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

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Could an admin please block user 173.32.72.64? He/she keeps deleting an official laureate from Oxford's count (as referenced), plus editing the count to a lower number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki 233 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Site Ban of User:Fearofreprisal

User:Fearofreprisal has become a vexatious litigant. I recommend a site ban. I would recommend a limited ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space, except that the editor in question is a sockpuppet. (It doesn't matter that he hasn't engaged in any of the usual reasons for sockpuppetry, but he is in violation of the one person, one account rule, and doesn't pass any of the legitimate alternate account justifications, which require declaring the association.) Fearofreprisal has, for about a month, been engaging in general disruption (sometimes known impolitely as shit-stirring) associated with Historicity of Jesus, first consisting of disruptive and confrontational editing (often interpreted as trolling). User:Wdford ignored FOR's confrontational attitude and made a bold shortening of the article. I posted an RFC to request acceptance of the shortened article. FOR then demanded that the edit in question be reverted, and posted a frivolous and confrontational Request for Mediation, referring to the shortening with links as "blanking", knowing that an alternate form of dispute resolution, the RFC, was in progress, and knowing that some of the parties would not agree. The RFM was of course rejected. FOR then was topic-banned. FOR then requested arbitration. The RFAR is still awaiting acceptance or rejection. Now FOR has requested an IBAN on another editor. This disruptive use of dispute resolution processes should be stopped. Since Fearofreprisal is an illegitimate alternate account, the appropriate way of stopping the disruptive use of dispute resolution is a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Use in question has shown a clear inability to work with others. Using this account because he fears reprisal of his other account is used isn't a valid reason to sock puppet. Rather, he's using it to avoid scrutiny. -- Calidum 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Robert McClenon and Calidum. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon is a party to a current request for arbitration that I have filed.[1] This proposed site ban appears to be payback for my having filed that case. I have requested a temporary injunction at ArbCom. This ANI should be closed as improper. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I sympathize with using a sock account for edits relating to Joe Arpaio and am willing to look the other way on that. If someone doesn't want edits associated with their main account because they'll get in off-site trouble, that's fine under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. That said, if someone doesn't want edits associated with their main account because it will get them into on-site trouble, that's a problem under WP:BADHAND and WP:SCRUTINY. For all we know, FoR could have already been topic, site, or interaction banned under another account.

Yes, Robert's part of that ArbReq filing, but I'm not, and that's not the point. Yes, Hijri88's views on the ArbReq filing were jumping the gun, but that's not relevant either. I'm not a part of the ArbReq filing, and the behavior I've seen from FoR for several months before ArbReq filing is still problematic enough to jsutify a siteban regardless of one's views on the ArbReq filing. Also, Hijri88 was right about the (now deleted) stats page, which others have said violated the topic ban. It's not like FoR has really changed since the topic ban.

If we do not site-ban FoR, we need to at least establish two-way interaction bans between FoR and Hijri88, possibly between FoR and other users as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Fearofreprisal appears to be misstating the facts, either due to ignorance or in order to confuse. First, I added myself to the RFAR in order to support the RFAR and request its expansion. It is the only thing that FOR has done with which I agree. Why would I be seeking payback for a filing that I supported (and added myself to)? Second, FOR requests that this ANI be closed as improper. This main ANI thread was opened by FOR. This subthread, requesting the site ban, is the incoming boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Opposing a daft, bold edit shortening the article into some weird disambiguation page is not 'shit stirring'. It's common sense, and multiple other editors, included myself opposed such stubbing of the article. That was a bold solution to which no one is favorable; it's not a compromise in any sense of the word. There was a good amount of content in the article and in which should not have been blanked or whole heartedly removed. FOR then demanded that the edit in question be reverted, and posted a frivolous and confrontational Request for Mediation, referring to the shortening with links as "blanking", knowing that an alternate form of dispute resolution, the RFC, was in progress, and knowing that some of the parties would not agree. The RFM was of course rejected. FOR then was topic-banned. FOR then requested arbitration. The RFAR is still awaiting acceptance or rejection. I like the use of 'demanded' as if he was literally pounding on the table. No, he just was very blunt in saying that the article should be reverted to the state before the bold edit. (And which the current version now is.) It wasn't supported by consensus and shouldn't have been edit warred over. Also, mediation is supposed to be used in cases like this and is a form of dispute resolution that should be actively encouraged. This is a very contentious topic to which editors have very strong viewpoints on, and should not be decided just so meagerly by edit wars, shouting, incivility. The heart of the issue needs to come to hand. Mediation can do that. A RFM can be rejected based on some simple circumstances, like not everyone who's involved agreeing to it would be an immediate fail, which is what I believe happened in that instance. Now FOR has requested an IBAN on another editor. This disruptive use of dispute resolution processes should be stopped. Well, that's a first for that I believe. An interaction ban might actually be useful given if it's two way. Some editors I just can't get along with, but I mostly avoid their topic area so I don't often have issues with them. At the top of the section, the editor was proposing that he be indefinitely blocked, which I think qualifies. However, given that if I might not be able to get along with another editor, and have tried intensely to solve our differences and focus on content yet it keeps coming up, I might even propose such a thing given if enough disruption happens. The filing for request of arbitration was deliberately excluded from the topic ban and he's seeking that out; Let the Arbitrators decide whether it was frivolous or not. Since Fearofreprisal is an illegitimate alternate account, the appropriate way of stopping the disruptive use of dispute resolution is a site ban. Well per WP:CLEANSTART, A wiki policy it's allowed but it has some careful qualifiers. A user who is not under current restrictions or blocks may stop using their current account and start using a new one. Clean start does not guarantee the two accounts will not be connected, and a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may be identified and seen as trying to evade scrutiny. Given the lack of history of a possible alternative account, I'm going to assume innocent until proven guilty under the alleged sockpuppet remark. Do start a WP:SPI if you see fit. But given the background information I know, since you didn't provide any diffs, there is room for other remarks or sanctions. A full site block/ban should only be used as a last resort against purely disruptive editors. I don't see FOR getting on that end of the stick given what you've told me. You should also provide some diffs, as other editors may wish to see the background info/other WP:ANI's and their results, the RfC, the result, and all of it to provide an informed way to look at the material. Tutelary (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment - I didn't say that opposing the shortening of the article was shit-stirring. That was an opinion. Filing the RFM, when the RFC was already in progress, was shit-stirring. Also, the demand that this thread, started by FOR, be withdrawn as improper is shit-stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment - I wouldn't call it "shit stirring". I call it trying to enable a POV Fork, which is not an acceptable WP policy. There is not one piece of information in the old article that is not covered in other articles. What @Wdford: did, on the other hand, was to transform the article into a Spinoff, which is a is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment Based on this, I would assume User:Fearofreprisal would not use their main account to repeat problematic behaviors on this account, since having the two accounts linked would be a Very Bad Thing. If a ban is required (and I don't know enough about the issue to say if it is) I don't think a site ban is needed on the basis of Fearofreprisal being a secondary account. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have a good enough handle on Wikipedia policy or on the background of the case to say if any sort of ban would be suitable (I have to admit, as someone with no investment in the issue I kind of hope the case is accepted by ArbCom so I can learn more from it) but I would strongly oppose the checkuser idea below except with the condition that FoR's real name is kept hidden. I don't think any incident on Wikipedia should lead to an editor being threatened in real life, maybe unless the edits constitute actual crimes. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:TROLL, WP:FRINGE, WP:BATTLEGROUND... you name it, he's done it. I also want to see a CU so that his main account can also be blocked. He claims that a CU would "out" him because his main account uses his real name; he should have either not chosen to edit under his real name in the first place, or not continued to troll other users via a sock account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I no longer request a CU of Fearofreprisal. My reasoning is that given that the subject has already been mentioned a few times (by Jeppiz, then by Fearofreprisal himself in a personal attack against me, then by me in response to said attack) over at RFA, it seems pretty reasonable to assume one or more of the Arbitrators has already performed a procedural CU and, if they found anything fishy, contacted Fearofreprisal by email. It seems highly unlikely that Fearofreprisal is actively violating WP:SOCK at present, because if so one of the arbitrators would have already blocked him. I only posted the above comment about CU because I was at the time concerned that Fearofreprisal (who is violating his own TBAN, in spirit if not in word, under his current account) might be, either now or in the near future, doing the same under his other account(s). Now I think the best course of action would be one of the following:

1. he receives either a lengthy (two weeks or more) or indefinite block at the earliest opportunity for the continued personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith ("<User X> is teh Christian apolgists!!!11!") and implicit TBAN violations, and RFA continues without him;
2. the RFA goes ahead, or is rejected by ArbCom, and if he doesn't get a block/ban as a result of the RFA, this case is reopened here and he receives either a lengthy (two weeks or more) or indefinite block; or
3. the RFA goes ahead, or is rejected by ArbCom, and if he doesn't get a block/ban as a result of the RFA, this case is reopened here, and he does not get blocked, maintains editing privileges, but is placed under some further restriction than his earlier TBAN -- if the TBAN still allows him to get away with "<User X> is teh Christian apolgists!!!11!" without sanctions, then it is not having its intended effect, and needs to be supplemented.

Note that I consider option 1 to be fairly unlikely at this point, giving the ongoing ArbCom case. I find options 2 and 3 roughly equally amenable in theory, though I think given the past week or so option 3 might prove equally ineffective.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Fearofreprisal has some extraordinary conflict with this subject, Historicity of Jesus. His contributions to other subjects were indeed helpful. Maybe it is too soon to site ban, but I hope he has learned something. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Is it proper to initiate a ban !vote on a party to an ArbCom case? At the moment, it looks like the committee is likely to accept the case. Would it not be more appropriate to have the ban be tabled under the proposed motions at ArbCom? Of course I understand that it gets listed then as an ArbCom ban rather than a community ban. I'm just thinking out loud in terms of reasonable fairness of process. Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support a Block I feel a block is more appropriate here, given the editor's other good edits I do not think a site-ban is best but a block will give the user time to think things over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a misuse of the purpose of ANI. It should be handled in arbitration. A remedy of a site ban can be proposed there at the appropriate time with the evidence to support it. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: While, as I just stated above, I agree that an indefinite block and/or site ban as a fairly unrealistic option at the moment given the ongoing RFA, I don't really understand why you think requesting a site ban is, in and of itself (apart from the broader context of the ongoing RFA), a "misuse of the purpose of ANI". Bans can be imposed by either ArbCom or community consensus; given that the previous TBAN was imposed on this same noticeboard by the latter, why should any further restrictions be reserved for ArbCom? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI is to quiet disputes, not to punish the perceived transgressions of other editors. An incident report with a header requesting a site ban is inappropriate. The header should mention the problematic behavior which is then detailed with succinct statements supported by diffs. A remedy is usually proposed only after a discussion of the evidence provided. We deal with behavior here. We are not here to speculate about the agendas, intentions, or motives of other editors. Focus on the editor's actions and not the person. Ignocrates (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: I'm pretty sure requesting a block per the terms of a previously imposed ban that was originally put in place on ANI, is a perfectly acceptable use of ANI.

