster asked the community whether or not you should disclose your old accounts. You then claimed in your reply that you had giving your old account away. DangerousPanda commented that this is not allowed, and informed you of the requirement per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to link to it.

I find it is a relevant observation that you tried to redirect your user page to red-linked Sulaiman Kuthubdeen, an article that was deleted 5 years ago and partly shares your chosen username. It in turn leads to Sulaiman9 (t c) and Sulaiman7799 (t c), also both partly sharing your username. I now further notice that the latter user declared to be Sri Lankan, and edited in the Real Madrid player Cristiano Ronaldo; you are, according to your user page, a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka and a fan of Spanish football, and edit these areas.

You're free not to clarify, but be aware that Robert McClenon below has spoken for indefinitely blocking you because of your reluctance to identify the previous account(s). Sam ^Sing! 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailor Its strange that Sulaiman7799 (t c) and Sulaiman9 (t c) was never created by me, But there are lot of people using name “Sulaiman” and i'm not only the one to be here. Actually the fact is that i'm not Sri Lankan. I don't know what kind of investigation is this.

• PrinceSulaiman, I'm the one who left you that message before about being more careful tagging articles for speedy deletion - including telling you you should not be tagging them immediately they are created precisely because some people create the article first, then add references. I even gave you a possible reason - shaky internet connections. There is no requirement to use the Article Wizard/Articles for Creation; there is a requirement to be civil to other editors, it is one of our pillars, and that includes not biting new editors. I just looked at Xhulio Joka, one of the articles mentioned above by Sam Sailor, and I see you ordering the new editor not to edit the article (diff requires admin-o-vision). Perhaps you meant not to remove the speedy deletion template, but that is not what your edit summary said. Then you dropped a high-level vandalism warning on his talk page. That's contrary to policy - never call it vandalism unless it's clear to you that the person was trying to damage the encyclopedia. If you're going to do new page patrol, you need to be a lot lighter in your touch with new editors. Also - it's very rarely justifiable to say that an article was created "unnecessarily". Perhaps when we already have an article on the topic, but if you look at the remaining speedy deletion criteria, that is not what they are about. I'm very concerned that you have caused some useful articles to be deleted - the Albanian film maker being one possibility - and that you have been very harsh to some inexperienced editors. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic-Ban on Speedy Tagging

In view of the fact that User:PrinceSulaiman has created several articles that have been speedy-deleted, his continuing questionable tagging of other articles for speedy deletion is probably not so much a matter of misunderstanding the policy but of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In any case, I recommend a topic-ban on speedy deletion tagging. This is unrelated to the issue about account use, which appears to be resolving itself as improper but "no harm, no foul". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I have been warned on adding speedy deletion which i have avoided adding speedy deletion tags from now on. I do not think its right to ban me. I believe that i haven't created “Several Articles” that was nominated for speedy deletion it seems like you haven't read the entire topic that i communicated with reviewers and admins regarding this issue. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: It is not just about the speedy tag or PROD tag but it is about whole new page patrolling. If you check the recent contributions of PrinceSulaiman to these pages, you will also find considerable amount of drive by tagging. He has been misusing the tags, on Sergei Kazantcev, he has added {{refimprove}} tag but also {{unreferenced}} tag. On Echo, Louisiana, he added {{lead too short}} when the article is geography stub. So a topic ban on New Page Patrolling would be better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I have been warned for misusing tags on articles by another admin, For now on i decided to avoid page patrolling and speedy deletion tagging on new articles, I believe it would be unfair to have my account banned without giving a second chance after a warning... --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban and Ban are not same words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: but still i will get banned from editing certain articles which is considered to unfair without giving a second chance after a warning. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@PrinceSulaiman: Sounds better. Just try to concentrate and search about the subject whenever you are patrolling a new page. Also make sure the size and quality of the article before you add any tag. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Yes, i'll make sure to search more on new article before adding tag. Thank you for your recommendation :) --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support but I would extend this to restricting him from the addition of any tag to any page (new or old) for at least six months. This would not impede his ability to improve articles, create articles, revert vandalism, and to actually learn the basic principles of editing here. It would simply prevent the harm he causing by his complete failure to understand the most basic principles of new page patrolling, deletion criteria, and the use of maintenance tags. He has been warned multiple times about this, but up to now has ignored warnings and continues to obfuscate. He has shown no evidence that he understands what is wrong with his approach, the harm it can do to editor retention, and the disruption he causes to other editors who have to clean up after him. This absurdly inappropriate tagging placed 3 minutes after the article was created is a prime example of why the restriction should be extended to all article tagging. His failure to listen has already resulted in a one week block at Commons, soon followed by the current one month block. This relatively mild restriction proposal would hopefully prevent the same fate here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support his being restricted from new page patrol. Older articles have more expert defenders and are less likely to be speedy deleted just because they were tagged for it. I'm sorry, Prince Sulaiman, but as I read it you have had at least two chances, and I'm more concerned about defending the encyclopedia and content writers than about your wish to edit in this particular area: judging other people's new work. I agree with Voceditenore, please get some experience as an editor first if you wish to return to new page patrol later. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deliberate Compromise of Previous Account

User:PrinceSulaiman states that he gave his previous account away and agreed with the new owner that he would not reclaim it or mention it. That is deeply troublesome. Recommend an indefinite block of the new account until he identifies the compromised account (knowing that the recipient of the account may have sanctions). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't know if his statement is true. If it is true, it is a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy on user accounts. If it is false, then the statement is trolling. Both are grounds for a block. That is not directly related to disruptive speedy nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The user said My old account wanted to be claimed by another user whom sent me a request to have it claimed, But i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time. By "claimed" he could have meant "usurped" and by "sent me a request" he could have meant "left a message on my talk page." He could have meant that, but maybe he didn't, the user will need to clarify that. Rgrds. --64.85.216.41 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon exactly what 64.85.216.41 said, I haven't used my old account (no edits and page creations were made at that time) it was more of abandoned account. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Prince Sulaiman couldn't have meant "usurped", because here he claims that his old account had 200 edits. An account only qualifies for usurpation if it has no edits or significant log entries. So he either turned over his account and his password to someone else, or he's decided to come back under a new name after using multiple other accounts to create multiple speedily deleted articles all relating to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen, Lukman Kuthubdeen, their various start-ups Apple SK9, Gizmaestro and last but not least Kamil Kuthubdeen (allegedly the father of Sulaiman Kuthubdeen [39]). See Sam Sailor's analysis above. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC) PS And who are all these Kamil Kuthubdeen's? Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I believe there were communication mistake, I mean “PrinceSulaiman” has over 200 edits, Instead i shortened it by mentioning “Old Account”, I apologize for the miscommunication. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that you gave your account and password to someone else and that instead it was done through the official process of usurpation? In that case there will be a log of the process. There is never a condition placed on usurpation that the previous owner cannot reveal the name of that account, although they are given 7 days in which to object to the usurpation. I'm afraid none of this rings true. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, No sir, I wasn't denying that i had given my account to someone, I only have gave my old account called SLK to my relative and “PrinceSulaiman” is new account, Therefore the old account activities are unused at the time before i handing it over. I hope it doesn't confuse… --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef until user discloses his previous accounts, per WP:SOCK. If they are not willing to reveal them publically, I advise them to contact WP:ARBCOM to disclose, who can verify any other (non-public) issues. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Maybe that is the only way, there is still some time and PrinceSulaiman can still avoid indef block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Indef ≠ forever, only until they reveal their other accounts. They have been adked multiple times to do this, and there refusal pushes my good faith (which get's stretched a lot nowadays) too far. Sometimes, you need to use extreme measures when kindness no longer works. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

Mdann52, I understand, But alright, I'm able to reveal the account i had only one this SLK it was created back in 2006 which i had never used it, However i have never shared this account with unknown person i handed over to my relative who wish to manage it and for now i do not know overall activities of that account its already given... --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Prince Sulaiman, it is a serious violation of policy to hand over your account and password to anyone whether they are known to you or not. And if what you say is true, that is clearly what you did because there is no log whatsoever for the official usurpation of the SLK account. But if you did hand it over and that you had never used it to edit, then you handed it over on the the day it was registered, 12 May 2006. The SLK account began editing (with all edits either outright vandalism or the insertion of false information in articles) on 12 May 2006 and continued in that vein through September 2009 [40]. I'm sorry, but none of this rings true. Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, It is correct it was the same day i handed over it. I didn't kept holding the account for more than a day. I hope this clears it and i understand it violated the policy but i did never know about this policy back in 2006. As i mentioned that i was never Wikipedia expertise at that time. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I concur with Voceditenore. SLK was created on 12 May 2006, but PrinceSulaiman on his user page states he has been editing since 26 April 2006. It doesn't jive here. Sam ^Sing! 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, I edited as anonymous before the month i created my old account SLK and didn't use it, However you're making this very complicated by bring Sulaiman7799 and among of other user accounts which were never created by me. Please do not confuse with that accounts --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I agree. The SLK account made its first edit 2 minutes after registration. So in the space of 2 minutes after allegedly creating the SLK account, Prince Sulaiman was contacted by his relative requesting him to hand over the account, gave all the assurances requested, handed it over, and then said relative began to edit. PrinceSulaiman, you still haven't explained why one of your first edits in this current account was to redirect your user page to the multiply deleted Sulaiman Kuthubdeen which has close connections with 4 other accounts and to other multiply deleted related articles. As long as you haven't used any other accounts simultaneously with this one or edited in the same areas and stop editing under those accounts, it's probably OK, but if you have been editing under any other accounts, you need need to declare all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Sir, I haven't made any other account at the moment and only “Prince Sulaiman” is active that i use daily to contribute to wiki articles, About the first edit regarding the redirection to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen i simply wanted to test as sandbox whether a user will able to redirect my user page to any article so i and then linked to test whether its linking and i was happy that it didn't work (i mean the redirection didn't go through it) since i would really be worried if it worked because in case of vandalism (or abusing) user(s) will keep redirecting it to random pages. I hope this explained your required criteria --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, frankly it doesn't really explain things. First of all, the redirect did go through. You simply reverted it with the next edit. And if you "basically picked an article containing 'Sulaiman'" for this test, why out of the dozens of actual articles containing "Sulaiman", did you pick one that was deleted 5 years ago? I also find your assertion "I haven't made any other account at the moment and only “Prince Sulaiman” is active" ambiguous. Perhaps it's a language problem. Are you saying that you have never at any other time created or edited from any other accounts apart from this one and SLK? Voceditenore (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I didn't want to test the redirection on an article that already exists because i believed that could harm other articles (that already exist) if redirection tag was misplaced, So i used the article that is being deleted or doesn't exist. On editing, Yes, I have never used any other than SLK account since because in 2006 i begin to contribute to few articles (minority edits) under anonymity without an account, But for a history of my edits that i decided to create “PrinceSulaiman” account, Do you believe that i seriously violated wikipedia's policy by putting redirection tag to deleted article? Please educate me if i'm wrong --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Could you kindly block my old account User:SLK? I don't want this incident to be happened again in the future. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Observations

Let me recap what PrinceSulaiman (PS) have said:

1. Prior account: They say they have been a Wikipedian since 26 April 2006 (Diff) and edited anonymously before creating their first account SLK (Diff). Fair enough. User:SLK was created 16 days later on 12 May 2006. They said twice they never used that account (Diff Diff), it was more of [an] abandoned account (Diff), and that their relative (Diff) sent me a request to have it [and] i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time (Diff). And further that I have never used any other than SLK account since (Diff). Very well. But my main objection to this storyline is, as Voceditenore has implied, that their relative makes her/his first disruptive edit 2 minutes later, and while technically all the above and the relative's edit could be accomplished with ~120 seconds, it does not sound as a plausible story.
2. Edit count: They said to Yngvadottir on 21 June, 5 days after they created the PS account that i've been Wikipedian since 2006 (having over 200 edits) which i basically switched account from my old account (Diff). They clarified earlier today that I mean “PrinceSulaiman” has over 200 edits (Diff). But I did the counting and they actually only had 80 edits under the belt when they replied on 21 June. And as they at that time had not used Twinkle yet, there is no way they could have 120 deleted edits from speedy tagging. In fact they currently have only 55 deleted edits.
3. Sulaiman Kuthubdeen: They have denied being behind the accounts Sulaiman7799 (t c) and Sulaiman9 (t c) that created Sulaiman Kuthubdeen and Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen in 2009 and 2010, saying there are lot of people using name “Sulaiman” and i'm not only the one to be here. That is true. It is also true that we have many live biographical articles starting with Sulaiman. But we have zero live articles that include "Kuthubdeen" at all in its title. Actually "Kuthubdeen" returns only c. 6000 Google hits. So when they wanted to "test a redirect" (Diff), they did not pick any of the many live articles starting with "Sulaiman", they made the extremely rare combination "Sulaiman Kuthubdeen" that redirected to a deleted article. What are the chances? Let me think aloud: could it be, that "Sulaiman Kuthubdeen" is their real name? Could it be that they redirected to their old (auto)bio?
4. Likely IP socking: This is not the first time PS's speedy tagging is up for discussion on ANI. That happened on 21 June five days after account creation, archived here, when A.Minkowiski (AM) posted regarding their G7 tag (Diff) of AR.Freeflight (presently userfied to Draft:AR.Freeflight). Obviously G7 did not apply in this case. Their two replies to AM on their talk page are noteworthy, first The article you wrote doesn't find any notable information from A.R Free Flight, I assume it's not necessary to create an article for unpopular application. AM pointed out their mistake (Diff), and since they neither replied nor self-reverted their tagging, AM removed it (Diff) and told them on their talk page (Diff). Instead of admitting their mistake, they recommended expanding the article and adding sources (Diff). Half an hour later IP59.158.247.90 then tags the same draft with G11 (Diff). What are the chances of a draft being speedy tagged twice within 75 minutes? PS have denied being IP59.158.247.90 (Diff). But ... PS's very first edit was on Talk:1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots where they talk about an article edit they made ... that was 6 minutes before (Diff) made by IP59.158.247.90.