But that's not the problem. The fact is that Fearofreprisal was being extremely belligerent in his request that an IBAN be imposed on me for no reason whatsoever, and this discussion was opened as a sub-thread per WP:BOOMERANG;[2] Fearofreprisal then distorted this by unilaterally splitting another user's post off into a different thread;[3] another user then reverted him;[4] Fearofreprisal then again altered the flow of the discussion;[5] after this, you then came along almost a day later and (through no fault of your own) completely misinterpreted the discussion, because it had been altered by the user under discussion.[6] This is why the header did not mention the problematic behaviour or cite specific diffs: the problematic behaviour had been immediately evident in the above posts, until Fearofreprisal repeatedly and stubbornly altered another user's post in order to obstruct the flow of the discussion.

I think we should add the above disruption to the list of reasons why Fearofreprisal needs to be blocked and/or banned. @User:Robert McClenon: It's your text he altered (@User:DangerousPanda: it's your revert he re-reverted?) -- do you wanna bring it up at RFA, or shall I?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to explain it to me here. The arbitration case has been accepted. You will have the opportunity to present your arguments and evidence during the evidence phase of arbitration, as soon as the case pages are open. Ignocrates (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Here's are problems with what User:Robert McClenon is saying:

• This account is not a sockpuppet. It is my main account, used to post over 1000 edits. If anyone were to run a CheckUser on me, they'd find no sockpuppetry. McClenon's claims that I'm a sockpuppet are baseless lies.
• His claims of my disruptive editing are full of emotional language, but are not backed up by diffs or evidence.
• His claims that I've misused the dispute resolution process don't hold water. McClenon has himself abused ANI to make this baseless proposal that I be site banned.

Because there is a request for arbitration and a request for temporary injunctions pending before ArbCom, I'm not going to get in any protracted discussions here. This ANI should be closed, as no one has provided any evidence that I've engaged in bannable/blockable behavior. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I corrected spelling of Mr. McClenon's name in the above comment. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film)

Special:Contributions/138.229.220.3, User:MHBDCS and User:DavidGroveCam are all single-article accounts that only became active in the last few hours. They appear to be the same person, who has taken an interest in Midnight Rider (film). As seen with this dif, DavidGroveCam wrote this line in his edit summary: this is a legal matter that will result in action against Gothicfilm if they persist in this libelous posting. The article is well sourced, as anyone looking into it can see, and I was not the one who originally put in the text being edit-warred over on the page. The third account was created after I posted WP:3RR warnings at the Talk pages for the first two. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a legal threat. You may want to ask for semi-protection for the article. The admins can handle the SPA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This becoming a problem, Semi protection may be required. A "new" editor called User:GoyaLover is chopping text about with the same capricious abandon as DavidGroveCam and MHBDCS. The editor is refusing discussion. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware this attempted manipulation of facts pertains to a current ongoing Involuntary Manslaughter criminal case in the state of Georgia, serious disputed OSHA citations, as well as ongoing Federal Railroad Administration and National Transportation Safety Board Investigations. DFinmitre (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As this diff reveals User:138.229.220.3 is clearly not only sock puppeting with User:DavidGroveCam but trying to impersonate a real life person, David Grove who is a well known proffessional cameraman, that those familiar with "Midnight Rider" may be aware of as he has been referenced in national articles related to the tragedy. David is part of a large group protesting the criminally indicted producers attempts to continue with film after tragedy. The edit history for User:DavidGroveCam, as this relates to a criminal case, clearly should be retained, although the username is clearly inappropriate, especially given what has been stated above of it being used to make legal threats. It is obvious, but also has been verified, that it is in fact an impersonation. DFinmitre (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked all three accounts (MHBDCS, DavidGroveCam and GoyaLover) for  Confirmed socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But what about the original 138.229.220.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from whom all the named accounts most likely sprang? He hasn't posted since, but is an account creation block possible? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As a CU I'm limited in what I can say regarding tying IPs to accounts. That being said, any admin can block the IP if it is being used abusively. I've watchlisted the article and will jump back in if more socks pop up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

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

---

Hello, Sorry that it has come to this point, but I require assistance with a user (User:LRD NO) who is hounding me and has been changing almost every single edit I make on Wikipedia. It has become so excessive and it is seriously disruptive to my experience here on Wikipedia. I have been getting along fine for years, and am an auto-patrolled user. I have contributed countless articles to the website but I am seriously tired and annoyed by the aforementioned user who has been revising almost every single edit I make on Wikipedia as of late. The user's handle of the English language is not better than mine, nor is their knowledge of the subject matter as evolved as mine, yet he acts as if his way of wording sentences is superior to mine, and is acting as if he has some type of authority over me. The user has been revising all of my contributions as of late, which are not necessarily beneficial to Wikipedia and is seriously infringing on my user experience.

I know the user is tracking me (probably using a bot) and I feel this is over the top and exaggerated behavior. I have raised the issue with the user in the past, in which case he denies any wrong doing. We have also had a dispute based on the same issue before. The user was asked to give me space, which was ignored since he continues to crowd me and change my contributions, sometimes only minutes after my edits are saved. I am seriously tired of it and would like for this user to leave me alone. It is infringing on my experience here on the site and has me considering leaving the site for good, since I do not enjoy my contributions being altered in this systematic fashion, nor do I find it justified behavior at all. I hope someone may possibly review this users behavior and hopefully get this parasitic behavior to stop.

I hope to no longer be tracked, so I may go about making my contributions to the site, without having every single edit I make changed by this disruptive user. Thank you in advance for your help with the matter and I hope that this can be resolved in a civil manner. Should any examples be needed, all you need to do is review my contributions and you will see this user has been badgering me and altering almost every edit I make for some time now. There are also previous conversations which have been removed from the users talk page. Should that be necessary for review as well. Kind regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

Hi Subzzee, couple of things that might help progress this a bit quicker, if you can provide diffs to show these calims it would make any intervening admins job so much easier. It's quite possible they are just viewing your contributions (something anyone can do) by searching for your name in the contributions link on the top of each page. You might also want to break the text above up to make it easier to read. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi I can list diffs, there are so many of them, But, if I must I will do my best to list all of them. I think it is important to recognize the scope of what is actually taking place to fully understand how excessive it is. I will go ahead and try and list as many as I can conjure up. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

5-6 should be more than enough to show a pattern of beahaviour that can be evaluated. Amortias (T)(C) 22:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. It goes on and on and on, but I will stick with six examples as you requested. Thanks. (Subzzee (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

Response

The edits were done in accordance to policies, guidelines, project consensus and convention, and the reason were clearly explained to Subzzee in his talk page[13] and a summary indicating the reason involved were included with every edit. He was advised, a few times, to bring it up at the relevant policy/guidelines/project pages if he disagreed with them and wanted a second opinion but did not do so. Despite being asked to do so on a few occasions, Subzzee has yet to give a reason why he should not be subjected to policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention (PGCC for the rest of the post).

Contrary to the editor's claims, I have not been revising "almost every single edit", only those with clear violations. Take, for example, the most recent edits.[14][15]. The edits violates WP:SURNAME, WP:OVERLINK, WP:PEACOCK and the necessary changes were accordingly.

The last revision by the editor was:

Serhat Çakmak is a product of the famed Ajax Youth Academy. In 2014 he left the club to join Trabzonspor signing a 3-year contract with the Turkish club having raised interest from the likes of Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray as well, but opting for the club from Trabzon instead. Following the departure of Trabzonspor manager Hami Mandıralı, Çakmak was cut from the squad under newly appointed manager Vahid Halilhodžić, returning to Amsterdam and joining the Ajax Zaterdag team competing in the Topklasse.

My last revision was:

Çakmak is a product of the Ajax Youth Academy. In 2014 he left the club to join Trabzonspor, signing a three-year contract with the Turkish club after rejecting interest from Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray. Following the departure of Trabzonspor manager Hami Mandıralı, Çakmak was cut from the squad under newly-appointed manager Vahid Halilhodžić. He returned to Amsterdam, joining Ajax Zaterdag competing in the Topklasse.

I leave the good people on here to assess the editor's claim of "The user's handle [sic] of the English language is not better than mine".

Due to the less than civil response to the discussions,[16], ([[17] ],[18]) User:Chillum asked to give the editor some personal space. I accepted his request, ceasing further correspondence with the editor, working only on improving the articles. I have stuck to my word, and it was only recently that when the editor posted in my talk page did I reply to him.

In response to other specific claims made by Subzzee:

• has been changing almost every single edit Only those edits in clear violation are amended to reflect PGCC
• is acting as if he has some type of authority over me I have never claimed to be an authority on any issue. All the edits were based on PGCC.
• change my contributions, sometimes only minutes after my edits are saved If memory serves, there was only one occasion in which that was made, and that was because I have the article on my watchlist and happened to be around at that moment.
• previous conversations which have been removed from the users talk page The conversations were archived. All relevant conversations have been included here for assessment by fellow administrators and editors.

What the editor is exhibiting is a case of ownership of articles, as seen in his behaviour and replies during discussions, and a previous exchange with another editor,[19] which is indicative of ownership behaviour.

Ownership actions

• An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether.[20]

Ownership statements[21]

• "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).
• "I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help; however, I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
• "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
• "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalising my work!"

Required action

While every opportunity had been taken to explain the reasons behind the edits, the editor continues to violate policies, guidelines, consensus and convention without a valid reason. I would also like ANI to note that the editor had been engaging in threats, uncivil behaviour and personal abuse:

• seriously F off, fall back a little and know your place [22]
• 'For years longer then you. You are practically a newbie', extremely petty and incessant, I need you to respect the AP ruling (no such thing, mediation at best) absurdity of your actions etc.[23]

Thank you. LRD 01:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Response back

I am so tired of this guy. This is not what I come to Wikipedia for. I come here to share my interests and to hope to use it as a platform to inform and educate. Not to argue with some know it all who feels the need to patrol my every step and act as some sort of school teacher. I don't claim ownership over these articles, but I spend weeks, sometimes months, and in a few cases (articles that I have been working on locally that I have yet to publish) even years, and a little respect would go a long way. I can't make a single edit as of late without this new guy making changes and waving around some policy he/she feels the need to enforce. When he/she first started this behavior they were even quite aggressive at posting it on my talk page every time they deems it necessary to make changes to my edits.

I go to great lengths to make sure the information I add is factual and add reputable references to back the information. I have had other editors (i.e. GiantSnowman) give me a hard time regarding adding some references in the past, which this user then removes. Ignoring the fact that it was deemed necessary in the first place (proof for players of Antillean or Surinamese descent for example). I have had debates with other editors in the past which is fine. I make the necessary adjustments and am left back to my work in peace. LRD has even tried to tell me how Dutch team names need to be abbreviated, when he is fact speaking to a Dutchman and his interpretation is incorrect. Even though he was then proven wrong I am then told that he is free to interpret and abbreviate names as he sees fit because it isn't set in stone on Wikipedia as it apparently is for German football clubs.

I come to Wikipedia because I enjoy writing and formating articles, but this constant badgering is really wearing me out as of late, and I would prefer it stopped. If LRD knows so much about Dutch football I would like to see him/her write their own articles and stop piggy-backing on my contributions to the site. This person is extremely condescending which has lead to some agitated responses from my end in the past, and I apologize to the community for that, but I really don't see these petty changes as necessary when it does nothing for the content of the article. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Seeing as I have been mentioned - I don't "give you a hard time", and neither do other editors; you frequently use POV and flowery words and seem incapable in editing in a neutral manner. This is not a fan website, this is an encyclopedia! You think that just because you are Dutch you are an expert, and display ownership issues as a result - well you're not, there is a way of abbreviating club names which has been established through community discussion and consensus. Just because you don't like it - well, tough. You need to abide by our rules if you want to continue to edit here. GiantSnowman 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy. You were mentioned merely because you were adamant about adding certain references on multiple occasions, all of which this user has removed. So you can take that up with them. You also seem to have misinterpreted my statement. I can list several instances in the past where you have given me a hard time regarding reference tags, which is fine. I usually add the necessary references and the case is closed, which is exactly my point.

I do find it humorous when someone who knows little about my culture wants to educate me on what is considered notable (such as our past disputes over subjects pertaining to places like Curaçao or Suriname for example) or how things need to be spelled out as in the example mentioned above pertaining to the consensus. There is no consensus set for clubs in the Netherlands on Wikipedia, which was the point raised by LRD in our previous argument. He then suggested that we establish such a consensus, since Dutch clubs tend to follow Germanic trends, rather then accepted Anglo or Latin based abbreviations. Which is fine. By all means I hope members of the Dutch task force participate in creating such a consensus.

I also think you have twisted several statements into your own interpretation above. Just because I am Dutch doesn't make me an expert. But I can interpret and explain things which pertain to my language and culture better then an outsider and find it somewhat strange when it occurs. I also do not claim ownership over all articles pertaining to the Netherlands or Dutch football. That is an accusative and rather nonsensical statement in my opinion. I am also fine with the rules and regulations on Wikipedia. Whether you take a liking to my writing style or not, there is also policy on Wikipedia which protect the contributor from harassment, and given the excessive scale of these revisions does lead me to take it as a tendentious case of hounding. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Sigh, what do you mean "this guy" - yet another example of your general crummy attitude to other users, which is a real hindrance to you trying to work in a collaborative environment. As for your comment that "adamant about adding certain references on multiple occasions" - what you really mean is that I have, in the past, reverted your edits where you have introduced unreferenced material about living people - you seem blissfully ignorant of that policy. Your 'culture' is irrelevant, seeing as Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I can do that just as well as you from the comfort of England, just as can our friends in America, Africa, Asia, Australia, anywhere. Just because you are Dutch gives you ZERO extra special privileges or rights to edit Dutch-related articles. GiantSnowman 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy, because you are always quick to jump down my throat. Again, you are missing the point. I don't have an issue with being corrected. If I am wrong then by all means show me what needs to change, and I usually exhibit an healthy attitude towards making the necessary changes. The example I am raising from the past was in fact pertaining to news articles which had been deemed non-credible, when I then had to bring the fact that it was from a reputable Antillean publication to the forefront before it was deemed acceptable. These were deemed necessary for the articles in order to add specific information, which have all been removed by our friend here. My attitude is not what you think, but I do not take well to false allegations, nor do I feel the above mentioned behavior is justified.

Funny that you would find my behavior unacceptable or blissful even, when I have in fact been quite militant about reference tags in the past few years or so, simply to keep you off my back, which I have learned to accept since my early years on Wikipedia to enhance the quality of my contributions. You were right, I was wrong. Simple as that. Me raising the fact that I am Dutch pertains to lingual criteria and not subject matter. I would like to stay on topic and not make this about you and me, or anything other than the issues that I have raised above. But by all means, if you feel there is anything else left to discuss feel free. Thank you for contributing. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

To clear some of the claims:

• When he/she first started this behavior they were even quite aggressive at posting it on my talk page every time they deems it necessary to make changes to my edits. The first discussion (24 August) I posted on the editor's talk page advised him on the PGCCs and was in no way aggressive. After the editor chose to ignore them,[24][25] (1 September) a second message was dropped at his talk page which he replied in a "I do it my way" manner.
• ...stop piggy-backing on my contributions to the site. If you know how Wikipedia works, you wouldn't even make this claim. Doing so only goes to show you have ownership issues.
• This person is extremely condescending... I would like you to point out where I have been so. I wasn't the one consistently harping on "You're a newbie, I've been here longer so my word is bigger than yours". (You might want to note that, going by your logic, GiantSnowman has been here longer than you and is an administrator.) Being on this site earlier has no relevance in the implementation of PGCCs. And if you haven't already realised, "this guy" is quite the condescending term.
• ...I really don't see these petty changes as necessary when it does nothing for the content of the article. Policies and guidelines are not petty and do contribute to making an article better. Look at how application of WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL and correction of prose could do to these articles.[26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
• ...I am then told that he is free to interpret and abbreviate names as he sees fit; There is no consensus set for clubs in the Netherlands on Wikipedia, which was the point raised by LRD in our previous argument. He then suggested that we establish such a consensus, since Dutch clubs tend to follow Germanic trends, rather then accepted Anglo or Latin based abbreviations. Incorrect. I pointed out that the project consensus applied to all clubs, and that if you disagreed, you could discuss it at the project talk page, which you didn't.

I had been more than respectful when talking to you and neither was I the one engaging in insults and accusations. Wikipedia relies on community input from various editors and not one person alone. The behaviour you have exhibited is definitely indicative of ownership of articles when you refused to comply with PGCC and do not allow other editors to correct the issues.

For the record, do you think you should be exempt from policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention, and if so, why? LRD 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)'

In response to my supposed ownership of articles portion, I would like to point out that -> even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. I am not claiming ownership of these articles, but with a large majority of those that I contribute, update and maintain, I am the primary contributor, an expert in the field and have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy.

I do not feel the need to be exempt from policy at all. I do however feel crowded by excessive policing. I find the manner in which you choose to enforce policy a bit over the top,, often petty and sometimes rude and condescending, which has evoked an unnecessary reaction from my part at times. I find that the consensus reached for clubs in the Netherlands for example is often incorrect and should be discussed, since there are many errors in how Dutch clubs are named and abbreviated on the English Wikipedia and there is no point in replacing the correct form with an incorrect one. I feel like I am being shadowed and it is not pleasant to be constantly followed around when working on the site. In some cases the revisions might have been an improvement, and I generally don't mind, but I don't like being corrected every step of the way. Often finding revisions occurring only minutes after an entry which to me is too much. You are over doing it. It is rather uncomfortable and disruptive and I would like if you would give me some space. Thank you, (Subzzee (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)).

Most of the edits I have done are in accordance to PGCCs, and it is only when the article suffers from severe prose issues did I intervene with the content. You are invited to point out which specific edits compromised quality and accuracy.

I would like to ask you to point out where I have been over the top.. often petty and sometimes rude and condescending. If you can't, withdraw your statement. Do realise that I was not the one with the personal abuse and while I found no need to stoop to that level, I reserve the right to pursue action on future insults.

Again, the consensus was reached by WP:FOOTBALL and applicable to all clubs. You were advised, more than once, to take it to the project talk page if you disagreed but did not do so. You mention often finding revisions occurring only minutes after an entry while I recall only one episode or two purely due to having the articles on my watchlist and that I happened to be around. Provide diffs of such edits or refrain from making such statements. More importantly, understand that editors are within their rights to correct violations of PGCCs whether it is within one second or one month after the edit. You could avoid all this by sticking to the rules, which are easy to adhere to, but chose to do it your own way (full names, sometimes first names, throughout the article; 77'-minute; famed, historic etc). You may deny claiming ownership of articles but your actions and statements inevitably indicate you do. Since you have already received repeated advice regarding editing in accordance to PGCCs, I do not think you can find it unfair if future violations are reported. Thank you. LRD 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, the reason I am seeking help in dealing with you on this page is because talking to you gets me nowhere. I have tried in the past, in a calm approach at first and then more agitated because it leads to absolutely nothing, you see no fault in your behavior and are unwilling to compromise or budge from your stand point and since I can't escape your constant revisions or harassment (you have made major revisions to a multitude of articles in which I am the main contributor), and I have come here for help. You see no fault in your actions and feel the need to throw around policy left and right which I sometimes feel you are abusing, or that much is left to interpretation. For the record I use full names and last names. In most cases the full name, I was fine when you notified me of this the first time. It became rather rude and abusive in my view when you felt the need to write it on my talk page every other day. I start a sentence with the individuals full name (First and last no middle names). In most cases because I might feel it reads better and that it is proper form to address someone in this manner, or to help distinguish a player with a very common last name. I almost never simply use a first name. There are few occasions where a player is mostly known by his first name and even have the first name printed on the shirt, or their name has an inconvenient meaning in Dutch when standing alone. None come to mind that you could be referring to however, but if you are referring to any of the Cape Verdean profiles I have worked on there are instances where the first name is how they are listed everywhere. Same goes for Brazilians, but I don't handle those articles as much. Unless you are referring to Walker maybe, but that is what he is known as.

The time stamp (77'-minute) is how I was instructed to write it on Wikipedia when I first joined. I can't find on which article it was anymore, I was searching for it, but I have even checked the newspapers I follow and that is also how it is written here as well. So I am not quite sure what is wrong with this time marker, this to me is a bit petty. Using a word like 'famed' when referencing the Ajax Youth Academy to me sounds perfectly valid, we are in fact referring to the most award winning and most famous youth academy in the sport. Several academies of some of the biggest clubs in the World are modeled after it. It would seem a legit description to me, and indicative of the subject to a reader who is unfamiliar with the criteria. If by 'historic' you mean my reference to the Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam in which Ajax and JOS Watergraafsmeer contested the first City derby in over 30 years. It is a venue that holds huge historic value to both clubs, especially in the given context, and I think it actually helps a reader understand the material and significance which might be lost without clicking on the hyperlink for further reading.

In terms of the quality as mentioned earlier, Snowman has been quite adamant about adding certain reference tags on various articles in the past, which you have deemed unnecessary and have taken the liberty to remove, when they are in fact necessary references to prove either a players descent or eligibility to represent multiple countries Internationally. You also have a tendency to remove information which you deem unimportant, but that might have significance which you are unaware of.

I don't have as much a problem with you revising my contributions, as I do with you following me every step of the way. It is uncomfortable and since you asked me to list examples, well here you go. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. The part where you felt the need to mention it on my talk page repeatedly was particularly rude in my view.

I really don't want to beat a dead horse, I would prefer if someone could evaluate the situation and be done with it. I am accused of abuse, which is fine. I accept the fact that I have chosen unfavorable language, and although unjustified it was a reaction that was provoked in my opinion. I have had many other encounters with other administrators, or fellow editors which have been polite, pleasant and motivational contrary to my experience in this matter. I would like to get back to what I come here for, which is to write about what I love, and not to argue on this notice board, which I unfortunately thought was necessary. I hope to be able to continue to contribute in a productive manner without feeling like someone is breathing down my neck. Kind regards. (Subzzee (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

Sigh, you are obviously in continual denial of the need to adhere to policies, guidelines, consensus and convention despite the numerous discussions with you, and the consequences of failing to do so without good reason. The application of PGCCs to the edits is unambiguous, provided in the edit summaries, and nothing is left to interpretation. Regarding WP:SURNAME, which states:

After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun.

A guideline which is clear, improves readability and is applied widely in Wikipedia. This was brought to your attention in the original discussion on your talk page.[40] You then continued to ignore that with your edits,[41][42] for which a second message was left on your talk page.[43] That's twice and none of the "felt the need to write it on my talk page every other day" that you claim. While there are cases where some people go by their first names per WP:COMMONNAME, it certainly does not apply to this edit.[44]

It is convention that the prime symbol stands for the unit of minute, and that both of them don't go together e.g. 77', 77th minute is acceptable, 77'-minute (77 minute-minute) is not. This was explained to you in the original discussion. Remember that this is Wikipedia EN, and edits should follow English conventions rather than that of a different language.