Quack-quack. Sam ^Sing! 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Sam Sailor:: Just one correction - you missed that AR.Freeflight was created in main space. I counseled the creator to accept the deleting admin's offer to userfy it. See the later history of the draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are right, Yngvadottir, thank you for correcting me. Sam ^Sing! 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• You could block User:SLK as a compromised account, but they haven't edited in almost 5 years so that really isn't preventing anything. As Prince Sulaiman has disclosed this, and we don't see evidence that both used the account at the same time, I don't see a burning need to act on this. It is against the spirit of WP:NOSHARE but the act itself hasn't caused disruption. No comment on the Speedy issue above, but the user name issue seems moot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Indef block - great research by Voceditenore, we cannot trust this user and so they should not be allowed to edit any further until they start being honest. GiantSnowman 17:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Sir. I'm being serious and i do not want to be dishonest to the admins and the reviewers which i respect their opinions and point of view. I have also provided my old account as required by fellow admins here. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is the story. You made an account. You gave it to a relative within two minutes. Then, you decided not to make a new account for yourself; you did not make an account for five years! Despite that, on User:PrinceSulaiman, you claim to have been editing during the time that you say you had given the account to a relative and not made another. You could have been an IP for eight years, but I call BS on that because you did decide to create an account. Origamite^{is out right now} 19:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite:, the SLK account is my old account and i didn't get used to it so i gave it to my relative which they wished to manage it, However i have not much been involved in editing articles for last 8 years and mostly are made under anonymity for minority edits, However after years i got used to Wikipedia then i had to create new account which is PrinceSulaiman. Please kindly read the above topic i have already mentioned it and i don't wish to repeat this again and again. Note that i don't use a static IP address --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - untrustworthy user, the project looses nothing here. Sam ^Sing! 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• You need to file at WP:SPI, most of the above is pure conjecture and it can get hashed out there. ANI is a bad place to try to determine sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• While Prince Sulaiman's evasive and contradictory stories re these accounts do not attest to the credibility of his other assertions re the original complaint, I agree with Dennis that any further elaboration of evidence should be taken to SPI. I'm not sure it will serve a useful purpose, though. The SLK account, which he claims (quite unconvincingly) to have given away, stopped editing in 2009. The other three accounts, which are clearly connected to each other (Lukman42, Sulaiman9, and Sulaiman7799) and may possibly be linked to him as well, haven't edited since 2012. Having said that, the account SLK (talk · contribs) should be blocked on the distinct probability that the password has been shared. That account was used to create multiple attack pages on [41], [42], [43] on students at Fartown High School in the UK. Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a former SPI clerk, we were instructed to not block accounts that old (except in extraordinary circumstances) because it wasn't preventative. That is the point here, that I don't see any abuse, I see some mistakes, but they are too old to be actionable. We don't track down problems from years ago, we can barely keep up with socks from the last month. And again, I've limited my comments to socking only: it is a dead issue, it won't get pursued. Focus on the other stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe this is too obvious to be pointed out or conjecture, but SLK could stand for Sulaiman L. Kuthubdeen. Origamite^{is out right now} 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens

Is it my imagination, or is there something odd happening with the series of edits starting here [44]? EEng (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like edit conflicts and ham-fisted attempts to fix them to me.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. It looked kinda like one of those sockmaster-forgot-who-he-was-for-a-minute things. EEng (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mehmett21

Insistently inappropriate language despite warnings in Talk:Turkic peoples page (1, 2) and edit warring. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ps: User editing that page with a several IPs. I mentioned him in this page.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying the page "looks like shit" really has no action arising from it. They're also not formally edit-warring from what I see - 2 edits today, different areas if I see correctly the panda ₯’ 18:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:DangerousPanda We cannot say whatever we want. This kind an actions are not considered naturel in wikipedia. At least you should be warn him for his actions. By the way, I revert his edit. Please keep an eye on him. If he unrevert again, clearly that means edit-warring.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in any Wikipedia policy that prevents someone from saying "it looks like shit" - heck, it's not even uncivil, based on the policy. We have policies that prevent you calling someone "shit"...but that's not what happened here. Let us know if they do the panda ₯’ 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• We can't say whatever we want, but we can say anything that doesn't directly violate policy. I agree with The Panda, we all are expected to tolerate a degree of language we might personally not like, as long as it isn't a personal attack or a pattern of long term incivility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Though the language may be a little harsh, it does not violate any policies as stated above. It's the talk page, not the actual article where people read. I doubt the IP user will contribute again. Meatsgains (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ezzex

Sorry to escalate this to this board, but rather than edit war, as we are now, and I apologize for that, can an admin please ask this user Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop using the talk pages as a place to voice his views on the subject matter and the state of this project rather than improving the article per WP:SOAPBOX. I will not revert again, since this goes nothing but annoy me, but see [45] and [46]. It would be nice to have these comments redacted. I will go to this user's talk page and let him know about this thread right now. I also used his talk page to ask him to stop as well with little luck or feedback. I know that this might not seem like a big deal, but I really feel that it does poison the atmosphere of the talk page and is why many folks probably avoid this topic area, as I usually do and will probably do so going forward. Again, I will step aside at this point and defer to others. Thank you in advance, --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have informed the authorities here on Wikipedis about what have been going on here the last days. I will not tolerate that users remove my post on a talk page unless it's clearly offensive.--Ezzex (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex, you can't accuse the project of "being a tool of Israel" or other comments about the ongoing conflict and who is right or wrong ect, just tone it down a notch, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a reaction to all the israeli sources in the article.--Ezzex (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than deleting wrong-headed and biased comments, it's better to simply refute them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that several members and IPs that have written something on my side. All of them have, for unknown reasons, been deleted and the historic hidden by admins.

I will have my say on wikipedia, and refuse to bend to artificial debate-rules (who seams to be created more or less to shut people up). Some seams to be very eager to read these rules, perhaps only to use them as a tool against people they disagree with. I will not read them. They are in my mind more of a straight jacket than help.--Ezzex (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ansel Elgort

There has been a flurry of fan-based activity at Ansel Elgort and Talk:Ansel Elgort. It appears that:-

"Elgort stated that on, July 11 2014, he would be forever grateful if Wikipedia did not state he is a model just because he has done photo shoots promoting movies."

The deletions to the article include removing an apparently well referenced section on his modeling career, and inclusion of the quotation above There are also a string of 8 Semi-protected edit requests (all between 17.33 and 17.49) asking for the references to modeling to be removed. These ESPs are still being added, even though the article has been changed.

I have no idea who Ansel Elgort is, but it seems clear his fans are re-writing this article, to say what he wants it to say. Could I suggest that someone more familiar with the subject looks at this - I suspect it may be a question of reverting and fully protecting the article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "twitter material" since it isn't covered by non primary sources. --Malerooster (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is now ... [47] Andreas JN466 01:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Although Arjayay states above that the section claiming he has a modeling career is "apparently well referenced", I took time to actually read the references. None describe him as a professional model, he is consistently described as an actor promoting a major upcoming film role, and in one case, a young woman appearing with him is described as a model while he is not. I see no reliable source calling him a professional model and many that call him an actor. The fact that photos of a handsome young actor appear in fashion magazines is not proof of a modeling career. Far from it. The article is now fully protected in a state unjustified by reliable sources. Why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes the "wrong" version gets protected by those dam admins j/k? I would agree that the modeling material and label be removed from the article but I am tired of this. Good luck, --Malerooster (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, we don't fully protect BLP's in the version that contains contentious poorly-sourced claims. Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Bolding in original.) No credible source describes him as a model.

• Would an admin please remove the contentious, poorly-sourced claims that the subject is a model or has a modelling career?
• User:Amortias has been edit-warring to retain contentious, poorly-sourced claims about the subject of a BLP. Amortias, would you please read WP:BLP, and then say here whether you think your edit-warring was a breach of that policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• On reflection I think I may have gone about this the wrong way and agree that my actions were quite likely (and reasonably) considered to be edit warring and in conflict of the policies on BLP. Looking at the talk page and the number of requests to remove the statement(s) in question I drew this as a consensus to keep. better research on my part would most likely have drawn me to a different conclusion. My aim was to keep the page in the state it was when a request for page protection was put in place to allow this to be put in place at the point of request. Although my intent was in good faith I concur that my methods were not constructive and have taken note of the issues caused and this will be a one off error on my part. Amortias (T)(C) 17:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Group of 88" problems

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

---

I nominated the category Group of 88 for deletion because being a member of that group is not a defining property (WP:CATEGORY talks about "essential —defining— characteristics"). I removed the category from four biographies, which were the only members of that category. The category now has 23 members, all added by Johnpacklambert. At the deletion discussion he says "These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism" and "They should not get to remove their badge of infamy" and "Their most public act was a willingness to condemn students before a fair hearing had been reached, to denounce students on the grounds that they were white, 'privileged' and so forth, and to spew hatred at these students". It is clear that Johnpacklambert feels strongly about this issue and is pursuing an agenda which is not neutral.

Johnpacklambert has also added the following non-neutral statements to biographies:

While at Duke he joined with the Group of 88 which presumed accused people's guilt on the basis of race, and never apologized for their calls to violate defandants civil rights.

While at Duke she joined in the guilt presuming letter of the Group of 88 which also encouraged vigilante activities.

While there he joined with others in the racist statements of the Group of 88 which assumed guilt of accused criminals based on their race.

I also tried to remove a passage about the Duke lacrosse case from the biography of a Duke professor who was part of the Group of 88 but does not appear to have done anything more than sign a public letter. This seems like a very clear case of undue weight but my removal was immediately reverted. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but the reverter seems to be ignoring it.

Meanwhile, another editor (User:Shakehandsman) has just accused me of having a conflict of interest simply because I registered my account shortly after he used weak evidence to accuse IP editors of being one of the members of the "Group of 88". I don't mean to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy at work here, but the situation is troubling. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm mentioned in that last paragraph I might as well debunk all the nonsense contained within it. At no point have I made COI accusations concerning the above editor, I merely pointed out the extremely suspicious time of his account being registered, not to mention his similar interests/editing pattern and level of experience to the IPs, and use of exactly the same arguments. Secondly. it's also false to say I accused the IP editors of being one of the members of the Group of 88. I simply did a WHOIS check of the IPs and pointed out that one was an institution that had started employing Cathy Davidson that very day, and that the second was Duke University itself. So the "weak evidence" is in fact absolutely 100% proof of people affiliated with Duke repeatedly removing Group of 88 material and doing so from Duke University itself.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think people will see your thinly veiled accusation against me for what it is. If they don't, then perhaps your latest statement that "I should also note that none of those IP editors have reappearance since Nigel joined us here, and while that proves nothing in itself, is it a little strange on top of everything else" will convince them. You have made a clear accusation that the IP editors have a conflict of interest and strongly implied that they are both Cathy Davidson. And you have just implied that I am somehow associated with these IPs despite my statement that I have no association with any aspect of the Duke lacrosse case. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"You have made a clear accusation that the IP editors have a conflict of interest", yes and I've proved that to be a fact beyond almost any doubt! The fact that you refuse to see this obvious COI editing when its staring everyone in the face is in itself very puzzling, why can't you just accept what's been going on?.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no inherent conflict of interest in editing Cathy Davidson from Duke University. If you think that there is, you are mistaken. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that people initially assumed the prosecutor was doing his job properly. Once the state attorney general declared them innocent of the charge, anyone in the "group of 88" who continues to insist on guilt, even now, would be fair game for such a tag, especially considering the history of the accuser before and after. Labeling it "racism" is silly. It's blindness to facts. And it's also important to keep in mind that the lacross players were involved in bad behavior that night (drinking and hiring strippers), and there is an element of "good ol' boy" tolerance of that behavior, so the underlying anger of the "group of 88" has some justifiable basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who (a) thinks racism and sexism are real social problems; but (b) thinks this "Group of 88" letter was a knee-jerk rush to judgment reminiscent of my days growing up in Berkeley, California in the 60s; BUT (c) thinks the idea that Group of 88 might be a sensible WP category has little or no basis -- in other words, I come down squarely on both sides of the issue -- this is a content dispute with everyday garden-variety not-ANI-worthy sniping. EEng (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. What troubles me about this is mostly a "guilt by association", McCarthyism. If any of the "group of 88" continues to support their original view (which helped get the lacrosse coach fired, by the way), then there's a good chance this isn't their only controversial position, and that could be covered in a better way than just sticking them in a category. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Using a category for this is a probably a bad content decision. Unless people are really going to populate the category, it is near useless, and even if it were populated, the same content can be presented more usefully as a comprehensive list at Group of 88 itself. There's no need to do the same thing two redundant ways, so that will do. That said, this decision shouldn't be up to admins; hopefully the editors involved can see clear to it. Meanwhile...... this is going to sound stupid (and pretty much is), but I'm wondering if you're getting some mystery hostility into the works somewhere because of some arcane American prison slang. You see, especially when matters of racism are discussed, "88" has been used by racist gangs as a code for "Heil Hitler". But of course, in this case it has absolutely nothing to do with it, reflecting only how many people signed a widely circulated petition to faculty. I assume the main participants are well aware of this but I wonder if somehow such a misperception is bleeding through from outsiders. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The only people coming close to McCarthyism were the group of 88 itself. They presumed guilt on the basis of being white, and Houston Baker managed to use "white" as an insult 10 times in an article. They encouraged people to continue threatening the players, and they presumed guilt. Let me repeat that again, they presumed guilt. Such things should never have happened. The whole case was emblematic of a general false assumption about crime and race, a false assumption that makes fixing real social problems and getting to the heart of them much harder. The Group of 88 is emblematic of the pathological approach to race relations that gave us the Murder of Laura Dickinson and the cover up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article obscures an issue at the center of the Dickinson case. Dickinson was a white woman from a small, rural community in Western Michigan. Her rapist and killer was an African-American. Whether this has much relation to the crime is hard to say. That it caused an unwillingness to speak openly and honestly about the crime seems likely, considering how many other similar crimes were also documented by the authors of Until Proven Innocent that were the seeming racial reverse of the Duke case, and never got any headway at all. Even though those cases were not as open and shut as the Duke case, because they involved not claims of no contact, but only questions of whether the sex was consensual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am all too aware of "88" being a poorly-kept "secret" code for "Adolf Hitler". How many of the "group of 88" still cling to notion that the "group of 3" were guilty of rape? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert, I believe you have proven my point about your lack of neutrality. Baseball Bugs, perhaps you can discuss the political issues on your talk pages. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm providing background for some who may be unaware of the case, and raising questions that should be raised. You should continue or move this entire discussion to the talk page of the topic in question. Thanks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored Nigel Pap's version of Lee D. Baker. There is no way this is important enough to warrant a category. Unless someone is individually and reliably marked as special and their membership of this ad-hoc group deemed important, no way. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I question the category. I do find it puzzling. Is this group even active anymore. I wonder if perhaps this category could introduce bias to an article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