Apply WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite nor a personal blog. Articles are meant to be worded in a neutral point of view. Note that other editors (including GiantSnowman in this section) have raised this concern to you,[45] which you have chosen to ignore.

Content was edited only when there is a serious need to improve prose issues, or when they are ridden with excessive details. Not every detail needs to be included, especially non-notable ones. Other than the first diff which I might have reworded the opening paragraph differently, you will be hard-pressed to find editors against the policies, guidelines and other explanation stated in the edit summaries.

• [46] - per {{Use dmy dates}} template you included in the article, and per WP:DATE.

• [47][48] - explained in the edit summaries (with link) and in your talk page (towards the end).[49]

• [50][51] - WP:PEACOCK

• [52] - Adding a {{cn}} tag to an unsourced edit about a death. Wikipedia:Verifiability, another core Wikipedia policy.

• [53][54] - WP:SURNAME, edit summary with a clear explanation.

It shows your disregard for policies, guidelines, consensus and convention if you have a problem with those edits. If you have a case, an administrator would have already acted on it. You are not accused of abuse when evidence is provided of your constant insults and threats. Keep to the rules, and raise your concern or seek consensus at the relevant talk pages if you disagree. Familiarise yourself with the core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V - it applies to every editor on Wikipedia and no one is exempt. Until you do so, editors have the right to correct them rather than leave you to your own devices. Lastly, none of your many make-believe statements have been substantiated by diffs, and it's time you stop with your wild accusations. LRD 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Refusal to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, ownership of articles, personal abuse by User:Subzzee

Per discussion above, User:Subzzee refuses to understand the significance of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention and had persistently edited in violation of them despite ample notice, while clearly exhibiting ownership of articles behaviour. He has also engaged in uncivil behaviour, personal abuse and unfounded statements. For ANI action. Thank you. LRD 02:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Deleting talk page comments

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this notice, but I couldn't find one that fit exactly what was going on. On Talk:Sandra Morgen, an anon editor made some disparaging comments about another editor, although not by name. The editor who was ill-spoken of then deleted those comments. The comments in question have been restored several times, and either deleted, edited, or hidden [55] [56]. User:Thebrycepeake has been warned, and yet persists in the behavior. I understand this was part of a larger issue between she and anon, but do not believe that justifies deleting this comment, however uncivil, unkind, or even unfair. --Briancua (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL explicitly states: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. If Thebrycepeake has objected to this information appearing on the talk page, and has explained why, do you think it's WP:CIVIL to repeatedly insist on reposting it? What purpose does this serve? Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at what it says just before the sentence you quote, Ivanvector: "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." Also, I will quote again what I wrote on Thebrycepeake's talk page: Take a look at what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on the subject: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection..." Under the heading of personal attacks, they can sometimes be removed if the comments involve " personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." As you can see, you have to rise to the level of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in order to justify deleting a comment, and still then it is a "borderline case." This comment does not even come close to being disruptive.

I've removed the comments again. There is no reason to force them to remain there. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor. --Onorem (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Depending on one's viewpoint, it could be argued that referring to the subject of the article as a "low level academic" could be construed to be a BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for weighing in. I'd like to provide some context for Briancua's harassment/protests. He had been reverting edits made on various university and college pages that had been added after consensus, and supported by three other editors. See [[57]] for more context on that. After trying to provoke an edit war, he was told to stop because the content he was deleting was supported by a score of reliable sources and List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations, which is an article that I originally wrote. He then nominated that article for deletion [[58]]. Additionally, he went through my contribution history and undid a couple of edits, including the initial erasure of the uncivil activity on the Sandra Morgen talk page. It feels very much like I'm being harassed by this user simply because he disagreed with edits that I had made on pages he patrols. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I, naturally, feel differently about much of what was said here, but won't respond to that in an effort to keep this conversation focused on the issue at hand, the deletion on comments from this particular talk page. I would, however, like to apologize to Thebrycepeake if she feels harassed. That certainly was not my intention. --Briancua (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology @Briancua:, and hope the Admins will close the thread with no other actions needed after deleting the comments on Talk:Sandra Morgen.- Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad we are on good terms again, but I still feel it is inappropriate to delete another user's comments on a talk page and am waiting for an admin to chime in. --Briancua (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor." - Care to respond to those points? Could you explain why the anon's comments are in any way appropriate for the article talk page? --Onorem (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive and abusive editing, excessive abuse etc by User:FleetCommand

• FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of The Big Bang Theory characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At List of The Big Bang Theory characters, FleetCommand is being aggressive and confrontational in such a way that rationally disussing disputed content is not possible. He has also been edit-warring and attacking me in edit-summaries in the article. It is not presently possibly to make constructive edits to the article because FleetCommand would rather edit-war than discuss and refuses to respect WP:BRD, also demonstrating a degree of WP:OWN over the article.

FleetCommand visited my talk page a month ago. Discussion seemed to be progressing until he decided to call me scatterbrained.[59] He was called out on this by another editor,[60][61] and from there the discussion went downhill. (see archived discussion) More than a month after last editing List of The Big Bang Theory characters he returned to the article, leaving an edit summary that read "Repaired damage inflicted by User:AussieLegend".[62] The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use {{anchor}} instead of {{visible anchor}} for a non-credited name. After that edit, I fixed a template name leaving an admittedly childish summary, as a way of hinting to him that he isn't perfect either.[63] That was reverted with the summary "Reverted tendentious violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. {{tl|Official}} redirects {{tl|Official website}}. Only AussieLegend is interested in conflict. I went to his talk page in peace but he kept stonewalling me and playing dumb". Seeing that as clearly going overboard, I left a note on FleetCommand's talk page.[64] I don't believe I went too far in addressing the situation, although I was (naturally) a bit terse. At this point Codename Lisa inserted herself into the discussion. Despite attempts to give her some background (We have had prior amicable dealings at Windows XP) her posts became more and more accusatory and hypocritical. She even criticised the editor who had called out FleetCommand on my talk page, simply because he said "fuck", even though he was not part of the conversation. Eventually I chose to withdraw from that discussion, and concentrate on the content issues by moving the disussion to the article's talk page.[65] However, that didn't stop her unjustly accusing me of being a liar.[66] Discussion on the article's talk page continued but Codename Lisa continued to question my conduct so I left what I feel was an appropriate post on her talk page[67] (several times she admonished me for addressing FleetCommand's conduct but, hypocritically, continued to criticise mine[68]).

FleetCommand's involvement in the article talk page discussion had been minimal, essentially consisting of a single paragraph, to which he added a trivial question and a baseless claim of sockpuppetry.[69] Since then he has only announced that he made an edit that hadn't been properly discussed,[70] followed by an attack.[71] FleetCommand has made aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries in the article, edit-warring as he did so:

• "Deleted {{verification failed}}. Per talk page, verification passed the test at 3:54. Actually, I did know that. I just wanted to see if AussieLegend resorts to this combative action. He did"
• "Deleted {{weasel-inline|date=October 2014}} because it is a peacock term, not a weasel word. Of course, because AussieLegend only seeks warfare, he doesn't care. Also replaced the term." - This is of particular note because {{weasel-inline}} wasn't added by me. It was added by an IP.[72]

In addition to the inappropriate summaries, FleetCommand has edit-warred. Because of threats by Codename Lisa,[73] I decided to document the warring instead of fixing the errors that were introduced. I did this here for anybody who wants to look. The edit-warring continues. Today, FleetCommand made some unexplained changes to the article, which I partially reverted, explaining why in each summary.[74][75] Note that I did not revert all of his edits, as there was some constructive editing.[76] In fact I deliberately did not restore two notes that have been added to the article because of prior problems with other editors. In today's edits I also made two changes so that the article reflected what is in the sources (the previous version contained significant WP:SYNTH).[77] FleetCommand's actions were to revert most of the changes that I made,[78] leaving just this portion remaining. He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[79]) to that edit. And there is still no attempt by him at discussion on the article talk page. I am not claiming total innocence, but I believe that I have tried my best to collaborate with this editor, only to be abused for my efforts. This is not a simple case of edit-warring. A break from the article for whatever reason has been shown not to work. After a month away FleetCommand returned to the article and with his first edits he chose to attack me.[80] While content is an important part of this, the main problem here is FleetCommand's continued aggressive editing and abusive edit summaries. He has been blocked in the past, multiple times, for his attitude to other editors and edit-warring. There are even concerns about his actions at WP:AN right now. This is an editor who needs to be reminded that he has to collaborate with other editors, and fully justify his own actions, not to rely on somebody who seems to have a rather strange off-wiki relationship with him. I'm asking that he be given some firm direction in this area, and reminded that he can't edit-war. Even after he was convinced in an IM to revert an inappropriate reversion,[81] he has continued edit-warring. He also needs to respect the BRD process and not discount edits made by other editors. Given that he's editing just as he was when he was blocked I don't have a lot of hope though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:FleetCommand: Hey, quit talking about the editor. Calling people warriors in edit summaries is going to make them warriors. Your causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Quit being a dick. Okay, let's close this and everyone move on.--v/r - TP 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If only it was that easy. FleetCommand only seems to be taking advice from Codename Lisa, and then only when it suits him. In this edit he self-reverted because she told him to, but in his very next edit, he effectively reverted himself, removing a ref and completely changed the context of one statement, turning a sourced statement into nonsense.[82] that had to be fixed.[83] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are content issues, we can only address behavioral issues here, sorry.--v/r - TP 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I was addressing behavioural issues. My point was that he is unlikely to take notice of your comment. The edits I referred to were examples of his inconsistent behaviour. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just keep reporting instances of WP:NPA and at some point an admin will have to take preventative action.--v/r - TP 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Should I have to keep reporting until an admin finally decides to do something? This is an editor I'm reporting now for several instances of inappropriate behaviour including, but not limited to NPA, incivility, edit warring, asserting ownership of an article and refusing to discuss edits. This is an editor who has a long history of NPA and incivility and has been blocked for it several times. A quick check through his edit history shows instances of incivility, such as one edit where he calls another editor a pig.[84] Why shouldn't something be done now? @FleetCommand: - That Codename Lisa may have said that verification does not fail does not mean she is correct. Anyone can look at the episodes and see she is wrong and I have explained why on the article's talk page. You claim to be open to discussion, but I've tried to discuss and you don't seem to want to. All you do is edit-war and when I try to discuss you fob me off or ignore me completely. You need to collaborate and respect BRD, not make excuses not to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"...when I try to discuss you..." Diff of your attempt please! Fleet Command (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, here's an example: I tried to address the issue of the unexplained heading changes,[85], which you completely ignored in your reply.[86] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[129])".
"you completely ignored in your reply."
Make up your mind. Did he ignored or did he graciously consented? 86.57.57.209 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He graciously consented to restoring the row scopes that he deleted but completely ignored the issue of the unexplained heading changes that he had changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: You talk exactly like Codename Lisa. (So, if you ever wanted to be his paid sockpuppet, ask for a hefty sum! It was a joke by the way.)