But then you aren't here for that. You are here because of the COI claims. While editing Cathy Davidson probably wouldn't be a COI from Duke (unless of course it's her). To me though this seems to be a fair comment under the circumstances.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho -- I understand you're a psycho, but why are you responding to your own comment? EEng (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the group was ad hoc and ceased to exist after an open letter was published. While there are some Duke faculty who had an expanded role in the larger case, most of the "Group of 88" did nothing other than sign the letter. Including anything about the Duke lacrosse case in the vast majority of those biographies would be an instance of undue weight. There appears to be a small group of editors (User:Johnpacklambert, [[User:Hammersbach], and User:Shakehandsman) who are quietly using this issue for their own purposes. I am sure there is much room for discussion of content issues but it would be nice if those discussions were aimed at neutrality instead of pushing some political agenda. Nigel Pap (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The category is up for deletion. While yes this could provide undue weight, at same time it could not. It's really going to come down case by case. I personally don't see any bad faith on their part. I just wonder how much of this can be handle on the talk pages of the articles in question and thru some form of dispute resolution if needed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to endorse any claims in particular but I share some of Nigel Pap's concerns about what is going on here with this issue and its presentation in Wikipedia. Tonight I had a look at Group of 88 and KC Johnson (author of a book critical of the 88) and found the articles terribly slanted and full of NPOV and RS issues. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this please? This isn't ANI material. EEng (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

How many pic are allowed?

Two years ago I had a disagreement with a admin about the amount of pics allowed on a certain page, ( The Admin had changed 100's of other pages aswell) , turns out the admin was right in the rule book. Since then it seems the rules are either being ignored or being replaced, can someone tell me what is it?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_1#Logos_and_idents This page has a tidy up tag for the logo section so I took some out, but someone keeps on undoing, because there using this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo which is full of them logos for the reason for undoing the cull.

What the deal? Does the Nintendo page have FAR to many or has wiki changed its mind on use of pics, if so I will be reinstating the page on the Night time page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about image galleries, the guideline is on WP:Gallery, which says that "a gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved or moved to the Wikimedia Commons". As for a specific gallery of logos, it starts to get complicated. First, one could say that a gallery of historical logos is not "indiscriminate" per se and it adds some sort of encyclopedic value. Second, logos can either be non-free (which in most cases should be removed under WP:NFTABLE; and WP:NFCCP rules 3, 8 and 10c) or free content (such as those tagged with Template:PD-logo, in which the logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes).

I do not think we had as much "PD-logo"-tagged images back in 2012 as we do now. Two years ago, it was easier to remove these logo galleries because all of the images were fair use logos that did not comply with WP:NFCCP. That is now harder to do when many of them are now considered public domain, and now should be treated like other free content images. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of Sky 1 for the past month, and specifically the Nintendo reference, I suspect that it is a sockpuppet of a blocked user using a dynamic address. In fact, this use of a changing dynamic address was alluded to in the investigation discussion. In the past two days, he appears to have edited on both 83.39.46.74 and 82.152.187.189 (making changes to many of the same pages). The reference to Nintendo was made by one of the other now-blocked sockpuppets several weeks ago. Sky 1 page is now currently semi-protected due to sock puppetry (because he is on a dynamic IP address, trying to administer blocks would just make him to jump to a new IP, and lead to collateral damage on the used ones). Zzyzx11 (talk) Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Any problem with blocking this proxy?

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

---

No sooner was an IP blocked for edit warring at Atlantis then another IP showed up, 93.115.95.6 (talk · contribs) which is a proxy.[49] Any objection to blocking this for a year? Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is unquestionably a proxy, but I can't confirm it is an open proxy. Looks setup for multiple ports for proxy and seems suspicious as hell, however, I wasn't able to route through them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown - it's obviously the blocked IP, so how do we stop him from editing? Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Whois identifies this IP with www.voxility.net, which is a web hosting company. I would suggest a one-year block with the tag {{webhostblock}}. Any person who edits Wikipedia through a web host is by definition concealing their true IP. In any case Atlantis looks like a candidate for semiprotection due to all the enthusiasm from IP-hoppers and brand new accounts over the past two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Proxies Should really be indeffed. Also, an open proxy from Cyberghost VPN is going to run out in about a month or two. TitusFox^'Tribs 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see much chance of collateral damage, so I'm not opposing the block. I was simply stating what we were dealing with, a closed proxy not an open one. Had it been an open proxy, I would have just blocked for being open. And Titus, we don't normally block closed proxies unless there is abuse, as there are plenty of legitimate uses for them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Dennis, Block Away! TitusFox^'Tribs 15:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's Doug's case, not mine, I leave it in his capable hands. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Block it. I reported it to OP earlier today.- MrX 19:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the only thing on my plate today, folks ;) I did the background, closed the OP case as it wasn't an open proxy, protected and blocked for being a web host used for abuse. Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Thomas and Friends Vandalism

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

---

Special:Contributions/78.150.147.25 has been constantly removing content from Thomas and Friends, without any explanation why. Staglit (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• A quick sampling of his deletions show he is removing large chunks of unsourced material, so that isn't vandalism from what I can tell. I thought WP:BURDEN says that in order to add it back, you need to provide a citation of some sort. Not sure this is something that needs admin attention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• No Guru has already blocked them for vandalism, but I can't say I agree with that. They did appear to be edit warring but that isn't what the block was for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree also; it looks like they were removing character introduction cruft that was unsourced. Rare is it I have to disagree with an IP kids show article block, but this is definitely one case; that information doesn't belong there without a source. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I had pinged No Guru but no reply, so I left a note on his talk page. If anything, I'm thinking page protection would have been better, since it was a legitimate content issue, and the BURDEN was on the other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• • While I agree it's not vandalism, a block for 3RR would be appropriate for the reverts(see below) 3RR was violated at Thomas & Friends (series 5). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He wasn't the only one with more than 3 reverts, and technically, his edits were fine and shouldn't have been reverted back in via WP:BURDEN. Normally with two editors doing that, you do full protection and just get them to talk it out. You CAN block them both, but that isn't the preferred way. The other editors were calling it vandalism in their reverts (WP:CIVILITY....) but it wasn't. I get the feeling this is old fashioned IP discrimination. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Quite right, the IP wasn't the sole violator of 3RR. I suspect, however, that protection isn't going to do anything either; once they have it pointed out that their reverts weren't of vandalism, the reverting editors themselves aren't likely to re-add the content. But of course, that doesn't serve to validate the original block. Meh. Yeah, I think you're right Dennis, that this is just a case of unfairly presuming blanking by an IP is invalid. As such I've stricken my above comment that the block was warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I've unblocked the IP as it has been 24 hours without a peep from the blocking admin, I've warned the other editor who was calling the IP's edits "vandalism", explained and linked WP:BURDEN, and gave them a pointer here, although I don't necessarily anticipate participation. I'm sure that won't make me popular today, but it seems abundantly clear this was a bad block, based on bad claims of vandalism. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 94.193.131.253

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

---

I apologize for bringing a sock puppet issue to this forum but the situation requires a somewhat more rapid intervention. IP editor 94.193.131.253 is almost certainly a sock of IP 94.193.131.142 which has been blocked for serial and long standing disruptive editing of articles on the Ships Project. See this discussion from the project's talk page for background. I and other project editors have been busy reverting hundreds or more dubious edits by this subtle vandal going back to early June. S/He is now using the new IP to continue this campaign and is attempting to undue many of the reversions we spent the last couple of days working on. This editor's aggressive disruptive editing is too much for us to keep up with. I opened an SPI investigation yesterday, unfortunately that process moves rather slowly due to a backlog. Please note the contrib logs for both IP's

• contrib log for blocked IP 94.193.131.142
• contrib log for 94.193.131.253

I respectfully request an immediate block. A lot of work has already been expended fixing this mess and it looks like a lot more is going to be required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Did a range block that should stop them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. Hopefully we can go back and fix everything over the next few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Air Serbia (again)

95.180.123.154 (talk · contribs) had been blocked for one week by Bishonen. Once the block expired, s(he)'s again making the disruptive edits they had been blocked for. Not even a word at the article's talk page. Diffs can be found here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, still never an edit summary, never any response on talk (their own or other). Sorry I dropped the ball on my page, Jetstreamer, but it's a little hard for me to judge editing on among other things sports articles and various kinds of tables. This doesn't look like vandalism, though it clearly is intransigence, unresponsiveness, and edit warring. I think there may be a WP:CIR problem, perhaps also a language problem. I was going to ask another admin to make the call — one who understands the subjects better than I do — but checking out the history at Serbia, it really is too bad. I'm blocking for a month to give the people reverting some relief from this stubbornness. However, if an experienced editor who can communicate in Serbian sees this, could you perhaps try to talk to the IP on their page? User:Klačko, how about you? Bishonen | talk 08:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

In that case we are having a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I know at least a user who has been indefinitely blocked for that. I've surveyed all the IP contributions and none of them has an edit summary.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

IP anon block evasion

174.76.220.107 (talk · contribs) is currently blocked, for edit warring, on Will County, Illinois and Frankfort, Illinois. 38.111.104.199 (talk · contribs) is now adding the same material to that article. It's a bunch of axe grinding and name calling regarding law enforcement officers and judges in that area that were accused or convicted of crimes. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disregard, Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) already took care of it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There's IP hopping. I've blocked the newest IP and semi-protected Frankfort, Illinois, since it's been targeted. If this starts again after the 72 hours of protection expires, WP:RFPP is probably the best place to handle it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert continuing the Group of 88 thing

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

---

Despite warnings here and elsewhere (see their own talk page, and mine), Johnpacklambert continues to edit-war in articles related to the so-called Group of 88, with this revert by Malik Shabazz the most recent of many. Viriditas commented on my talk page that there is or was discussion about a topic ban for BLPs; perhaps such a discussion should be revisited or started. (Other editors have expressed strong opinions about their editing on my talk page as well.) In the meantime I warned them for edit warring, since they are clearly guilty of that. Personally I want them to stop screwing around with what I think are clear BLP violations, though I won't push the button since I've reverted them in a couple of articles; I don't want to place an even slightly controversial block. So I'm suggesting that, pace Dennis Brown's closure of the discussion above, we mull this over again. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the last discussion we had several months ago about topic banning Johnpacklambert from articles related to Amanda Filipacci.[50] However, the problem with Johnpacklambert has been onging for years, with the community consistently ignoring his problematic editing with BLPs and categories and giving him a free pass to continue his disruption. A quick glance at the ANI archives show the following:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#User_adding_thousands_of_many_improper_possibly_incorrect_year_of_birth_cats (2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Johnpacklambert (2011)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Administrative_eyes_on_Priscilla_K._Coleman_and_its_active_editors (2011)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#User:Johnpacklambert (2013)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Johnpacklambert (2013)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive248#Ban_requested_for_User:Johnpacklambert (2013)

There was also an RFC in 2013:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert (2013)

I don't know why the community refuses to topic ban him from all BLP and category work, but it's time. After this one would have thought it impossible for him to escape a ban, but apparently you can get away with anything on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Way out of bounds. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

The editor being a Mormon may figure into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I don't see why. The Mormon the merrier. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Cute. However, you may find Black people and Mormonism interesting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC) You know, that's really distracting from this topic. Please strike it. Viriditas (talk) No, it speaks to the topic. The possibility of an ulterior motive must be considered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC) It's completely off-topic. It doesn't matter if he's a Mormon or not, or if he is editing from a religious POV. What matters, and what is under discussion here, is that there is a pattern of problematic editing in the BLP and category area. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Mormons had a long history of official racism. The fact that the church is now officially desegrated and officially not racist doesn't mean that individual attitudes don't die hard. I'm not saying the problem is religion. I'm saying you must consider the possibility that the user is one of those folks who looks for any chance to say, "See, blacks are racists too." The irony is that as a Mormon, who have often faced prejudice themselves, you would think the user in question would be more understanding of the lifelong prejudices potentially suffered by the "group of 88", whose frustration found a voice due to that lacrosse case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The above attacks on my religion I find to be severe violations of all Wikipedia rules. The attempts to claim that a unilateral ban on all editing can be brought about because I have insisted on stating accurate and correct things about the Group of 88 is outrageous. The continued hounding of me on any and all grounds people can come up with is most objectionable. I feel very strongly about the actions of the Group of 88. The above attempts to brand me a racist based on my religion are part and parcel of the attempts to presume guilt that are at the core of how the Group of 88 view the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You should not be editing topics you feel strongly about. I don't care about your religion and I agree that Bugs shouldn't have brought it up. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Drmies has used inflammatory and unjustified attacks on me. The attempts to reduce all my participation in Wikipedia to a few issues where I been attacked is extremely unfair. This is especially true of the whole Filipacci incident, because so many of the things said in relation to that have been demonstrably false, starting with the claim that I created Category:American women novelists. That category was not only not created by me, I have never edited it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies did not post that list, I did. And, I'm the one arguing you should be banned from all BLP and category work, not Drmies. Go find something else to do with your time. You've certainly wasted a great deal of our time. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no such organization as the "Group of 88". Yes, 88 faculty members signed a newspaper ad, and in retrospect, that ad may well have been ill-advised, but jointly signing an ad does not consitute joining a "group" and does not link those 88 people together for life as notorious reverse racists. The wording of that ad made no conclusive statements about legal guilt. Johnpacklambert's recent comments about the matter are so egregious that it ought to be clear to all that he is aggressively pushing a denunciation POV against BLP policy. This must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not going to stop and the community has allowed him to continue like this for years. The question is, why? How does Wikipedia benefit from Johnpacklambert continuing to edit? Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • (ec)It's about an attempt to broad-brush 88 faculty members with a "reverse racism" tag, in apparent ignorance of the climate of the time, which was before it became known that the accusations were the product of a lying claimant and an unethical prosecutor. To continue to paint the entire 88 for something they signed eight years ago is undue weight and a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It certainly would be undue in the cases of all those who've apologised to the victims or who distanced themselves from the Group of 88, but that isn't the case in a single group of 88 article John has edited. And as for race, that's significant but one only of many aspects.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I propose a counter, unilateral ban of Baseball Bugs from all editing for bigoted attacks on editors, and trying to discredited them with bigoted attacks on their religion. Such bigotry should not ever be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• How does Wikipedia benefit from my edits? There are hundreds of ways. Who else was going to significantly expand the article on May Green Hinckley. I could go on and on and on. The hateful invective spewed by some of the above is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The claim "it's not going to stop" is a show of failure to recognize the ability of others to change. It is a show of failure to recognize that my recent additions to Category:Women historians were 100% within guidelines. It is a failure to recognize that people can and do change when they are corrected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that it's being discussed for deletion. Is there a similar category for men? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I will admit that some of my edits and comments have been intemperate and unwise. I will admit that some of my edits were done without fully citing my sources. I am willing to avoid making similar edits. Those are all the things you can reasonably demand that I admit and state my willingness to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on JPL for BLP issues per Viriditas. Support topic ban on Baseball Bugs from mentioning any person's personal characteristics - or at least a topic ban from the rest of this thread. After the Manning naming dispute, you'd think Bugs would curb his language.--v/r - TP 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Does JPL have a history of BLP issues, or is it just this one? If it's just the one, there's no real need for a topic ban. If there are many, then a topic ban should be considered. As regards editor characteristics, if anyone wears proudly the badge of any organization with a history of racism, and then makes controversial edits on the subject of racial matters, the personal motivation of the editor needs to at least be taken into consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As regards the other thing, I was banned from a topic on false premises, on a topic that I don't really care about, so everybody's happy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• the BLP topic ban is both unreasonable, overbroad, and ignores any mitigating issues. The fact that no one has object at all to my most recent edit to the article on Mike Nifong shows that people do not object to my contributions to such topics in even most cases. BLPs is such a large part of Wikipedia, that a topic ban on any contribution to BLP articles would severely limit an editors ability to do anything. The unwillingness to even give an editor a change to admit that he has seen the error of his ways, and will try to do better is even more disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I did not create Category:Women historians, and I have not yet decided whether I think its continuance is worth while. I do have to admit it is a bit frustrating to have put as much time as I did into it over the last week, and only now have it brought up for deletion, but such is the fate of those who categorize. What is clear is that the way I populated it is exactly as the current guidelines suggest I should have. Whether those are the best guidelines seems to be a matter for another debate, but they were upheld in the recent discussions on such categories as Male United States senators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is why I generally avoid category work, as a plethora of editors are constantly messing around with them. As regards Nifong, your edit adds the fact that some of his other cases may be looked out to see if he fudged other cases in addition to this one. Meanwhile, someone thinks the Nifong article is biased or some such. That bears looking into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• There seems to be a rush to punish, without giving the offender even a chance to reform. This is a very frustrating and sad situation. The attempts to discern some sort of deep seated race prejudice on my part are very disturbing. Of course, as I have said before they amount to asking "when did you stop beating your wife." I literally cannot defend myself from the accusations. The fact that no one has reasons to suppose they actually do know my race to begin with is the first problem. The fact that I may well have some African ancestry and almost certainly have some Native American ancestry would not dissuade the attackers. The fact that my girlfriend is without question an African-American Mormon, that I work at a low paying job as a teacher's assistant in Detroit Public Schools, doing my best to correct the societal problems that lead to so many of the city's problems at the closest place to their origin as I can, or the fact that my first vote in a presidential primary was for an African-American, are never going to convince those who have already branded me a racist that I am anything but that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What's your reasoning for insisting on this "group of 88" category? If it's not about reverse racism, then what is it about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from categorization and BLPs. This highly experienced editor who has been in many disputes over the years has just admitted above that his recent edits have been "intemperate and unwise". Accordingly, I conclude that this editor should take a long break from these areas of editing. We need temperate and wise editing instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I could support a limited duration topic ban, like maybe a few months. He deserves a chance to improve his behavior, after a break, without having to go begging to the arbcoms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• All of this is totally unfair. I have struck my original comments from the category discussion. Beyond this, the addition of the category to people who were clearly identified as part of the group in the article Group of 88 was totally within policy. Expanding an under discussion category is always allowed. The reactions to this, such as claiming I was engaging in "placing a scarlet letter" can not be said to have given a fair or balanced summary of what was going on, or being the reasoned or non-accusatory appeals people should be allowed before they are placed under such hugely broad bans, that essentially prevent virtually all contributions to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Since I was asked why I support the Group of 88 category, I will explain. I believe in due process. That means innocent until proven guilty. That is the antithesis of what was seen at Duke. Beyond that, African-Americans are far more hurt by a failure to presume innocence than any other group. That said, we do not ban people from participation in Wikipedia because they supported categories that were found to not align with policies. We have deleted so many categories that it would be just plain ludicrous if we did so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To paint all 88 as being in some non-existent organization, with the inherent implication that they all stand behind their own rush to judgment even to this day, is similar to the HUAC's branding everyone who ever went to a Communist meeting as if they were still "card-carrying" Communists. It's unfair, undue weight, BLP violation, smacks of a political agenda, and any other number of issues. Your continued defense of it is most unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Since the Gang of 88 continue to advance in their academic careers, any comparison to HUAC makes no sense. If there were similarities to HUAC it was in how those who dared to stand against the guilt-presumptions of the Group of 88 were so viciously attacked. Until Proven Innocent directly attacks this ludicrous attempt to paint as McCarthyite those who did not join in the witch-hunt to convinct someone for what proved to be a totally fabricated crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Would both of your mind slowing down the number of replies to this thread? It's getting ridiculous.--v/r - TP 06:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Those Mormon comments are out of line and absolutely uncalled for. If we searched for ulterior motives and used religion as the basis we would have no credibility.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is at least the 3rd time, maybe more, a sustained attack has been made on my Wikipedia behavior in a way that tries to use my religion against me. It is a most disturbing reflection of an intolerance towards certain religions by many Wikipedia editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• It probably was inappropriate but was it "sustained" and who are the "many"? I see one person making the point. I also see a most peculiar peppering of responses from both yourself and Bugs - as someone else has said, could you both slow down a bit and give others a chance? - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why people will not let someone admit their mistake and seek forgiveness is beyond me. I am sorry, and will admit I was wrong in my intemperate edits. I let emotions undermine good judgement. I let my frustration at violations of due process cloud me against balanced and fair articles. I am sorry for these things. Will being sorry and having a sincere desire to change do any good? I don't know. I wish it would. I wish Wikipedia editors would consider the sum total of ones contributions, and not try to zero in or attack just a small part of ones contributions. I wish people would consider peaceful methods. I wish one was not attacked now for things that happened 6 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Two reasons I can see. #1) You are Bludgeoning the process and 2) You have had ample opportunities in the past to curb your behavior and have failed to do so.--v/r - TP 06:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why people will not let someone admit their mistake and seek forgiveness is beyond me. I am sorry, and will admit I was wrong in my intemperate edits. I let emotions undermine good judgement. I let my frustration at violations of due process cloud me against balanced and fair articles. I am sorry for these things. Will being sorry and having a sincere desire to change do any good? I don't know. I wish it would. I wish Wikipedia editors would consider the sum total of ones contributions, and not try to zero in or attack just a small part of ones contributions. I wish people would consider peaceful methods. I wish one was not attacked now for things that happened 6 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− *The total rudeness in the following is another example of how this was totally pre-mature, and built around comments that cannot at all be sad to have given me a fair chance to consider the issue "Your edit to Lee D. Baker has been undone by Johnpacklambert without any discussion on the talk page (but an IP has appeared to muddy the waters). Nigel Pap (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC) − I reverted. Can't see what else happened--stupid iPad. Johnpacklambert needs to find a more suitable hobby than fucking around with real people's biographies. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− It seems to me that John is on a POV pushing rampage and really needs to calm down. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− When is he not POV pushing? Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− A propos teenagers and fibbing, when he's sleeping. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− The totally out of line language and attacks on another individual are not at all justified. Such language and unfounded attacks are not at all appropriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− − Johnpacklambert is still at it. I think my request for help at the administrator's noticeboard was closed prematurely. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− why do we have to keep discussing this? Please, let's reopen the BLP topic ban discussion. He really shouldn't be editing in this area as he can't be trusted. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) As you wish, Viriditas: now at ANI. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− Please review the links I posted. He seems to be protected from any type of ban. I have no idea why this is but I find it strange considering the massive disruption he's responsible for on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)" These are comments that are rude, attackative, and probably by their very nature violate many Wikipedia rules on the way we speak to and about other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have not had ample opportunities in the past. I have only had attacks like I posted above. There are multiple others times in other discussions when I was attacked for my religion. I am not allowed to defend myself at all, and people are selectively attacking my broad record of contributions to the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• the fact that the person who brought this discussion in the first place was the one who used the f word against my actions should seriously mitigate against it being given much consideration. Such attack phrasing should not be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban John stikes me as a well-informed and valuable contributor here. I only read a couple of the link above and one cited as the strongest was a very obvious witch-hunt. I'm more familiar with his work on the 88 and there's nothing there close to worth banning anyone for. The sources John used for the 88 aren't perhaps quite perfect for a BLP (though would be sufficient elsewhere) and in some cases John should be strengthening them when restoring the material (though it might be nice if others cooperated and helped with this and at least suggested it rather than just deleting the material). Anyway, assuming good faith then all I really see there is a bit of laziness on John's part when faced with a complex and time-consuming task - he just needs to knuckle down and do some reading. It's understandable that people should get angry about COI editing on such a sensitive topic as the Duke Lacrosse case and I've already offered some guidance to John on how to improve his editing and he has responded very well indeed. If John is also promising to improve his sourcing slightly and is willing to start listening to advice then there really aren't any issues left here other than to ask all editors to be a little more mindful of their tone and of how they come across on sensitive issues such as this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for JPL per TParis and Cullen. Also, someone should do JPL a favour and give him a 24 hour block so he doesn't continue what he's doing in this thread.. DeCausa (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• John, Could you provide a Diff? And dude go Diva. I've only see Bugs attack your religion but that is separate from what you just posted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The fact that I can not even speak in my own defense in a thread, where I am attacked for my religion and called a racist because of it, is a bit disturbing. The fact that my admission that I was wrong, and my striking of my most out -of-line comments is totally ignored is also disturbing. The fact that people want to topic ban from over half of all biographical articles on what was clearly behavior related to only a very select group of articles also shows a willingness to over-reach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• One of the people who says they want to topic ban me also asked me a question about proving a specific point about the Group of 88 State. Here is a link to their statement. http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/110273/listening_statement_p.jpg I will leave it to those willing to read Until Proven Innocent to learn why some of the things said are true, but not in the way intended by the Duke faculty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You can absolutely speak in your own defnse. That attack on your religion was absolutely reprehensible. Can you provide a diff for the comments you mention above? While the attack on your religion is uncalled for, mixing that with other comments unrelated to your religion by people who have not spoken about you religion is laying it on abit thick in my opinion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I forgot how to do diffs, but I think [51] might provide what you are looking for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Since people have asked me to explain my views on The Group of 88, I will provide quotes from Until Proven Innocent, published by Thomas Dunne Books. P. 145 "The Group of 88 also committed themselves to "turning up the volume." As if the potbangers needed a faculty endorsement, the statement concluded, "To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard." By this point, of course, the protesters had plastered the campus with wanted posters showing the lacrosse players' photos; chanted outside 610 North Buchanan, "Time to confess"; and waved a banner proclaiming, CASTRATE. Neither in the statement nor subsequently did the signatories say why it was so important that the protestors not wait." The edit that evidently was the turning point leading to this whole ANI was sparked by this paragraph from p. 106 of the same book, at least this is the main source of the ideas behind it "Leading the rush-to-judgement crowd at Duke was Houston A. Baker Jr., a professor of English and of African and African-American Studies. He showed his mettle in a March 29 public letter to Duke administrators that boiled with malice against "this white athletic team" - a team whose whiteness Baker's fifteen-paragraph letter stressed no fewer than ten times. He demanded the "immediate dismissals" of all lacrosse players and coaches, without acknowledging their protestations of innocence or the evidence. He assailed "a 'culture of silence' that seeks to protect white, male athletic violence." He denounced the lacrosse players as "white, violent, drunken men ... veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech." He bemoaned their alleged feeling that "they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under cover of silent whiteness." Treating as gospel Kim Robert's transparently bogus 911 report of being pelted with multiple racial epithets as she drove (or walked) past the lacrosse house, he asserted that the lacrosse players' "violence and raucous witness injured [a black woman] for life." He stereotyped them as embodiments of "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white, male privilege loosed amongst us."" So those seem to be my main reliable-source starting points in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The link to the text of the advertisement provided by Johnpacklambert utterly fails to provide a quote that prejudges the accused lacrosse players as guilty, a false charge that the editor has made stridently and repeatedly. In the section above, he is engaging in classic "guilt by association" tactics, implying that 87 people should be held accountable for the rhetorical excesses of one of their colleagues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• support topic ban for no more than 2 months. I think that JPL just needs time to cool down, and I feel a TB is a good way to do this, and also reducing their chances of greater sanctions. Overall, they seem to be a good editor, so I can not support any blocks as of now, but if this continues, my view may change. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note: I have topic-banned Johnpacklambert under the BLP discretionary sanctions rule from all edits regarding the Duke lacrosse case/"Group of 88" topic area. No prejudice to any wider sanctions regarding all BLPs or all BLP categorizations, if there's consensus here that those are needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• oppose BLP or categorization topic ban. People once tried to topic ban JPL for diffusing a single biography into a subcategory. The filipacchi thing is done with, JPL already apologized for that, and I can point to dozens of other good faith editors who have made exactly the same mistake JPL did - even quite recently- but they aren't considered category-boogieman because they weren't scape-goated by the media. I do support a topic ban of at least 2 months on the group of 88 thing - through his comments JPL feels strongly that these professors must be shamed or tagged for their participation, I think that's not acceptable to push a POV in such a strong fashion. The reason to add group of 88 content should be a neutral assessment that this is due, but I don't get the feeling jPL is behaving neutrally in this regard. But a topic ban in categorization? Seriously? Do any of you know why most articles are in correct categories here? The name is JohnPacklambert. He has deghettoiZed probably thousands of biographies and he was one of those after category gate who actually populated American women novelists bringing it from 500 to 2000 biographies - and he did so without ghettoizing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - As I closed the last discussion, good judgement prevents me from doing the same here. If I were to, it would likely say "As Fut. Perf. has already exercised good judgement and topic banned JPL under our discretionary sanctions rule for BLPs, the immediate problem is dealt with. I would say again the rest is more heat than light, with a good dose of religion bashing thrown in. JPL can seek lifting of the sanctions after 6 months at WP:AN and is hereby admonished as to his actions and warned that if his emotions get the better of him again on BLP articles, he may be looking at a full topic ban on all BLP material in the future." Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't much like grouping people into some category because of their religion either. But I can see no benefit to Wikipedia allowing JohnPacklambert to roam articles(especially BLPs) to insert his rather extreme POV. I have no real knowledge of this editor, save noticing his comments, threads and such on ANI and other venues. But one could just look at his obvious battleground behavior and refusal to accept it is him that needs to change. This post is an example of his ongoing battle to 'right great wrongs', while he canvasses editors he believes will support his battle. The topic ban is just delaying the inevitable. Dave Dial (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He also popped into my page, and I support the actions of Fut. Perf., dealing with the singular issue with a singular bullet. Anything else should be taken to WP:RFC/U to be honest. Then if a discussion at WP:AN over a general topic is needed, it can be done, but we have a bad habit of doing knee jerk topic bans around here, and honestly, it speaks poorly of us as a community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