Look here, now. I am open to an actual discussion. But a peace conference is not held in the middle of a war. Saying "The matter of failed verification has been thoroughly rebutted without further opposition" does not change the talk page sentence from "verification doesn't fail" to "verification does fail". Also, I think you would agree that I wasn't a dick throughout September. But looking at that time, do I look a hero to you? Or do I look like a dufus? Fleet Command (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• An example of the ongoing confrontational editing by FleetCommand can be seen above. When I replied here I noticed that FleetCommand had applied some peculiar indenting, but I tried to retain the original indenting. Expecting that fixing his would result in an inappropriate response, I decided not to fix his indenting. He subsequently changed my indenting with the edit summary "Indenting your message correctly is a good start. As for the rest, do your worst."[87] After I actually fixed the indenting, the confrontational summaries continued.[88] Instead of leaving the indenting alone, he's now moved his post after mine, so I'm now replying to a post after mine,[89] which is bound to confuse the casual reader. It doesn't matter what he's replying to, FleetCommand just continues to be confrontational. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. So, these two finally found their way into ANI? Sad but predictable.

Overall assessment:

• The article's condition is stable; this amount of revert and partial revert is natural on any article. Only by looking at the user conduct we see that there is actually a problem.
• Fleet Command (FC)'s edits are resentful; he edits at the wrong time, and doesn't seem to be in hurry to call in appropriate dispute resolution processes. I know how to deal with such editors; a little respect and a little compromise can solve it.
• AussieLegend (AL) has entered Mastadon Mode: Not only he is assuming bad faith, he sees everyone and everything as threat, does not give up an inch of his position for a compromise and aggressively posts a combative reply to every talk page post. (If I posted a comment that said "Fleet Command, shut up!", AL(not FC) would have replied by saying "I won't shut up".) And most importantly, he resorts to lying a lot. Should I list them chronologically or categorically? Let's go with chronological. (See below)
• Other involved editors are myself (Codename Lisa) and CyphoidBomb, although we didn't the article. CyphoidBomb was only present during the first stage of the dispute.

User talk:AussieLegend

The whole discussion can be seen in revision #625920663. It started on 1 September 2014. FC started it with an icebreaker, but unlike what AL said in the opening statement here, it was not going well. I was aware that AL is misinforming FC, although only when the "scatterbrained" comment came I realized that FC was acutely aware of this. Now, AL did mention that CyphoidBomb used less-that-civil language to scold FC. What he didn't mention – TParis, I hope you are reading this – was that FC apologized early in the incident. almost immediately. In addition, AL does not seem much bothered by this brief exchange at that time. Later, CyphoidBomb also apologized. Most importantly, the discussion didn't go downhill since; it died then and there, and not because of the brief uncivil exchange.

User talk:FleetCommand

The whole discussion can be seen in revision #629285971 except for what's visible in revision #629165515. Please correct me if I am wrong but the opening statement by AL is purely ad hominem because its purpose seems to be to hurt, to threaten or to get even. (It certainly wasn't a collegial attempt to resolve any dispute.) When I tried to calm both down and said "discuss the content, not the people"; FC replied "let's do it" while AL replied "don't throw NPA at me"!

Also, AL revealed his absolute unwillingness to give any form of compromise, not matter how small. Normally, when I see such edit, I don't bother thinking about it, let alone bringing it to ANI. If I know that it upsets someone and hinders discussion, I categorically avoid it. Instead, AL did this: [90] Childish! Very Childish! It is the very embodiment of refusing to have any compromise even one that makes no difference to anyone. Also, see how AL actually defends this edit in the opening statement. It would have been a more convincing argument if AL said "okay, I made a mistake. Doesn't everyone?" (Indeed it can happen.) But no! He says 'The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use instead of {{{1}}} for a non-credited name'. (The problem is, if I did believe it was a deliberate choice, it would have been vandalism.)

Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters

AL contended above FC's presence in the discussion was minor. But what he didn't say was that the so-called discussion didn't deal much with the treatment of the dispute and was mostly exchange of incivilities. Mainly, he refused to get the point, especially, when had no answer for the objections registered. Lying was his modus operandi and assuming good faith or the will to negotiate was non-existent. FC didn't do good there either; not participating in uncivil discussions is good but it is not dispute resolution. WP:DRN and WP:RFC were the avenues that he must have tried. Most importantly, none of them properly explored the avenue of alternatives to resolve their dispute. In fact, I did that. But I shouldn't flatter myself.

Perhaps the most important thing that AL did in that discussion was one particularly nasty comment that forever shattered any hope of having good relations with FC. FC implemented a particular form of compromise that I had proposed and asked whether it is edit warring. Naturally, yes and no are both wrong answers. So, instead I resorted to invoking a certain event in which one editor reverted another 56 times in the same day, under the supervision of six admins, and was one of the most peaceful and constructive wiki-cooperations I ever had encountered. (FYI, it was a WP:FACR speedy resolution, if you are wondering what that could be!) I was hoping that this memory will forever erase any thought of further dispute from FC's mind by showing that no matter what, a collegial discussion is more worthy than any outcome of it. It didn't, because AL came along and posted a comment that showed that he would simply go to any length to fight FC just for the hell of it. AL could have just shut up and enjoy the outcome, but no! He must poke the sleeping hellhound. Eventually, I switched to instant messaging (IM) and convinced FC to end this whole inferno with revision #629673768.

User talk:FleetCommand § BRD

Well, here AL is wrong, plain and simple! He is not assuming good faith; otherwise, BRD is followed perfectly. FC said "I did a B. You partially reverted, especially the scope part. That's an R. I consented, matter closed." In the opening statement, AL has described this as an instance of WP:OWN because he assumes bad faith. But in reality, this sentence is saying "I liked your revert; we have a consensus". For all I know, this could have been what I and one of my esteemed colleagues do, except without the talk page showdown and without the ANI.

Final comment

I see two editors; one who starts a potentially troublesome discussion with a discuss-first approach and is mature enough to say "I humbly apologize"; another editor who cannot even confess that he made a slight mistake (which everybody does every now and then) and must interfere in a topic that he knows nothing about just to incite more hatred and combat. Can I really be mad at the first one?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa presents what is best described as an unrealistic and severely distorted view of events:

"I was aware that AL is misinforming FC," - No, that's not true. I was informing FC what was normal practice, even citing examples. I actually doubt that claim as Codename Lisa was not involved until I posted on FleetCommand's talk page, well over a month after FleetCommand attacked me at mine.

"What he didn't mention – TParis, I hope you are reading this – was that FC apologized almost immediately." - That's also not true at all. FC called me scatterbrained,[91] and was challenged by Cyphoidbomb.[92] FleetCommand then tried to justify his incivility by arguing that it would have been more uncivil not to because it would be relevant at RfA.[93] (If you can understand that you are better than me!) Meanwhile, I was still carrying on a conversation with FleetCommand,[94] and other editors on my talk page. From the time that FleetCommand was first uncivil to the "apology", (note this edit summary) NINE days elapsed.[95] In that time he made 25 other edits. That's not even in the realm of the realm next to "almost immediately"!

"AL does not seem much bothered by this brief exchange at that time" - No, I was bothered by it but I chose to ignore it, other than making a single comment.[96]

"Please correct me if I am wrong but the opening statement by AL is purely ad hominem because its purpose seems to be to hurt, to threaten or to get even" - Yes, you're wrong. I saw fit to post because of yet another of FleetCommand's uncivil/NPA edit summaries.[97] His attitude towards other editors is far too agressive and clearly needed to be reminded of the ramifications.

"When I tried to calm both down and said "discuss the content, not the people"; FC replied "let's do it" while AL replied "don't throw NPA at me"!" - Rubbish. What you actually said is here and my response was this. I did not say "don't throw NPA at me" until you had persistently attacked me for daring to take umbrage at FleetCommand's uncivil/NPA edit summaries. You have persistently said "discuss the content, not the people", but then you do exactly that yourself.

"AL contended above FC's presence in the discussion was minor. But what he didn't say was that the so-called discussion didn't deal much with the treatment of the dispute and was mostly exchange of incivilities." - Because of Lisa's own aggressive actions at FleetCommand's talk page I withdrew from the page and tried to continue a discussion there. That discussion seemed to be productive up until this post (ignoring FleetCommand's bogus sockpuppetry claim[98]) but then Codename Lisa decided to continue her attacks from FleetCommand's page.[99] She could easily have omitted the last paragraph of her post but instead, once again, decided to question my "questionable past conduct". since then I've had to ask her more than once to keep on topic.[100][101] However, even attempting to keep the focus on editors off the page,[102] has not been successful.

"because AL came along and posted a comment that showed that he would simply go to any length to fight FC just for the hell of it" - More rubbish. All I did was copy what Wikipedia:Edit warring actually said in response to an off-topic discussion that should have been conducted on FleetCommand or Codename Lisa's talkpage, or via IM, instead of continong to drag the discussion off-topic.

There is plenty more of Codename Lisa's post that warrants comment because it is blantantly and verifiably incorrect, but I'm sure nobody wants to read it. Ironically, the one thing that FleetCommand and I do agree on is that her presence at the article has not been helpful.[103] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I too disagree with Lisa's claim that FC almost immediately apologized. FC's first reaction was to downplay the insult against Aussie by pretending he was insulting Aussie for Aussie's own good. It wasn't until 9 days after the insult that FC struck it out with a "Whatever..." edit summary, then apologized. I also disagree with Lisa's claim that my language was incivil. I described the insult (not Fleet the individual) as "shit" (which I felt it was) and as "irritating as fuck" to read (which I felt it was). I described Fleet's attempt to backpedal on the insult as "crap" and "sub-adult", the latter of which is no different from Lisa's "Childish! Very Childish!" language above. That said, after Lisa accused me of "grossly" insulting Fleet, I apologized to Fleet Command because I hoped that doing so might help repair some of this damage between he and Aussie. I stand by the apology and still hope that it helps. I absolutely do not see eye-to-eye with Lisa on this matter, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right: "Almost immediately" is struck out. I meant to write something along the lines of having happened relatively early in the timeline of the whole incident. Sorry. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Early in the incident" is still somewhat misleading. There are two parts to the "incident" and his apology wasn't until the very end of the first part, after which there were 22 days of peace before he started again. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The correct phrase is "almost immediately after spotting the thread". I was absent for 9 days (no edits on 9th through 16th) and when I came back I tended to my watchlist from top to bottom, so yes, naturally I didn't see it before I made some (25?) edits. Although I don't know about Australian English, here, "Whatever..." is an interjection of dismissal which I used to dismiss my old "scatterbrained" comment. Of course, striking out that comment was an emergency action. I needed time to re-study everything and measure exactly what to write. (One forgets a lot in 9 days.) It took 32 minutes.

"Early in the incident" is also correct: "Early" is relative; CL has illustrated four stages. It occurred on stage 1 out of 4, so yes, it was early. Fleet Command (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Spotting the thread"? What, you didn't realise the thread existed, even after you'd been posting in it? Why couldn't you have apologised before you disappeared, or not have posted the insult at all? It's all well and good that you eventually apologised, but you shouldn't have been uncivil in the first place, and you know that. You then went and undid the effect that you apology may have had with this post. You've just made it worse by acknowledging here that working through your watchlist was more important than apologising.
"striking out that comment was an emergency action" - If it had really been an emergency you would have done it before going through your watchlist. You knew that you'd been uncivil before you absented yourself. You didn't need a watchlist to tell you that and after striking out your edit with "whatever" you went off and made 5 other edits before returning. You're clearly making excuses here but they're transparent. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimers: 1) Personal involvement with AussieLegend and 2) I only skimmed through (way too much to bother reading thoroughly) this and Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters and List of The Big Bang Theory characters revision history and their talk pages' histories.
That said, skimming through this AussieLegend seems to just confirm my first impressions of him: If he can't convince someone with the first few instant reverts, which he is convinced he is correct in doing (which may or may not be true), he will then start "explaining" – often quite convincingly. If somebody reads through what he wrote and manages to finds "errors" and it gets pointed out where in his initial revert reasoning he might be wrong, he will not admit it, but keep on digging deeper into the hole, or if possible, find other policy violations (which may or may not be correct) and dig another second hole. Repeat these steps for as long as necessary.
My impression of FleetCommand is that he maybe seems to get a bit too heated (maybe) too fast, and sometimes too blunt and direct choice of words for the other person's taste. But when he cools down he can admit if he actually did something wrong. But if it doesn't get pointed out he did wrong, he will also stubbornly continue until convinced otherwise.
Make the discussion long enough and the other part usually just can't be bothered any more and gives up. Except if they both are equally stubborn. Just my short biased opinion based after briefly looking/skimming through. -Hekseuret (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by FleetCommand at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28

This link stated, "...(3) as per WP:TPO notice of change is needed)".  FC reverted without inserting a WP:TPO comment, while the objection shown in the edit summary could have been handled via the talk page.  The revert, while not 3RR edit-warring, was the out-of-control aggressive behavior restricted by WP:Edit warring.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And that close has subsequently been undone.[104] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Closure is already discussed in WP:ANB. Edit warring must be discussed in WP:AN3. No one is supposed to edit a closed discussion. Doing this compromises the integrity of closure and makes the closing person look like a complete fool. Also digging dirt on other people only makes the dirt digger look bad. WP:NOTBATTLE, so cut it out. 46.62.142.76 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This all goes to presenting an overall picture of the editor's behaviour. You can't draw lines and say "talk about this bit here, that bit over there and that bit over there". All of the different aspects overlap. If we were to go to each specific forum to address each specific aspect, we'd be accused of gaming the system. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone wants to pay me to write an article

On my talk page User:GKKelly997 is offering to pay me to write an article - something of course I won't do. I don't even have time to write my own articles! But what should we do, if anything, about this? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's related to his Draft:Police, which started on his userpage, I'm guessing we've got a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up his offer if you won't. But I'll insist on pre-payment before I tell him whether or not the article can be written within policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. As for payment, maybe they should be advised to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. That will probably put the brakes on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, paid editing is not disallowed. But it does have to be disclosed and you're strongly discouraged from editing articles relating to what you have a COI with. But with AfC, and proper disclosure, I'd have no trouble with editors being paid to write an article. Tutelary (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

GKKelly997 has, of course, since been sent to the Phantom Zone. And your logic makes sense. Of course, full disclosure would kind of defeat the purpose of a paid article, as it would make the article a lightning rod for scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't be taking on paid jobs for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny. Paid editing should be a way to get articles that would otherwise be written through the normal process done sooner. If there is a need to avoid scrutiny, paid editing is inappropriate.--v/r - TP 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Un4goten1

• Un4goten1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly a vandal-only account. Logged yesterday, he did 6 nonsense edits on Henry Greenslade article, all rollbacked (see: first 3, 4th, 5th, and the last one). User was still warned by the users who rollbacked the page. Anyway, the article was vandalized some minutes ago by another vandal (indef blocked per WP:UAA after my report), and the nonsense style looks like the same. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: User was indef blocked by Berean Hunter. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also indeffed his socks Your fucking mother, SniparClan, Cheeesez and 89.241.160.144 (hardblocked 72 hours). Un4goten1 is a sleeper account from late 2010 so this is someone's sock. I've semi-protected the page two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for edits. Ah, sorry, I've not noted he was logged in December 2010 and not few hours ago. Anyway, also the user Theobinns made this pair of strange edits (and nothing else) onto Greenslade's article, on 20 september. Another possible sp? --Dэя-Бøяg 02:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Most likely but I didn't choose to block based on just those two edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: could it be a good idea to open an SPI page for Un4goten1? --Dэя-Бøяg 02:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You can if you would like to...I was hoping someone might put a name on the true sockmaster if they recognize him from this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, I'll try, al least to leave a thrace of this sockpuppetry case. And maybe, someone can recognize the original sockmaster :) --Dэя-Бøяg 11:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I am rather surprised a sock or vandal didn't use a username like "User:Your fucking mother" yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Rotfl :-D I thought the same think reading of him in new user log... only yesterday. --Dэя-Бøяg 11:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I created the SPI page for Un4goten1. I hope it could be helpful to discover the real sm. Anyway, I've listed other possible IP socks (2 of them, in September, are almost certainly him), and discovered a thing that could be interesting to understand the reason of all this vandalisms on a little stub about a person born in 1867. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits and Statements of User:Obenritter

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

---

I was going to let this go, but after reviewing some user page material on User:Obenritter I am very concerned that the editing patterns of this user, as well as statements made on the editor’s own user page are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy and outwardly show someone who is not willing to work with other editors. My contact with this user began here [105] when a question was asked about the copyright status of foreign language translated text. The user was invited to comment here [106]. In response, the user posted a rant on my talk page, bringing up personal details and other items unconnected with the article topic. The posting was eventually removed after I realized it was a pretty blatant personal attack [107] [108] [109] [110]. I later discovered that after the talk page discussion had been resolved, the user posted a message on another talk page that I was a “jerk”, among other things. [111] . The final item which inspired me to come here was Obenritter’s user page in which the user states: If you elect to engage or challenge something I have edited or contributed, be prepared for the onslaught. My nature forces me to expose stupidity and refute those who masquerade as actual editors on subjects when they are often times mere neophytes. If you're correct, I will concede; if you are not however, I expect reciprocity and for you to yield accordingly. If you do not, you have my eternal disdain and can expect to be treated like a leper. [112] These are not the postings of someone who is here to work with other editors but rather someone with serious issues about WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. I would ask an unrelated administrator take a close look at this user’s conduct and offer help and advice where needed. With that said I plan no further contact with this user and have removed the original article from my watchlist. -OberRanks (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as either a boomerang situation SEE or no action. A bit of academic tough guy posturing on the user page, but looks like a valuable European history contributor. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Ernst-Heinrich Schmauser. No, I certainly don't see a boomerang here: OberRanks was (essentially) right about the copyright complaint (it was technically a violation, though one that could be healed through proper source attribution), and Oberritter was way out of line in his response. Will block him if he does that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like we're well on the way to chasing off another valuable academic expert, so everyone involved needs to take a bow for that. I hate this place sometimes... Carrite (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he was right. In order to prove copyright infringement, the source needs to be shown, he didn't show what source the text was supposedly copyrighted, meanwhile Obenritter showed what sources he was using, so no, doesn't look like a copyright issue. Yes, ObenRitter conduct wasn't right, throwing around PA's and such is never okay, no matter what credentials a user may or may not have.KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a translation from the de.wiki article to the en.wiki? If the addition of the text had been accompanied by proper attribution of the de.wiki text (as is required) this this storm in a teacup would have been avoided. In addition, I think Obenritter reaction was OTT and overly sensitive. But this is the internet and that is why we have a policy on assuming good faith.

OberRanks didn't show good faith. His/her first assumption was that this was a copyright violation (and, yes, technically it was because of the text wasn't attributed).

I would be forgiving of Obenritter for neglecting to properly attribute the de.wiki text due to the work he/she put into translating it and the value he/she brought to this wiki through that work. I would be less forgiving of OberRanks for not showing good faith (and not, for example, simply approaching Obenritter to ask where the text came from). That approach to others' contributions is the kind of breach of policy that demoralizes valuable contributors and so has longer lasting implications for the project.

My recommendation would be for OberRanks to apologise to Obenritter for his mistake. And for Obenritter to make a dummy edit attributing the de.wiki. --Tóraí (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So couching a sweeping generalization (and a false one at that) under pseudo-conciliatory rhetoric of a patronizing nature by OberRanks is permissible but a response to that is not allowable? The original German article had 6 citations whereas my English translation (while incorporating a significant amount of the original German) ended with 21 citations and additionally academically substantiated content. That alone should have made it abundantly clear that this was not a case where the article was plagiarized. OberRanks obviously ignored these facts which caused my unpleasant vituperation. For that I apologize. Had I know that a disclaimer regarding the translation was necessary that too would have been added. I would inform OberRanks of my intention to mention him, but he has unequivocally stated above that he will not have contact with me so I am about to break another rule posting here without informing him/her of such. Perhaps I just don't belong here. Sorry for the trouble folks. --Obenritter (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Its unfortunate the way this escalated the way it did. It was not meant to accuse, attack, nor was bringing this here an attempt to get anyone in trouble but rather point out possible flaws in dealing with other editors. Obenritter is obviously a highly educated editor who would be welcome on Wikipedia. Apologies to him and all others. With the article translation itself resolved, I think the discussion can be marked as resolved. -OberRanks (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Mass creation of American Contact Bridge League articles

Misunderstanding cleared up, articles were worthy. A reminder not to bite the newbies and to assume good faith. No such user (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Requesting eyes on the recent spate of articles created by Nicolas.hammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears that all of these are sourced to unreliable sources and are unlikely to have sufficient coverage to attain notability. Given the quantity of articles created, and no talk interactions since 2007 (and then to dispute a copyvio), I am not hopeful that this will stop. Rather than propose dozens of CSDs, a quick mop pass might suffice. Thank you for looking. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two problems here. One is that Nicolas Hammond should stop making these rapid fire unsourced BLP stubs (and I note he did, his new creations are all sourced!), and go a bit slower and create slightly better and sourced articles. The other is that people really shouldn't speedy delete these on completely bogus grounds. The article Lew Stansby has been speedy deleted as an A7 (no claim of importance) by User:Malik Shabazz. I have now restored it. At the time of the deletion, the article claimed that he had won 4 world championships and 31 North American Bridge Championships, plus many other titles. Many of the tournaments he won have bluelinks, so appear to be notable events, e.g. his three wins at the Bermuda Bowl alone would be sufficient to make an A7 invalid. No chance at an AfD either, by the way, as it stands or with added sources like [113].

"Rather than propose dozens of CSDs", he should be guided into making better articles, but none of the articles should be speedy deleted (BLPProd is another issue, but that has nothing to do with notability). The subjects of all articles I checked have clear claims to notability, and the ones I checked online all seemed to be correct as well, no hoaxes. It seems that bridge players have been seriously underrepresented so far, and the editor is doing a good-faith and long needed effort to correct this gap in our coverage. Give him a barnstar and a mentor, not an ANI thread and speedy deletions please. Fram (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Tgeairn, hy do you claim that these are sourced to unreliable sources? The site of the American Contract Bridge League, which is the site used to source the articles you nominated for speedy deletion, is not an unreliable source at all. It is not an independent source, a source from organisers of a sport / passtime / whatever can not be used to indicate notability at an AfD, but it is clearly a reliable source, and more than enough to avoid A7 speedy and BLPprod.