24.56.15.29 edits to I Wear Your Shirt

I wrote at User talk:24.56.15.29:

Please stop changing "Kelly and Steve Sadler" to "Kelly and Vincent Stein" in the article I Wear Your Shirt, which you did 9 November 2013, 3 January 2014, 3 January 2014 again, 1 June 2014, and 4 July 2014. Your change contradicts the article from The Leader (http://www.webcitation.org/5l7u87VZ1). If you can find a reliable source that verifies that "Kelly and Vincent Stein" are the parents of I Wear Your Shirt's founder, please provide it on Talk:I Wear Your Shirt. Otherwise, further edits like this to I Wear Your Shirt will lead to a block by an administrator. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

24.56.15.29 made the change again at 20:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

I am not posting this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because that noticeboard says:

The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.

The user is not active right now.

Would an admin review this and block 24.56.15.29 for a lengthy period of time? 24.56.15.29 appears to be a static IP since the IP has been making the same incorrect edits since November 2013, eight months ago. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Flight

I have been receiving continued abuse and harassment from someone named user:Peter_Flight.

I am not sure how to link appropriately but you will see his list of changes on my talk history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidmwilliams&action=history

He has posted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:103.27.225.82, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/139.216.98.58, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Flight and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.27.224.127.

Ironically, when I requested help, I got chastised from an editor!

Nevertheless, apart from making one comment on Peter Flight's talk page (stating he was being cowardly) I have had no interaction with this person and his continued and unprovoked attacks are not fair, or warranted, or appreciated.

I would appreciate some admin involvement to assist with keeping this person away. Davidmwilliams (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Response from 'other editor'. David retaliated by calling him a coward. I warned David (level 1) and Peter (Only warning) as we don't add flame to the fire and pointed him to Wikipedia:Civility. David has ignored it and has deleted my advice on his talk page and seems to not realize that he is adding flame to fire. He has also used the edit summary to call my comments stupid. I also pointed him here as the proper place to go with an editor like this.

Peter on the other seems to be a sock puppet that has had no prior history with David (with this account at least). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

To add some more information, Peter Flight, whoever he is, appears to have a grievance with an organisation called SKILLED Group. I created that page over 7 years ago, as an ancillary page to my topic on labour hire, which I also created. My reasoning there is simply SKILLED Group is the largest Australian labour hire organisation. Nevertheless, that is moot; the point being I wrote an article on labour hire then another on a company. I don't work for that company and I most certainly have never had any involvement of marketing that company. Peter Flight appears to be disgruntled with them - for reasons I have no knowledge of - and is taking it out on me, despite me being entirely irrelevant to his alleged grievance. This sort of abuse is not something that Wikipedia should permit. Davidmwilliams (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like F-uck Skilled n labour hire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock puppet of Peter Flight. I think Mr. F-uck probably needs a quick block before he becomes even more disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And Reaper Eternal has cleaned up the whole mess. Thanks. With the vandalism redacted, articles protected, and blocks for the disruptive users, I think we may be done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of "cannot edit own talk page"

I was blocked two days ago for 48 hours and went through the standard {{unblock}} thrust and parry. Upon hitting a snag on my GIS side project, I decided to do a bit of article work on my talk page. The blocking admin (Bbb23) reverted with the comment "you can't remove this while you're blocked - if you do it again, I'll revoke talk page access". Doing some looking into the matter, I wound up at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, which says that "declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" are not to be removed (presumably so you can't fool the admins by putting another unblock request there, which I didn't, but Bbb23 had a hammer and I was a nail). So I restored my work but kept the unblock template, for which I was reverted by another admin (Ohnoitsjamie), who changed my block to add "cannot edit own talk page". Zuh? I politely emailed Ohnoitsjamie with no response. (Ironically, my block was in part for edit warring without discussion, exactly what these two admins did with me on my own talk page.)