Further, Hammond made his latest contribution at 05.42. You tagged one article for speedy at 06.33, one at 06.35, and opened this ANI at 06.44. No attempt at discussion at all. The more I look into this, the more it becomes clear that Hammond is the innocent party here, and that everyone else involved should take a good look at what they did and where they went wrong. Fram (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for looking... A little further looking on my part didn't reveal much in the world of bridge players either, so maybe we have a whole new fountain of content here (which is a good thing). I would caution that the tournaments, teams, and awards articles all appear to be either created by or significantly edited (adding names to the lists) by the same editor and one other. I am not seeing anything (so far) that I would keep at an AfD, and at the same time I am not going to say AfD is the way to go. A mentor and/or guidance would be a great thing here, I think. I just don't see the editor responding to any attempts (since 2007). We really can't keep dozens of BLPs with such minimal sourcing though... I'll start watchlisting. Tgeairn (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here fairly quickly because I saw at first a couple BLPs and then looked and saw dozens. Further looking found that the editor has been unresponsive to talk requests since 2007, and I wanted to halt what looked like an ongoing mass addition of narrowly sourced BLPs. I don't think anyone (including myself or you) did anything wrong in trying to address this. If you're comfortable with the sourcing for a BLP, then that's really all I need right now. I have definitely not done the research to see if these people are notable, but a fast and mass addition of BLPs, all sourced to the same website, by an editor who has been unresponsive in the past, should have someone looking (even if the outcome is that "all is well"). --Tgeairn (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? "I just don't see the editor responding to any attempts (since 2007)" and "no talk interactions since 2007 (and then to dispute a copyvio)", "an editor who has been unresponsive in the past" are a case for concern if someone has ignored many talk page comments. But between 2007 and yesterday, there has been one "discussion", i.e. two notes about the same article: the listing at Prod, and the listing at AfD (for an article he shouldn't have created, but which had nothing vandalistic or anything in it). There have never been any questions asked at his talk page, so how can he have been unresponsice? To take this as the clear evidence that he wouldn't reply is, well, strange to say the least. Lets' just hope that you (plural) haven't chased away an editor who is clearly knowledgeable about the subject, clearly willing to spend some time in extending our coverage, but just needs some friendly guidance in how best to do this. Fram (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a good and/or willing editor here, then let's support them in contributing. I said unresponsive as they have created over 120 BLPs in the past 36 hours, many of which are currently tagged for CSD or BLPProd, and have not responded to any of those CSDs or PRODs. I have no interest in chasing anyone away, AND we cannot have 120+ BLPs created that all hinge on a web published daily article that is published and edited by someone with the same name as the editor creating all of those articles. I COMPLETELY AGREE that we want to encourage new editors (even old editors), but BLP and sourcing are serious and it was in no way inappropriate for me to bring this here or propose CSD. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"over 120 BLPs in the past 36 hours" Wow. Just wow. And if he's citing his own website -- this sounds clearly like COI, linkspam, cruft, and whatever else you want to call self-promotion and Google-hit-mongering. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, again, all calm down and stop with the accusations. Linkspam? Cruft? He is, if the username matches the person, an expert on the subject, sharing his knowledge in the way he knows. Instead of claiming "self promotion", "Google-hit-mongering", "linkspam" and so on, look at what he really produces. He created an article on Seymon Deutsch (which was nominated for speedy!), who had an obituary in the NYTimes[114]. "Citing his own website" is the website of the American Contract Bridge League, "the largest contract bridge organization in North America", not some personal fansite or forum. If Sepp Blatter would create articles on soccer players and linked to the FIFA website, would you also accuse him of these things? Obviously, the ACBL is a lot smaller than FIFA, but it is not some insignificant or unreliable organisation. I can find no evidence that the ACBL website is even his website, or that the Daily Bulletin is his work. this one from 2014 lists three editors, none of them called Hammond. This one from 2013 also doesn't list him as the editor.

Can we pleae drop all hyperbole and accusations without evidence, and look at the facts, and at how we treated (and are treating) an editor with knowledge of the subject and the will to help Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Points taken, but scattershot "over 120 BLPs in the past 36 hours" is worrisome any way you look at it in my opinion. All of these scattershot rapid-fire articles have empty sections marked "2BD". Someone needs to clean those sections out (I got rid of some), and take the editor in hand and convince him that quality not quantity is what Wikipedia is all about. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed (though Wikipedia is about quality and quantity). Fram (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tgeairn, "BLP and sourcing are serious and it was in no way inappropriate for me to bring this here or propose CSD." Um, yes, it was. No attempt to communicate, no indication of any real BLP concerns (has anything been found to be contentious or wrong? Were his new creations even unsourced at the time of your ANI section?), means that it was inappropriate to start this. Furthermore, the CSDs were inappropriate as well, as they were obviously incorrect. Finally, your claims in this section contain more BLP violations than all his articles combined. You accuse him of "120+ BLPs created that all hinge on a web published daily article that is published and edited by someone with the same name as the editor creating all of those articles", but provide no evidence that this is true. I looked, and I can't find any evidence for this claim. This is a clear BLP violation and personal attack, which then gets picked up and exaggerated to new levels by Softlavender. You also claim of his articles that "many of which are currently tagged for CSD or BLPProd", but none are currently tagged for CSD, and as far as I can tell, none are tagged for BLPProd either, since he has sourced all these articles in the meantime (long before your first comments). So please, just back off, what you are doing is a lot worse than what this editor has done. Fram (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note sure if this is how I responds, but I'll post here. I'm Nicolas Hammond. The quality/quantity of US Contract Bridge players in Wikipedia is/was very small, particularly when compared to others sports. I set a limit of 10+ National Championships or a World Championship in the criteria of deciding who to create articles on or someone who has had a significant impact on Bridge. I am a member of the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL), same as 170,000 other people. ACBL.org is not my web site. I am not an editor of any ACBL publication. Neither is the World Bridge Federation (WBF). I am a computer programmer, therefore know how to quickly create multiple pages. There is a common format with other bridge players. I simply copied it. I did create some 2BD, because I am trying to get some folks from other places to update the entries. I will make sure that I don't add any more 2BDs. I would respond to talk, but I don't check my Wikipedia very often, nor is it sometimes clear who to respond to someone/somebot. Nor did I realize that you require a 15 minute response time to talk. Someone wanted speedy deletion of Lew Stansby. Lew is 5th of the list of all time winners of American Bridge Championships. He has won 4 world championships. He has won 35 American Bridge Championships, each Championship was at least a 2 day event, some of them are 7 days long. The list of Baseball Home Run Leaders has over 300 entries - every single player has a Wikipedia entry. Players #5, #6 on the Bridge equivalent list did not have entries. I only wrote articles where the person was mentioned AT LEAST 5 TIMES on existing Wikipedia pages. I then edited the pages where someone is mentioned so that they had a link to their name. The first time I posted, I got auto-bot information that the players needed to be sourced, so I went through, manually redid all the posts, and made sure every one of the AT LEAST 5 prior entries on Wikipedia was fully sourced to an outside newspaper/web sites. There are 292 bridge players that have won at least 5 National Championships, 129 who have won at least 10 national championships. All 129 are deserving, IMHO, of entries on Wikipedia. I happened to have a few volunteer hours available this week (a rare occurence), so put them to use on this project. My suggestion is that you get someone who is familiar with Bridge to decide the significance of the players that I wrote a bio on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas.hammond (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed a few of your entries and took a brief overview of the rest, mostly in Category:American bridge players, and I can vouch for their notability. I didn't review if they all have references (I think you started adding them later) to pass WP:BLPPROD, but that should be taken care about later. Thank you again for your effort, and I hope you will stay on Wikipedia despite this misunderstanding. I'm closing this section, everything is now hopefully sorted out. No such user (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Insulting summary

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

---

User Dentren made an insulting summary in [115]. Admin intervention may be required to delete the insult according to WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:NPA, WP:ESDONTS, etc. --Keysanger (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reasonably certain that this edit summary does not meet WP:CRD#2, or any other revdel criterion. I don't think there's any grounds for administrative action here. This looks like a content dispute being shoehorned into an ANI report. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nothing in that edit-summary is even close to a) being worried about, or b) coming to ANI about the panda ₯’ 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Describing another editor's contributions as being a "big POV-push earlier this year" is combative. I will advise Dentren to avoid making those kinds of summaries. --Tóraí (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Thomas Walker Lynch

• Thomas Walker Lynch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Natural number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since this user first began editing at Natural number and Talk:Natural number he has been exceedingly disruptive. He has been deleting other users' comments, editing his own after they've been responded to, failing to accept correction and instruction from others, making false accusations and editing in a manner which is just generally disruptive. He had already driven me from the page with his overwhelming presence there, and I was content to simply ignore him from now on. Then, I logged in this morning to see that he's made a point of trying to drag me back into it by filing a DRN request. That was the final straw that convinced me to bring this here.

Thomas' disruptive edits (not an exhaustive list)

• Thomas deleting other's comments #1
• Thomas deleting other's comments #2
• Thomas deleting other's comments #3 (and admitting to it in the edit summary, after he'd been warned about this behavior twice)
• Thomas deleting other's comments #4
• Thomas deleting other's comments #5
• JRSpriggs warning on Thomas' talk page
• Name calling and false accusations
• more name calling and modifying my comments on his talk page
• Thomas making over 100 edits in 2 weeks to the Natural number talk page
• Thomas claiming I'd deleted his comments when I actually moved them

• The removal in question
• the move in question

Note the time stamps on those two edits. The cut from one page directly preceeded the paste to another. By the time Thomas claimed I'd deleted his comments and never moved them, he'd had more than 12 hours in which to verify that they did in fact exist at the targeted page.

 

Warnings he's received and replied to, but not heeded

• The DRN request filed by Thomas in which every other editor is against him

Note the misspelling of my username: He has used demeaning and patronizing variations of my username on a number of occasions. I'd have ignored it as a mistake, except that he's also shown several times that he has no difficulty getting it right when he has to.

• JRSpriggs warning Thomas on his talk page about deleting other users' comments and wikilawyering
• D. Lazard reverting Thomas' deletion of other users' posts & about using the talk page as a forum
• D. Lazard warning Thomas about using the talk page as a forum again
• Thomas' page is full of warnings and instruction, most of which have gone unheeded, even when he replies to them

At first, I assumed that English was a second language, but I saw edit after edit lacking the sort of idiosyncracies indicative of a non-native speaker. All the while, he continue to use verbage and syntax which is dense and difficult to parse. Taken as a whole, Thomas' comments on the talk page appear disjointed and indicative of a crank. This is further evinced by his personal website, which proudly flies almost every "this guy is a crank!" red flag, from numerous self-published books to pseudo-scientific naval gazing to a laundry list of patents.

I've grown sick of this. He's been insulting others, attempting to opress criticism of his editing, and is insistantly pushing his own fringe ideas without regards for consensus. His participation on that article has done little measurable good for the article and caused an immense amount of strife. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas making over 100 edits in 2 weeks to the Natural number talk page

To be precise:

• Found 161 edits by User:Thomas Walker Lynch on Talk:Natural number (21.55% of the total edits made to the page)

--50.53.38.50 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

got to love it, apparently some people will go to great lengths to make wikipedia to fall in line with their external publications, and not have to say "counting numbers are for counting". In 30 years in the areas of applied arithmetic I've never seen so many people acting like children. It is little wonder they don't use their own names. Tell you what, put your name on this one and I will reply to it in detail. Note one of the edits I'm accuse of for name calling says: "the current article appears to be confusing counting numbers with natural numbers". LOL I'm sorry it is hard to take this very seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas Walker Lynch:: If you want to denigrate the site, don't participate in it, because such hypocrisy comes across as a childish tantrum. Removing other's posts is nothing short of vandalism, which is far from grown-up behavior. Calling people "b******s" is a childish and bullying personal attack, which is expressly forbidden by WP:No Personal Attacks and basic maturity.