I'm not looking for an apology. I'm just asking for better awareness of the issue and some sort of note on my block log that the change of block was bogus (since I know how these things can be used against me in future situations). Thanks. --NE2 06:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To my understanding, block logs aren't subject to subsequent editing or expungement, and using the block log to do things that isn't blocking or unblocking is rather questionable in my view. I also suspect that the reasoning behind the revocation of talk page access is more multifaceted than simply because you were using your user talk page as a staging area during the block. You had also removed a large amount of other discussion (which might have been relevant to the administrator reviewing your unblock request), your edit summary did not seem particularly civil, and neither of your unblock requests addressed the underlying problem that led to the block (they instead strike me as pushing the blame for edit warring elsewhere). Repeated spurious unblock requests are commonly used as grounds to revoke talk page access, as are uncivil comments. While I would not personally have revoked talk page access, I think it falls entirely within Ohnoitsjamie's discretion to have done so. Even if arguably wrong, I don't think it's so out-and-out wrongful that a notation on your block log might be merited. I would also point out that talk page access was lost for less than four hours; if outright wrongful that shouldn't matter, but once we're in judgment call territory, I think it's particularly relevant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also notified both admins you mention above of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I just came here since I forgot to notify them. I'm pretty sure I've seen notes placed in block logs. PS: when I removed the declined unblock request, I also removed the open unblock request, and everything else on the page. If you can tell me how that goes against the spirit of the 'don't remove declined unblock requests' rule, I'll [insert demeaning thing]. --NE2 07:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Block logs cannot be annotated. The only way around that limitation is through a phony block or unblock action. What I find amazing throughout your block is given the level of your experience your lack of insight into your own behavior, let alone Wikipedia policy, which apparently doesn't apply to you. I've seen this kind of arrogance in some other long-term editors, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, but some acknowledgment of the part you played in the underlying problem would have been welcome. I didn't see it then and I don't see it now. As for my removing more than I needed to, when an editor removes a tremendous amount of material, including pieces they're not permitted to remove, I don't surgically determine what to keep and what not to. That's up to them. I just revert the edit. If they do it in separate edits, I'll undo only the offending edit, but, otherwise, it's not my burden. And, frankly, some of the crap you added to the talk page shouldn't be on a talk page, and the only reason you put it there was because it was the only page you could edit during your block, so I wasn't sorry to see it go. Your talk page during a block is to be used to make reasonable unblock requests, to discuss the block, and to discuss your behavior, not for you to continue editing Wikipedia as if nothing happened with your talk page becoming your own private micro-wikipedia. I can't speak for Ohnoitsjamie's revocation of your talk page access, but Ohnoitsjamie is a very patient admin, and my guess is he'd had enough of your attitude and abuse of the process, with the edit summary being the last straw. If you can't see any of this, so be it, but at least go do something constructive rather than coming to ANI and bitching about everyone else while ignoring your role ab initio. Oh, and just so you know, I don't even usually bother responding to these sorts of empty complaints, and it's unlikely I'll have anything more to say. I'm not fond of the endless repetitive drama of ANI topics, and this one has much less merit than many.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Big surprise. The abuser denies any abuse occurred. PS: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log. And where's the policy prohibiting working on an article on the user talk during a block? --NE2 08:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have seen cases where that has been done (in the distant past), but I'm of the opinion that it's become very uncommon and disfavored. I think it's to the point that the codified policy is out of step with the actual practice of the community, which is not to use the block log for such purposes. And even if it were available, I don't think it's ever necessary. And in cases like these, where there's no bright-line violation of policy by the blocking admin, it probably should not be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: I'm of the opinion that both admins who interceded on your page did so in error but there's absolutely nothing to gain by debasing the discussion with pointless and inflammatory comments such as "Big surprise. The abuser denies any abuse occurred". Protonk (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. "Your talk page during a block is to be used to make reasonable unblock requests, to discuss the block, and to discuss your behavior, not for you to continue editing Wikipedia as if nothing happened with your talk page becoming your own private micro-wikipedia" is pretty out of bounds given my understanding of blocks and the policies surrounding them. Blocks exist to prevent disruption, not to send an editor to their room without dinner. If I'm blocked I can certainly go to the bar, visit a park or play a video game just as if nothing happened. Talk page editing is a privilege, technically, but there's no reason to magnify what was (IMO) an understandable error in enforcing blocking policy by treating it as a morality play. More to the point (and as I questioned below) what is gained by doing so? Prevented from using their page as a sandbox, is NE2 now less likely to disrupt the wiki when the block expires? What is gained from enforcing this policy to the letter rather than just saying "they can't influence anyone who isn't reading their talk page" and leaving well enough alone until the relatively short block expires. If NE2 were blocked indefinitely or banned I could see the purpose (even then I'm not convinced we have any strong impetus toward action), but for a 2 day block? Protonk (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• No issue above. Editors cannot remove things from their talkpage that are relevant to the current block, including discussion about it and discussion surrounding unblocks. At the same time, while blocked, the sole reason they retain access to their talkpage is to discuss potential unblocks. The above isn't even worth discussion - SOP was followed, unfortunately. the panda ₯’ 09:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have opposed this Scarlet Letter policy for years, and maybe this is typical, but applying it to mere discussion seems a new low to me. (I think in this particular case the block notice itself was removed, but this issue seems worth addressing in general) I knew that the admins were telling editors, some of whom are listed under their actual names, that they cannot remove the block template itself. But now you're saying that even third party comments on anything "relevant" to the block. This is material the editor could legitimately have removed prior to being blocked! Which raises the question, I suppose, of whether in the future admins or 'helpful members of the community' will pore over the archives of the blocked user's page to pull out every nasty or unfortunate interaction they ever had and reinsert it, just to be consistent with this idea! The problem I see here is that you're allowing an editor to access only one page, then laying vague and unexpected policies on him whose primary purpose is to be annoying. The block template itself doesn't have a "do not remove" text, let alone a "do not remove anything vaguely related". I feel like the definition of success behind a policy like that is not that the blocked editor learns a lesson, but that he makes his way down the greased chute to the indefinite exit without delay. Clearly admins notice when blocked user talk pages have been changed, so why not use or improve the basic tools to make sure they are seeing all the data, rather than imposing extra rules on blocked editors? Wnt (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I will just add that there is a great deal of disagreement on what the talk page can be used for. Some say "only things related to the block/unblock", and I don't subscribe to that in the least. Anything "Wikipedia related" that isn't violating some policy should be acceptable, and policy seems to back me on this, as I don't see a bar to do such explicitly in policy. Obviously, we don't want soapboxing and such, but Wikipedia related actions and discussions are done all the time, and we we selectively enforce the "only talk about blocks" non-existing rule, we create an uneven playing field and an unfair environment for editors. We admin need to NOT be micromanaging the words of a blocked editor as long as they are not violating some obvious policy on civility, BLP or soapboxing. I do agree that templates must stay, but the community has said that other discussion doesn't have to, against my preferences. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I was following through with Bbb23's warning to not blank material relevant to an active block discussion. I probably would've waited for Bbb23 to do the honors themselves, were it not for the snarky edit summaries, and the fact that the block was due to expire soon anyway. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Dennis is right - there is no policy rule or consensus that says user talk pages can only be used to discuss a block, and nothing that says that no discussion relating to a block can be removed. And when Panda says "Editors cannot remove things from their talkpage that are relevant to the current block, including discussion about it and discussion surrounding unblocks" he is wrong - or perhaps he can provide evidence for his position? Any admin sanctions imposed on an editor for disobeying a non-existent policy is an abuse of admin power. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I should leave bad enough alone but what can and can't be removed from an editor's talk page has been an incessant, confusing discussion for years. To show how contentious it is, the latest is an RfC (not the first) that was "closed" (I didn't notice it until now) by an administrator who actually voted in the RfC (I just reverted - that oughta go over well). She actually refers to me by name because she thinks my position on the matter sucks. I'm not going to revisit the pros and cons of the policy or guideline (there's dispute about that, too). I find it numbing and it only serves to remind me of how much I dislike interminable Wikipedia discussions. In this instance, even assuming Ohnoitsjamie should not have revoked talk page access, it's no big deal. Given my earlier threat, I personally probably would not have done so, although that might have been based in part on the fact that the snarky comment was directed at me, and I don't like reacting to those things with tools. But if others want to continue this discussion for whatever reason, there's not much I can do about it. I have limited authority when it comes to the free-for-all known as ANI and AN. Knock yourselves out. I'll go back to clerking at SPI where at least for the most part my work is appreciated. When I come here, I wonder why I bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest that, if the consensus on things like revoking TPA and non-appeal activities on talk pages is unclear, we should err on the side of not taking admin actions, particularly when they leave indelible log entries that, like it or not, others will judge on. If wrongly revoking TPA wasn't a big deal, then wrongly not revoking TPA wasn't a big deal either, and all other things being equal, we should opt for the latter over risking the former. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And honestly, it was a two-day block. How was Wikipedia protected by preventing an editor on a short-term block from pre-planning constructive changes for when they come off it? Resolute 16:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) This comment most likely will not help anyone, but I have just got to say that this is a very petty issue. In my opinion, while the block-related notices should not have been removed, Bbb23 should have referred specifically to what was outlined in policy, and NE2 should not have used the bad edit summaries. I don't know how much of this is obvious or not, but I just thought I should say something about this. Dustin (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• As with most user/user talk disputes, my overriding question is "why?" Why would two admins bother to intervene when a blocked user edits their own talk page, the second revoking access entirely? What was gained by that? We have guidance on not removing unblock notices, great. But the spirit of that guidance is bent toward preventing an editor from concealing past unblock requests, not preventing them from using their talk page as a staging area while they're blocked (which disallows their use of another page as a sandbox). Even if we stick to the letter of the policy, what good has come from reverting those edits and restricting talk page access?
• With respect to User:Ohnoitsjamie, in what universe is a snarky edit summary grounds for revoking talk page access? How does that come close to abusing talk page privileges while blocked? Was there some threat of future nefarious edit summaries in which NE2 might show insufficient deference to their betters? What abuse did you prevent? The beautiful thing about blocks is that for the duration of the block, you can basically ignore the blocked editor. If someone blocks me for being a dick, I can spittle and froth and curse on my talk page all I want with exactly 0 disruption to the rest of the project for the duration of the block. Unless I ping a user or add an {{unblock}} template, the only people who'll even know I've edited the page will be those already watching it. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• An editor can edit his own talk page, while blocked, except for removing unblock requests. It is incorrect to assert that he cannot do any edits except for block-related matters. And he can remove material related to the reasons for the block, except for the unblock request, since it is still in the talk page history (excepting office actions or revdel.). This is on the same principle that an editor is permitted to remove warnings. It can be tempting to be overzealous to the point of becoming authoritarian disciplinarians who want to escalate the punishment if there is any hint of backtalk. Edison (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Except in very extreme circumstances, admins who block users should step aside after instituting the block to let other admins handle subsequent issues. Likewise, admins who block should make every effort to be available for consultation and discussion after blocking. Blocks should not be made for edit summaries unless there is some sort of obvious disruption that can be pointed to and, in that case, the blocking administrator should clearly state what that disruption is. This is the nice thing to do. jps (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Putting aside this case and just speaking generally, I often participate in post-block discussions after I've blocked someone. Sometimes it's to answer questions of the blocked editor. Other times it's to clarify the circumstances of the block for uninvolved administrators. Sometimes I accept an unblock request. Of course, I never decline the unblock request of someone I blocked, not because it's not "nice" but because it's against policy. Indeed most of what I just said is outlined at WP:BLOCK ("As part of an unblock request, uninvolved editors may discuss the block, and the blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block, or provide further information. Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked.").--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all good practice, but I also think you should not have threatened to escalate enforcement actions against the user you blocked. To be clear, doing so is not contrary to policy, but I think stepping away from escalations of enforcement actions is a nice thing to do after you've handed out discipline. Simply asking another admin to step in would have avoided a lot of this drama. Have you ever been blocked? I think it would be instructive for admins to experience what it's like. jps (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking in general again: I think they key here is understanding a little about human behavior and basic psychology. If I block someone and they scream "You are a fucking dick!", I don't want another admin taking away talk page access. For that matter, don't ever block someone if they say that to me, I'm a big boy, I can handle being called a dick. Venting is a pretty normal process, and once we stuff someone into their talk page cage and they can't escape, you have to expect a little venting from many people. This isn't high school, we can tolerate the foul language when it is restricted to their own talk page. The best thing to do is simply ignore someone who is venting (I mean EVERYONE, not just admin), so you don't feed them and make it worse. They will calm down, just leave them alone, they are understandably frustrated, even if they ARE the reason they were blocked to begin with. And of course, they can talk about articles, as long as they aren't trying to cause problems by proxy. We aren't cops, they aren't criminals. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind venting too much, particularly if it's against me. After all, I blocked them; it's not like I'm they're favorite administrator at the moment. I'm not crazy when they attack others, though, and the worst is when they show no insight into their own (mis)behavior. Everything depends on the circumstances, though, and my decision how to handle whaever it is varies. Although I'm not happy with the result on WP:BLANKING, one good thing to come out of it is greater clarity, so that will impact the aftermath of future blocks for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it helps if EVERYONE ignores venting, but sometimes a kind word and a sympathetic note can be very nice for someone put in the cage. Even if it doesn't result in an unblock, just the very fact that there can be an interaction independent of the WP:PUNITIVE-feeling that one gets when one is prevented from using one's user account to change most of the database can do a lot more to help situations than ignoring cage-rattling or, (worse) threatening to send them to smaller cages. Each situation is obviously different, but I actually had an excellent exchange with an admin who blocked me once and, through that conversation, we reached an agreement whereby I was unblocked. It was a strange and beautiful thing. I gave the admin an award, but I fear that this sort of niceness is the exception rather than the rule here. Ho-hum... as I said, not specifically against policy, just a nice thing to have happen. jps (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, in this type of situation, I sometimes wish that instead of blocking a good-faith editor who has gotten over-embroiled in a content dispute on a particular page, and thus barring that editor from working on the other millions of pages as well, that an administrator could just direct the editor not to edit that page (or that page and any related pages) for a day or a week. Perhaps that would have been a better solution in this instance than anything suggested so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I, and I know of at least one other administrator, have often used this approach. You might be surprised how often it's met with resistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Because policy doesn't currently allow for it, outside of GS or DS. I've tried it once when I first got the bit, I thought it was naturally allowed, but it isn't. I apologized for the attempt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean that it was interpreted as a topic ban, and that is indeed one of the arguments by those editors who resisted. However, there are arguments to the contrary, but I don't feel like opening up that can of worms at the moment. One can at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have argued before that a "Block User:X from Page Y" button would be a good tool to develop for both these situations and for the topic bans to replace the rather sledgehammer-like blocking tools that have been employed since 2001. jps (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've actually thought the same thing, as that is better than full protect or blocking when the problem is one or two editors and others are editing that article just fine. There is a chance for abuse so the policy that would allow such a thing would have to be crafted carefully, but a temporary "topic block" for a period of no more than say a week or two might be worth exploring. Even if it went into effect immediately but had to automatically go to WP:AN by that same admin for review, as a safety. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute the initial block. I did sort of ask for it by edit warring into 3RR territory and then reporting it at the 3RR board. (By the way, between the edit war and the block, we did resolve it semi-amicably, with the article cited in my block being handled in a different way, and the others sitting there as non-section redirects until someone else realizes they might be better as section redirects. So if anything the block was a bit late, but not exactly unexpected.) What I do object to is the ham-handed handling of an innocent removal of a declined unblock template. --NE2 05:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of admins have hands of delicious ham, as you no doubt learned. Some of them are needlessly rude as well, which it seems you've had a taste of as well. Enforcers gotta enforce and each do it their own way. Sorry you ran into Detective Callahan instead of Andy Griffith. Nothing you can realistically do or say will change that. If it happens again, try not to let some asshole on the internet ruin your day.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jarlaxle sock

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

---

No admin seems to be currently watching WP:AIV - could someone please block the Jarlaxle socks vandalising User talk:Nishidani? Thanks --NSH001 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Materialscientist for blocking this character. --NSH001 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Vietnam IPs

Good day, fine admins. IP 117.3.101.66 has been rather disruptive to articles related to Disney and Beauty and the Beast lately. I believe the user hops IPs, so this is just a symptom. Typically, the user introduces a mix of subtle vandalism (Changing Mrs. Potts name to Mrs. Potts Tea, for example) but their hallmark appears to be the introduction of absolute gibberish.

Beauty and the Beast is an American animated sequel spin off television series second It features Belle and the Beast is a characters latest to the originally movies. This movies is the first Walt Disney Animation Studios classic series...Beauty and the Beast TV series premiered coming in reruns on December 10, 2015 on Disney Junior, Beauty and the Beast to launch coming the Beauty and the Beast Instead TV series on Disney Channel.

So there you go. Now why I'm reporting this here instead of AIV, is that I've seen a number of Vietnam-based IPs hitting articles related to Disney, for example Disney Channel (Asia) was getting walloped with regular disruptive edits from Vietnam, particularly in the early half of 2014 and the style is identical--they introduce a lot of word salad.

Disney Channel Asia aired 1½ hours and 2 2/7 hours of Phineas and Ferb celebrate highlights Disney Channel for Smartphone Applications at in December 2012, 2013 and 2014 of I ♥ Phineas and Ferb February, Platypus Day, Crazy 4 You, Phineas and Ferb 100th Backyard Adventures, Phineas and Ferb Monstober and Phineas and Ferb Fa-la-la-lidays by Smartphone Applications Disney Channel at American every day with a new episode on Sundays. Under the contest by celebrate Phineas and Ferb Monstober and Phineas and Ferb Fa-la-la-lidays at American launched on Smartphone Applications Disney Channel by under the broadcasting coordination at American, the deep suicide 6 highlights with Phineas and Ferb of Disney Channel.

Did you notice the phrase "deep suicide"? Spooky. Anyhow, the IP referenced above could probably stand to be blocked, but if there's a way to do a range block or something, that might be something to consider. And if we could get some extra eyes at these affected articles to demonstrate a swift reversions and swift blocking that'd be appreciated too.

Here are some other Vietnam IPs that were generating disruptions at the Disney Channel Asia article. I'm only presenting these for background info--they haven't edited in months: 14.162.184.248, 123.16.121.131, 14.162.179.31, 113.178.44.8, 113.190.163.151. This one is fun to read. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The gibberish is most probably the result of the text being machine translated from Vietnamese. I encountered a Vietnamese IP on another article the other day, repeatedly making very strange edits, not responding to messages and not stopping until I machine translated a message to them into Vietnamese and posted it on their talk page. Try it, it might work. Thomas.W ^talk 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of BLP's

User:Veto118 continues to add unsourced, contentious statements to political BLP's despite repeated warnings.

Warnings: 1 2 3 4

Most recent unsourced, contentious edit: [52]CFredkin (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see a mix of problematic/unsourced edits and reasonable (I didn't investigate the sourcing) sourced edits to BLPs. This gives me a sense that if someone were to talk to them like a human about the specific problems and explain in plain english the expectations for BLPs, we might have some success. I'll hang off on doing so until some other folks have commented or the problematic edits continue, but I'd prefer that as a first step. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the issue can be described more clearly on the user's talk page. Multiple editors have attempted to engage. So far, the user has declined to engage there or on any other Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing deleted comments I don't see anything other than the results of editors hitting a button in twinkle, resulting in an automatically generated warning and a link to policy. What I'm suggesting is that someone sit down and write a real explanation of the problem and a path for the editor to resolve that problem. Templates are fine and all that, but it's folly to think that the solution to "this editor isn't getting the message" is to assume only that the editor is the problem, not the message. For editors who can be productive members of the community we shouldn't piss that opportunity away in order to reinforce the sufficiency of communication by template. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is based on a template, the following message seems to me to neutrally describe the issue and provide a straightforward way for the user to get more information. The fact that they are providing sources for some of their edits, tells me that they know how to provide citations. They are just choosing not to in many cases. If you feel that there's a better way to address this, can you please take a crack at doing so?

"Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Tim Johnson (U.S. Senator). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Those templated messages are so effective at communication it's a wonder the community developed a longstanding practice against doing so! Essay or not, it's relatively standard practice to engage in discussion with fellow editors rather than festooning their page with the same message over and over again. That we don't tend to do so for new editors is a mix of practicality (in many, many cases, templated warnings are sufficient or the effort to write a personalized message is prohibitive given the volume of work regular editors face) and insularity. Regardless of the efficacy or fairness issues inherent to exclusively communicating with new editors via semi-automated messages when faced with the situation where the messages provably haven't worked we should at least imagine the possibility that the message itself is insufficient. In many cases (not saying that's what's happening here), new users dismiss warnings as boilerplate or bot-generated spam (c.f. this paper, and others). I'm happy to leave a message for the editor on their talk page. I plan to do so after waiting a bit to see if they respond at AN/I or if some other issue crops up which might make such an effort pointless. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23

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

---

Why is Bbb23 still an admin on here? I posted a completely legit band article and it was deleted, I read Bbb23's talk page and it is full of complaints, someone do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.63.229 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any edits or deleted edits by you outside of this post. Which account were you using? I can't really comment on the deletion unless I can see the article. We have standards for band articles and those that don't meet the minimum standards are deleted on site. See here. Chillum 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is one of the most capable admins we have! Take a look at all the deletions performed every day. The deletion of your band was very likely for good reason. What's the name of the band? I would like to see for myself whether the deletion was a good one. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I have notified Bbb23 of this discussion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Bigoted attacks on an editors religion

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

---

I find the attacks on me for being a Mormon and implications that this shows I must be a racist by User:Baseball Bugs to violate all the rules of assuming good faith and basic decency in Wikipedia. This user needs to be summarily banned from bringing up personal information about any user in any discussion, and maybe other sanctions should be enacted as well. I am sick and tired of people attacking me for my religion, once I was accused of being motivated to edit Jewish articles in the way I was because of some antagonism to Jews I must have as a Mormon, and during the slew of people ganging up on me in the wake of the Filipacci scandal, people also made attacks on me based on my religion. This short of behavior should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. In light of the gratuitous attack on me as "sexist" in the deletion discussion for the article on Ari Teman, I have decided I have been long suffering enough, and I want something more done about these unfounded attempts to implicate me as a racist, especially when they come from people who A-ignore the fact I was born in 1980, which means I was raised in an environment very much from what their false attacks claim, B-clearly show they have never read the most informative work on the issues at hand, J. B. Haws Oxford University Press published ground-breaking work The Mormon Image in the American Mind. I am not going to sit back an let Baseball Bugs continue his bigoted attacks. I may be able to live with them, but I want to create an environment that is not selectively hostile to some views, and that means that we need to proactively work to end such poisonous rhetoric.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't follow very closely the discussion on topic-banning John, but I thought BB's comments were way out of line. Many editors here acknowledge things about their politics, religion, etc. Those labels, whatever they may be, are presumptively irrelevant to their editing here. If there's independent evidence of non-neutral editing, fine, but even then, the labels don't have to be brought into the picture. At best, BB's comments constitute personal attacks and should not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about your editing, but I was surprised that Baseball Bugs was not sanctioned for his comments. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• As much as I want this issue to go away (and anyone following along knows that is the case), I do think that Baseball Bugs owes a sincere apology here, and if he disagrees, needs to take a day off and contemplate the section I had to hat above. It shocked me, enough to collapse it as being a distraction and just patently offensive. It really did cross the line on civility in a big and obvious way. I don't want to see yet another public hanging or mob over the issue, and just hope Bugs will step back far enough to see it was wrong and simply do the right thing. Things are already inflamed enough, and I can't really fault JPL for wanting an answer here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Has he apologized for his efforts to McCarthyize the so-called group of 88? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, and he has a topic ban from anything related to it as a consequence. Are you suggesting we sanction you for refusal to fix your own mistakes? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • How hard is it to say "I'm sorry for implying that your privately held religious beliefs predispose you toward racism and should invite skepticism of your actions"? Protonk (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I am not yet convinced that I've got it wrong. I am also puzzled by his complaints alleging religious bigotry, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the inherent bigotry in McCarthyizing the "group of 88". But if he is now banned from doing that kind of thing, then 's all right; close the box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • P.S. When did I ever get involved in an article called Ari Teman? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Why stop there? Jews shouldn't be able to edit articles on economics because of their history of financial malfeasance. Catholics need to stay away from articles about children, because they're child abusers. Muslims should probably be topic-banned from nitrogen chemistry-related articles for obvious reasons. Something for everyone! 199.47.72.58 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The persistent belief that using inflammatory language like accusing someone of "McCarthyism" is acceptable discourse, shows that Baseball Bugs is not at all close to understanding the basic principal of civil discourse. He has consistently shown any ability to be civil, or any recognition that accusing someone of being racist based on their religion is 100% wrong. Especially when it is demonstrably false, at least as much as anyone can demonstrate they are not racist. The fact that I created the articles on Mia Love, Alex Boye and Marcus Martins would probably not alter the view of Baseball Buggs that I must be a racist, but especially the last one is hard to see why anyone who was in anyway racist would want to create an article on him. I also have long contemplated creating an article on Ahmad Corbett, but although personally I think his contributions are of note, I have not yet been convinced he would quite cross the notability threshold. I was hoping J. B. Haws would cover the work Corbett did as director of the LDS Church Office of Public and International Affairs in New York, but I am thinking we will have to wait until Haws or someone else writes the more broad ranging The Mormon in World Opinion, to see enough coverage of Corbett to have an article. My other alternative is I am hoping Corbett gets called as a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70 in 3 years when he comes back from being mission president in the Dominican Republic. I'm not sure that admitting to want to create another article on a black Mormon man with a white wife would endear myself to all people, but it clearly does not fit with the image of a racist. I have also created the Wikipedia articles on such Mormon leaders as Edward Dube, Joseph W. Sitati and Emmanuel Abu Kissi, who respectively Zimbabwean, Kenyan and Ghanaian, all with wives of their same nationality. I have also created articles on a few black protestant figures, possilby even Keith Butler, although someone else may have beat me to that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting for you to tell me, when did I ever get involved in an article called Ari Teman? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No one said you did. Anyway it was not the article but the deletion discussion. That was referenced as an example of the casual, gratuitous insults some people think they can hurl at other editors. I am tired of it, and after not bringing up an ANI on that one, feel I need to bring up an ANI here. On other questions, I guess I have never edited the article on Keith Butler (Michigan), I just voted for him in the Republican primary. I did expanded and enhance the article on Vernon Johns. Many of my edits were recently reverted to a version that still included some of my contributions (such as him being one of the leading African-American orators in the early 20th-century), but with a removal of all in-line citations, with a removal of the section headings, and such. I think that article could use some good editing, but I am not sure how best to go about it. I would say my additions in general rely too much on the writing of Taylor Branch, there are probably other equally valid views of Johns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, so it appears you've had multiple editors raising the possibility of various "isms" about yourself. Alrighty then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The last statement shows a continued failure to accept on the part of Baseball Bugs that his actions were out of line, wrong, uncalled for and unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

JPL, my experience with BB is that he's a good editor with strongly held opinions who sometimes gets himself in hot water in how he says things. This is one of those times. His comments regarding LDS and you were wrong. He should express remorse and not do it again. You should forgive him [53]. If you are unsatisfied, consider filing an RFC/U, but I recommend forgiving and moving on.

Regarding your complaint here, it is well founded and in the right place. I do recommend that you keep it simple and not address multiple issues at once, as you seem to be doing here. Your other concerns about Ari Teman and Vernon Johns, for example, are confusing and dilute your point. Address those issues seperately, in their appropriate venues. ANI is for incidents. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The issue before us is your behavior, Bugs, not his. His has already been reviewed twice this week. And he has a legitimate claim, one that is larger than this one incident, and instead has to do with how we deal with these kinds of comments when directed toward any editor. I'm doing what I can to fix the (real) problem and move on, using the least amount of tools, but you aren't making it easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Since people want more evidence on the Ari Teman issue, here is a link to that issue [54] as best as I can find showing the edit there. It was clearly an out-of-line attack, calling an editor "sexist". A-Because the actual experience is that both advocating for and advocating against categories like Category:Women writers, will get someone dubbed sexist. There are two thoughts about the ideal on such matters, which also come out in racial issues, and boil down to a separation between integration and ethnic identity preservation. The issues are made all the more complex with ethnicity is portrayed in racial terms, and the poisonous and not fully discredited idea that race has a biological component enters into the discussion. 2- How the whole Ari Teman issue had any relevance to the way Wikipedia categorizes women is still beyond me. It is the same type of bringing up of totally irrelevant details to denigrate an editor we saw here. Although this is a worse case, because it was built on the false assumption that Mormons are by definition racist. As J. B. Haws points out in his Oxford University Press published work, The Mormon Image in the American Mind, studies that have actually confronted Mormon attitudes towards race have found that Mormons are as a group, on the whole, less racist by most measures than the population as a whole. The one caveat is whether or not it is racist to hold "people should in general go to church with those of their own race", is racists, but Mormons have consistently been less likely to hold that view than the American population as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, this is detracting from the main issue. Being defensive isn't solving the problem du jour. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  • No one has asked for evidence of problems you've run into on Ari_Teman. We've suggested that you set that aside for your complaint here which is by your own admission exclusively with BB over comments they've made at AN/I. Spilling pixels on a totally independent issue (as BB is not related to that article, AFAIK) just inks the waters and makes it more difficult for your fellow editors to judge the matter at hand. We're all (hopefully) familiar with the natures and problems of essentialism. We don't need to introduce an unrelated issue in order to understand the impact of talking about contributors, not content. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• What is the point of this discussion? What is the desired outcome and how will that benefit the encyclopedia? Considering that many in the community have concerns about your editing going back years and you have emerged from this latest matter, one of a long string of issues involving you at ANI, with an incredibly mild sanction, you should quit while you are ahead. There is no question that Baseball_Bugs' comments were inappropriate. Everyone seems to accept that except Baseball_Bugs. So what do you want us to do? Block him? It would be perverse to sanction BB in this manner for his comments regarding the alleged motives for your editing while your problematic editing goes largely unaddressed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate JoeSperrazza' words of support. Meanwhile, speaking of being out of line, wrong, uncalled for and unacceptable... I'm still waiting for the editor's apology for McCarthyizing the "group of 88"? Or did I overlook it somehow? See, here's the thing... Yes, I do have a strong opinions about this particular topic, because I fully understand the reaction of those 88, which was a hot story at the time that I paid a lot of attention to. The editor says he's had enough. Well, the 88 and the others who "rushed to judgment", going with the facts as they knew them, had likewise had enough of the double-standard in their community, and this incident became a focal point. It's pretty clear to me that if the editor is not playing the reverse-racism card, then he must be ignorant of what the climate in Durham was at the time, and hence should not be editing on the subject. The 88 were fully justified in feeling the way they did. Unfortunately, they had the wrong information, due to a lying claimant and Nifong's malfeasance. But no one knew that at the time. Instead, it looked the "same old thing". The ones who need to be apologized to are the "group of 88" whom the editor tried to malign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The main issue is that Baseball Bugs feels it is OK to attack people with bigoted attacks on their religion. I feel a need to make as clear as possible that this is wrong. If I let this slide now, he and others are more likely to do so in other cases, and more likely to drive editors away from contributing to the project because their religion is currently out-of-favor with politically correct crowds. Such behavior must stop, and a strong stand needs to be taken against it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the main issue is that you see nothing wrong with maligning 88 people whose feelings at the time were fully justifiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Blocking Baseball Bugs would only be "perverse" if we think it is OK for editors to make bigoted attacks on other editors. I have not made bigoted attacks on any editors, and so attempting to compare my actions to his is totally and completely unfair. His actions were 100% out-of-line and need to result in a clear sanction if we want to preserve Wikipedia as a place where editors can participate without fear of personal attacks. The fact that he continues to insist there is nothing wrong with the bigoted attacks he engaged in shows that we need to take action.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• So what should that "clear sanction" be? Propose something specific or I move that we hat this discussion as a unproductive forum for complaining. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Bugs, regarding "<JPL's> apology for McCarthyizing the "group of 88"?"":

• You may be right that, in a perfect world, he'd provide such, but that's really between him and those 88 people,
• He's already been sanctioned for his actions and apparent bias in this regard, with an indefinite topic ban regarding the topic of the 88 and those individuals

So, continuing to discuss that point is moot. While one could debate whether or not JPL "gets it" regarding his actions regarding the 88 were wrong could be debated, the wrong venue is here at AN/I. File an RFC/U, if need be, but drop the stick here.

Moreover, two wrongs don't make a right. Your umbrage about the incident were well placed, but your commentary went too far. As much as you may find it galling, apologize for your part and move on. Regards to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I did redact some of my comments on the Group of 88, and I did apologize for making edits without finding the proper sources. On the other hand, I also provided the quote that demonstates that one of the members of the Group of 88 very clearly attacked the Lacrosse Players on racial grounds. That is as much as can be reasonably expected from me at this time. My edits to articles that bear directly on the subject all have either been reverted, or in the case of the Mike Nifong article, my one edit is clearly based on reliable sources and not at all controversial. The fact that Baseball Bugs thinks that any of this gives him the right to make bigoted attacks against another user based on their religion should be of grave concern to all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

People: JPL has already been topic-banned from the "Group of 88" thing, so he is no longer supposed to be discussing that topic – including here. So, JPL: please don't continue talking about the Group of 88; everybody else: please stop challenging JPL over that topic; he's not supposed to respond. That chapter is closed. Bugs: you need to accept your share of the responsibility here. Your comments in the other thread were way over the line; just accept that, shut up and move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm out for a while and hopeful that while I'm gone, Bugs has come to his senses rather than gotten blocked, although both options do seem to be on the table at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The attempt to ban an editor from discussing a subject anywhere seems far too overbroad and unfair. This is especially so when such inflammatory language is used to attack them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it's called a topic ban, and you just got one imposed on you. You are free to discuss anything that is necessary in the context of raising a legitimate complaint about another user in a forum like here, or in the context of defending yourself against such complaints, but repeating your views on those professors is entirely immaterial for our understanding of your complaint about Bugs, so there is no place for it here (and, as I just said, other users should in turn stop challenging you and complaining about your previous actions regarding that topic, because the matter is settled.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Baseball Bugs statements have little to do with that issue, and amount to character assassination and accusations that should not be allowed to stand. The fact that he thinks it is ever acceptable to accuse a user of engaging in "McCarthyism" should be almost as much of a concern as the fact that he thinks it is acceptable to attack a user on religious grounds. If the general community consensus is that attacks on users with such inflammatory language should be allowed, we have to ask why such inflammatory attacks on other users are permitted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

JPL, everyone here is in agreement that BB's statements to you in the prior thread were wrong and not allowed. What to do about is is to be determined. Nothing you say here will change that decision to make the decision stronger, and your continued commentary may in fact result in a weaker decision. You've made your point. I strongly suggest you quit pushing on this issue - you're more likely to get yourself in hot water (worst case) and are just diminishing your case (best case). Just and reasonable contributors (some of whom are admins) agree with you on this issue. Go back to what you were doing and stop commenting here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing Lambert of racism. It appears to be simple ignorance, not racism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That has to be one of the most backhanded, disingenuous apologies I have seen in a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not a racist, and you don't adhere to the past Mormon racist tradition. It's also clear you don't know anything about the climate in Durham at the time of the lacrosse incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It was quite a backhand, but I had to chuckle. JPL, the problem is that you and a handful of others have been running roughshod over many articles and categories and whatnot that have to do with gender in general, and women in particular. Sorry, but form what I have witnessed, you tend to have a...let's charitably call it a Mad Men-esque view of the world, which is a fair bit out of step with the, let's also say, Filipacchi-esue way that the 21st century actually functions. It is time to catch up. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bugs has been blocked for 48 hrs for WP:NPA. I suggest hatting this as resolved. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So it shall be written, so it shall be  Done. --Jayron32 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Insertion of unsourced and dubious info about a BLP

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

---

IP editor 50.12.9.41 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted unsourced and dubious information about a living person (Jay-Z) into Trinidadian and Tobagonian American. While this isn't terribly harmful information as such, I cannot find sources that support the assertion that Jay Z is of Trinbagonian descent. I have tried to communicate with the editor, but they have not responded. I requested page protection, thinking it was the easier solution, but it was declined. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. (Since I am an editor on that page, I consider myself potentially involved for the purpose of admin actions.) Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

He was doing damage elsewhere as well, so I have blocked the IP for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User HiLo48

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

---

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in an abusive pattern of edits towards me on the talkpage of Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), beginning with spurious and abusive accusations (first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_Church&diff=616887037&oldid=616886661). I have attempted to report this through email to several administrators, but their intervention has been delayed.

Additionally 207.157.121.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posing as an administer, and inappropriately intervening in the situation. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Cough. Bullshit. I didn't pose as nothing. Zfish claimed to be seeking review, and I kindly did that for them: you're welcome. And I'm sure that HiLo's next post will contain an apology for the one remark that wasn't so nice. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the second issue first: the only thing I see where the IP has posed as an administrator is to refer to an "administrative review" in one edit,[55] which I don't see has taken place. Since it's a thread that's been replied to, it's inappropriate for Zfish118 to remove the full thread—although removal of personal attacks should be done and appears to have already been done. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, C.Fred, and let me add that I didn't see the attack until after I had restored the edit--it was all the way at the end. It would have been acceptable on Zfish's part to remove just that part, as another editor has done in the meantime. Thank you, 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See my apology on the Talk page, along with further explanation of my concerns. 207...., the probable reason you didn't see the post earlier is that there was an awful lot of unexplained deletion going on. It all got very confusing. User:Zfish118 seemed to think that a solution to the problem was to entirely delete something without discussion, explanation or Edit summaries. It didn't help me understand what the problem was either. But see the article Talk page for my apology and more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. Following all the confusing deletions that didn't help anybody know what was going on in this topic, that very good faith comment from me immediately above was deleted twenty minutes ago, and now it's been restored. WTF? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you ended up with a silent edit conflict that caused your post to inadvertently remove a comment from Bbb23. They undid to restore their comment, then evidently noticed your own addition and restored that too. Resolute 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Palestinewillbefree

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

---

I first became aware of this user earlier today when I was patroling recent changes. The name itself stuck me as a bit dicey, so I looked at the user's talk page and discovered he had authored an article titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which had a prod on it and to which I added a speedy, as it is simply an opinion piece. In addition, find his comment on a talk page of an AfD: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. And third, his violation of the arbcoom 1RR rule here: [56] & [57].

His username might be just fine if he was writing about trees or widgets, but he's not. It is disruptive. I have reported it already on WP:UAA, but that is hugely backlogged. The 1RR violation prompted me to bring it here. Note that other than the csd, I have had no interaction with this editor. Will notify promptly of this discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:WeirdPsycopath

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

---

Hello not know if this is the right place to make is complaint. The reason I come here is because the user WeirdPsycopath, Use my discussion to let me Personal attacks and insults. This is the time, because I undo your edits are incorrect.. Here I give some evidence:

• Diff, May 26, 2014
• Diff, July 15, 2014
• Diff, July 15, 2014. Second message left by user
• Diff, July 15, 2014. Third message left by user

I try to explain that to reverse your edits, but did not seem to care much. Sorry if my English is very bad, but I speak Spanish. And I wish you can do something about it because I'm tired.--Damián (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he is very much over the top. To be fair, I have given him a very clear final warning. If he does it again, myself or any other admin will block him. He doesn't appear to be here to work with others. He has one final chance to "get it", otherwise he will be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

False accusations of vandalism and their encouragement by the community

I wonder if anyone has an opinion about the following situation.

1. a user made three clearly described edits to the article wind wave ([58], [59], [60])
2. User:AlanS reverted those edits for no reason ([61], [62], [63])
3. User:AlanS then made false accusations of vandalism ([64], [65])

The end result has been that the original user got blocked, and later got left a warning for having pointed out that User:AlanS made false accusations of vandalism. The article is semi-protected until October and contains factually incorrect material. Meanwhile User:AlanS received no warning for reverting for no reason, nor for making false accusations of vandalism.

Does everyone approve of this? 186.37.203.110 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You do know you've made it pretty obviously that you're in all likelihood an IP evading a block? AlanS (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be drama ahead.... Alan - Investigations of socking go on WP:SPI, not here. 186.37.203.110 - you can still edit the talk page to make edit requests, or you can create an account and request autoconfirmation, so there are avenues available for you to improve the article. Both of you need to stop reverting and use the talk page.I see no edits on Talk:Wind wave since April. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

They've already gotten themselves blocked Ritchie. AlanS (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP cleaned up an article's lead, seemingly within the guidelines set out in WP:LEADLENGTH and did some copyediting. That sounds like a pretty good set of edits as far as I'm concerned. Why the name calling? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP is an extremely disruptive editor. Who gets themselves blocked on IP after IP through making edits against consensus and engaging in abuse. AlanS (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you made good faith edits to an article that you thought improved it, only to receive templates and block threats, how might you respond? Focus on the article, not the editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie you might want to check out Paul Keating for an idea of how abusive and disruptive this IP has been. It will even blank out talk pages just because it will only listen to what it thinks is right. AlanS (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And as soon as a block is up for it or it finds a new IP address it's at it again. It just plain doesn't give a rats about what anyone else thinks. It is right and that trumps everything. AlanS (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This goes back to a conversation I was having the other day with Dennis, where in these cases, semi-protection is a better answer. Clearly the IP didn't get his way and is upset about it, but blocking clearly isn't working as there's no real practical way to actually stop someone editing if they think nothing of just swapping IPs all the time. Protection would probably be a better answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know why there isn't a weaker form of protection for pretty much everything (No IP editing of anything). AlanS (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I will say this, I personally think the IP is right when it comes to the merits, as do a number of other editors on that talk page. I see one editor quoted WP:BRD to them, then went an instantly violated it themselves, and overall, treated the IP like crap. That doesn't justify the IP's reaction and overall dickishness, but it does explain some of it. That sentence, sourced or not, IS fluffy and doesn't belong without better context, if at all. Some of the recipients of said dickishness have little to complain about as it was virtually self-inflicted. That said, there isn't anything to do in this report, admin wise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, in my opinion, there was no vandalism. On the other hand, I have NO sympathy for the IP. This was a content dispute that became an edit war. The IP then used insulting edit summaries. The IP should have been blocked for personal attacks. The block was justified, although the block reason was wrong. The IP, who appears to be IP-hopping, has a history of conflict with AlanS. I don't know if that is due to the IP stalking AlanS, or, less likely, to AlanS stalking the IP. I think that the IP was mostly right on the merits as to the content, but the use of insulting edit summaries should result in a block. At the same time, do not label a conduct dispute as vandalism unless it is vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP (or at least the one who opened this thread) is blocked. The trouble is, as we've discussed, in practical terms you cannot indef block an IP if they are assigned dynamically. It's all very well saying "they're socking, they'll be blocked again", but somebody has to do the work. You get collateral damage, or you can't rangeblock enough. Admins are fighting a battle that's rigged against them here. Exactly what we do, other than Siegenthaler II - This Time It's War, who knows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

While the template AlanS applied used the word "vandalism," my guess is it was intended to imply the "disruptive" part, not vandalism per se. What started out as edit warring and personal attacks, and now it's IP-hopping block evasion. I've semi-protected a bunch of articles because we can't have nice things. If the individual behind the IP would agree to be civil and use the talk pages to hash out disagreements, there wouldn't be an issue with the majority of their edits.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• @AlanS: Good faith edits are not vandalism no matter whether they are good or bad edits. No matter the IP's own failures, you failed to assume good faith and have violated policy yourself. You, at the very least, need to brush up on your understanding of vandalism according to Wikipedia policy. Although, in addition to the least required, you could also apologize to the IP for calling their edits vandalism.--v/r - TP 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Advertising of shady business by User:Ajysharmag

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

---

Hello . I happen to come across one User:Ajysharmag has been using his userpage for advertising of a Shady business (Providing Escort girls or "Pimping") , something which is against Indian Laws . Requesting to immediately block this user indefinitely without further notice. Also , could you send me a link of the wikipedia policy made for such incidents that include illegal advertising and promotion of malicious businesses ? All i could come across was the "no Advertising" policy under speedy deletion criteria and i really feel this incident should be covered under a different policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the page as it was advertising. I do not believe there is any additional policy that would include "illegal advertising". Since each country and possibly sub national government can have their own laws it would be impossible for Wikipedia to be able to know what is illegal in every jurisdiction. GB fan 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I also notified User:Ajysharmag of this thread. GB fan 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We get one or two of these a day. I hard-block them as spambots on sight, and it would be nice if we could devise an edit filter. Userspace really isn't meant as a free webhost for solicitations for prostitution. I've blocked the account. This thread is being too nice about this blatant abuse: some of them have incorporated their phone numbers into their account names, and this has been going on for months. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pimping ain't easy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Masum Ibn Musa

Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was blocked almost 3 months and 20 days ago for massive copyright violation. I myself judged his contributions and found out that it was true. But I think he should get at least one last chance. He has done lots of good and constructive works in Bengali Wiki. See his Global Account Information for proof. Moreover he is one of the trusted user at that wiki. After seeing his contributions there I think now he knows about copyright violation fully and if he gets a chance he won't make this kind of mistake again. Finally if B.T.Clown can get more than 4 chances for nothing I think This guy deserves at least one chance. So I'm requesting for an unblock for Masum Ibn Musa. Thank you.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, he has not made any unblock requests. If he were to disavow copyright infringement and make a strong case to the reviewing admin, it is highly likely he could be given another opportunity to contribute. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: he's from Bangladesh and I've contact with him through facebook. Recently he asked me whether I could do anything for him at this wiki. After seeing everything at least I think that he should be given a chance. He surely wants to be unblocked.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pratyya: From what I understand, he is the only one that can request the unblock. He still has talk page access so he can either put in the unblock request there or by email. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well @Solarra: using Pratyya to ping me won't work. Anyway I'll ask him to make a request shortly. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First step is for that user to contact Diannaa, who made the block. This can be done by pinging her from their talk page or making the request and you use her talk page to make her aware of the discussion after the request. If she is unwilling to unblock herself, then an unblock template should be used on the user's talk page. If it comes down to a community decision, it should be raised at WP:AN rather than here, but they need to try the other methods first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason he was blocked a second time is because the first thing he did after his unblock was re-create the article Aditi Mohsin, using copyright materials. I noticed this because I had worked on his copyright investigation, and the link for the article (which I had deleted) changed from red back to blue. We had to re-open the case page and investigate a further 73 articles. Of these, fourteen had copyright violations. In other words, in the time in between the two blocks, twenty per cent of his contributions were copyright violations. The user needs to make the unblock request himself by placing an unblock template on his talk page. He needs to demonstrate that he thoroughly understands copyright law and that we won't see a repeat of the previous problems. The number of future copyright violations needs to be zero. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User posted an unblock request, I pinged Diannaa. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for User:Overagainst

Overagainst has been on a crusade to correct what he sees as an incorrect POV in Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, which he believes should be changed to reflect that Van der Sloot did the crime, because, after all, Van der Sloot was convicted of a completely different crime five years later in a different country.

The particular section he is after at this point is is a section summarizing an article in Aruba's largest and oldest newspaper, Amigoe. He has taken it to WP:BLP/N twice, where each time he has failed to gain a consensus that the section relected any BLP problem: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive191#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway.23Amigoe_article was the first. By the time he had taken it to BLP/N a second time, no one would even bother to reply to him any more. It survived an FAR re-review with the section intact. Despite not being able to achieve any consensus that the section contains a BLP violation, he constantly adds tags and removes the section: [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]

This POV issue has been discussed with Overagainst to completely absurd lengths, at the BLP boards, the talk page (Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Side notes, Talk:Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive 8#'Amigoe article' section and refs 190, 191, Talk:Disappearance of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive 7#Continued from .27Van der Sloot kills in Peru section.27 archived page.

At his own talk page, we have this discussion, where he finally agrees to stop, an agreement he broke a few months later.

The level of ridiculousness this can get to can be found here, where Overagainst argues that we can only describe something as "unknown" if reliable sources describe it as "unknown", not that we can't find a reliable source that claims to know the answer, and here, where he attempts to create his own style for handling the capitalization of Joran van der Sloot and won't listen to anyone with familiarity with Dutch names.

I've pretty much had it. I don't see that having Overagainst involved with Natalee Holloway has any positive results. I'd like to see a topic ban of indefinite duration for Overagainst on any topic related to Natalee Holloway.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcclian

Mcclian (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has had an account here for five years. In that time they have received 24 template warnings on their talk page for various reasons. Among them, they mark every edit they make as minor despite few of them actually being minor. They've never sourced any of their edits. While not all of their edits are inaccurate, a significant portion of them are. Those with some knowledge of professional wrestling will know that edits like these ([77][78][79]) are deliberate errors. I've dropped the templates and have tried to write out exactly what they're doing wrong, and I've seen at least one other user has done so in the past as well. I don't believe this user has ever responded to anybody's concerns. The user has been blocked previously in early 2012 for vandalism, though they seem to have learned little from that experience.LM2000 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)