In addition to civility being a cornerstone of this site, verifiability is equally important. That means citing published ("external") academic sources instead of making unreferenced claims. We don't know who you are and have no reason to assume you're in any position to be trusted. Published academic works have been edited and peer-reviewed by professionals in relevant fields, and so can be trusted. If you don't know that last bit and can't appreciate the difference between that and what someone posts on a talk page on Wikipedia, then you've clearly never been involved in academia and shouldn't be a source for the article.

Now, if you want to politely cite and summarize academic sources regarding a particular position, that's fine. But your behavior is atrocious and will result in a topic ban (if not an outright block) if you don't drop the attitude. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas posted a quote by Stephen Kleene, so I did a Google search for the quote and found a master's thesis by one Thomas Walker Lynch. Thomas has been finding very interesting sources. In particular, he found a quote about Peano from a French history of mathematics, and he went to the trouble of transcribing it and getting two English translations. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about content. This is about behavior. If you're implying that he's not a crank, I think his website would beg to differ. Having an education does not prevent one from being a crackpot. He may, in fact, not be one. He may be a respected "applied arithmetician" (though I have never seen the phrase used outside of elementary school books). Even so, his behavior here is unacceptable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, put your name on this one and I will reply to it in detail.
— User:Thomas Walker Lynch

One can't help but wonder what exactly you meant by this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What he means - and it's consistent with other comments he's made - is that he won't respond to any editor who does not disclose their real name. With that in mind,, Thomas Walker Lynch, your position is untenable. Wikipedia does not require that anyone shed their anonymity when they edit or post here. Indeed, asking people their real name is akin to wanting to out them, which is strictly prohibited and blockable. So, I strongly suggest you come back to this topic and explain your conduct based on the allegations against you. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the accusations, many of them are accurate and troubling. So, if you want to avoid possible sanctions, it would be best for you to defend yourself. A note to other editors here: let's skip the name-calling, please (crank). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend the term to cause hurt feelings, but to summarize my opinions of the man in a way which is (to me, at least) markedly less insulting than actually describing them. If it bothers you I will stop using the term, but I stand by my comparison of Thomas to this particular group of people, and I am not the only one to draw that comparison. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not whether it "bothers" me. It's uncivil. It's hard to take seriously your comments about Thomas's incivility when you descend to the same level. And others do it, too, doesn't help you. So, it's simple. Just stop doing it, directly or indirectly.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Kenfree

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

---

In RT (TV network), the user started a crusade against mentioning of disinformation in the lede. After several earlier attempts to remove the info or to move it elsewhere which were all reverted (not by me) they have written an ultimatum at the talk page saying that if in 24h nobody brings in new sources they like (they do not like the existing sources) they start reverting the paragraph does not matter what. Indeed, despite my attempts to explain them that edit-warring is not a standard dispute resolution avenue, they started reverting after 24h and are already at two reverts. They believe that edit warring constitutes 3 reverts in 24h and are apparently prepared to this third revert. Whereas the article needs in some attention, this is certainly not the way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar editing history. Have any other users attacked the page in a similar way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose its technically edit warring it just isnt a breech of the 3-revert rule. The statement is a clear intent of edit warring so might be worth throwing it to WP:ANEW. Amortias (T)(C) 17:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor who overtly and expressly stays just this side of 3RR is an edit warrior trying to game the system. If no one here takes care of it, you could report him to the edit warring page, which I think is WP:3RR, though I'm not certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN3RR and WP:ANEW are one and the same. Amortias (T)(C) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The solution would be to align more closely to the sources provided. You could for example say who says RT engages in "disinformation".

Otherwise, I don't see any case for administrator intervention here just yet. The relevant policies are verifiability and neutral point of view. If you can't evidence the statement in terms of those policies, without asking for muscle from ANI or appealing to a local consensus, then I suggest you may have lost already. --Tóraí (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not really win or lose here, because I do not care whether disinformation is mentioned in the lede or not. What I see, however, is that we get a new editor (less than 50 edits since 2011) starting a crusade, with a bunch of other editors (not me) reverting them.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Never have I seen such a blatant case of "shooting the messenger." I have raised editorial issues of verifiability and NPOV till the cows come home, and have essentially asked two questions, which neither Ymblanter nor any of the other editors involved has been willing to answer: 1) How do the citations provided corroborate the claim that RT practices disinformation, or is even accused of doing so by any credible, objective source? 2) Why does this baseless allegation belong in the lede in the first place, given that we have a rather large "Criticism" section which would seem the appropriate setting? Rather than respond to these vital questions, which always reference WP policy guidelines, Ymblanter and company prefer to kill the messenger. Perhaps, Ymblanter, since you refuse to respond to the above questions on the talk page, where I have patiently awaited such explanation, you could provide the answers here?? I think the fact that this spurious allegation finds a place in the lede, but the fact that RT was nominated for an Emmy award in 1910 is nowhere to be found there or elsewhere in this article, demonstrates the unfitness of those claiming administrative responsibility for this RT page. Killing the messenger is easy enough, but engaging in editorial self-scrutiny is apparently too much to ask. Oh yes, the fact that I have only fifty edits to my credit means that my editorial efforts are suspect? That I insist on Wikipedia's editorial standards means I am on a 'crusade?' I can only hope that the mediation I have requested will put an end to this endless calumny, and restore a sense of good faith and sanity to this page's editorial process.Kenfree (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned right above your reply, I do not care whether disinformation is mention in the lede or not. You can also easily check that I have a dozen of edits in the article, many of which are vandalism reversal. For this reason, the fact that you talk about "my party" just demonstrates your battleground behavior. If you can not convince others of your viewpoint (which seems to be the case here, since your edit get consistently reverted), seek mediation. Promising to start edit-warring in 24h is not mediation, and wikilawyering is not the way to solve the issue, and in addition is highly unusual for an editor with less than 50 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your partisanship could not be clearer: Each of my edits has followed careful explanation by me of the editorial principles involved. The reversions by the other "party" are simply undoing my work, WITHOUT INTELLIGIBLE EXPLANATION or reference to editing principles or addressing the issues raised in the edit summaries. Yet it is I, and not they, whose behavior you have presumed to make a topic of discussion here. Shame on you! I have no idea what you mean by "wikilawyering." You sent me a notification that you were setting up a post on this page and invited me to come here to comment, so when I do so, I am now "wikilawyering?" Whatever....Kenfree (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, your repeated references to the fact that I have less than 50 edits to my credit smacks of elitism,surely a quality surely inimical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Do the standards for verification and NPOV change or become reinterpreted once someone crosses a certain threshold of editing activity? I seriously doubt it. These standards are not rocket science. Your continued avoidance of the actual issues involved here, the unwillingness to apply the normal standard of verifiability to this derogatory allegation in the lead, is the real issue, and you are just as guilty of this negligence as those who, without comment, continue to undo my editing, feeling no need to explain themselves, despite the fact that my edits are all explained, and further details elaborated in the talk page. Kenfree (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter - play the ball, not the man. --Tóraí (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Teri Heede

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

---

Hi

Blatant legal threat at [116]. Amortias (T)(C) 17:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, indefblocked. I hope they will not blacklist me from entering the US.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:JARA7979

There have been a lot of users repeatedly removing the same information, currently fully sourced one, from the article Joseon since October 2013 and the most persistent one is JARA7979 (talk · contribs). Her/his first removal was this and the latest one was today. Though s/he wrote "(please check the Talk:Joseon#Tributary_state)" in her/his edit summary, but there's no new post. I talked with her/him. On my talk page and the article talk page. The same kind of information can be found in the infobox of Ashikaga shogunate and Ryukyu Kingdom, but no editors try to remove it. JARA7979 is obviously a white-washer, a Korean POV pusher, almost a SPI and a IDIDN'THEAR type editor. Please block the user. Oda Mari (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit unnessecary to go from what appears to be no warnings straight to an instant level 4, on the flip side his last [117] unblock request included the statement that they would gain consensus instead of resorting to editwaring, it does look like the slowest edit-war ever but the IP's arent helping by the fact they removed identical information but taht would be somethign for WP:SPI. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I first left this on September 24 after I saw the user removed the information again and again before my revert. Please take a look at this. It was last year and JARA7979 knows what she/he is doing. Oda Mari (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Promotional activity by Selleck Chemicals

I believe there has been an ongoing effort by the Chinese company Selleck Chemicals to promote their products on Wikipedia. Because the issue potentially spans various administrative venues including WP:COIN, WP:SPI, WP:WPSPAM, and WP:CP, I have decided to raise the issue here to keep a centralized discussion. There are multiple sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets creating multiple articles related to Selleck. I believe this is an attempt to obscure the extent of the promotional activity.

Editors involved include:

• Manyzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weiming312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flower burial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gardobu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William shao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Can VII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zarkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charcoal III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Logitake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kenzhang0405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yukileoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yanzhong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages involved include: TAPI-1, INH1, RVX 208, AEE788, Linifanib, Selumetinib, Pracinostat, RI-1(RAD51 inhibitor II), Z-FA-FMK, Voreloxin, Vosaroxin, KN-62, K-Ras(G12C) inhibitor 6, TCID (inhibitor), PYR-41, Y-320, Resminostat, Selleck Chemicals, LLC, Selleck Chemicals, Src inhibitor, SKI II, Rho kinase inhibitor, Rho inhibitor, RI-1(RAD51 inhibitor), Repsox, RVX-208, Rigosertib, Pimasertib, KRX-0401, PD123319

Some of the pages have been deleted as promotional and some have been deleted as outright copyright violations. Selleck Chemicals sells products that are useful tools in pharmaceutical and academic research. Some of the articles that these editors have created meet Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria, in my opinion, but some may not. I would like some uninvolved editors and/or administrators to take a look and help determine, first of all, whether there are any remaining copyright violations, and secondly whether any of the pages should be nominated for deletion. I have also started a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manyzz. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was involved in deleting large chunks of content and/or whole pages for some of those copyvio (and I just nuked another one). Definitely need more eyes (usually even a google-search of key phrases is enough and/or looking at any selleckchem.com cited URLs). I think Manyzz was the one that caught my eye initially, but the others do seem related in various ways too. We're (edit conflict)ing here. I'll respond to TParis's questions below. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you break it down a bit more in layman's terms what is actually happening? For instance, I looked at AEE788 and I see the word "novel" which obviously needs to be removed but the rest if very technical language. Is there something else there that needs to be addressed?--v/r - TP 20:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The pages were created by mostly copy-pasting content from selleckchem.com pages, sometimes also with sentences/paragraphs lifted from abstracts of other medical literature (some of which was also/already copied to the selleckchem pages). The chemicals might or might not meet WP:GNG, but the content itself is often hopelessly tainted. The refs were mostly primary scientific literature, which fails WP:MEDRS and doesn't help meet GNG. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with the potential copyright issues and with the sockpuppetry are the primary administrator actions that might be needed here (deletion, blocking). The technical and editorial concerns don't require admin tools, but admins can certainly suggest procedures and venues for handling these issues. The broader issue of persistent well-organized paid advocacy is of concern here as well. In terms of my editorial concerns, it is the potentially biased content - cherry picking primary sources to make the product look better or more valuable ("the content itself is often hopelessly tainted", as DMacks succinctly puts it). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Most of these are notable subjects, and MEDRES does not apply outside clinical medicine; in particular it does not apply to chemistry. We normally consider any chemical substance with multiple references in the literature notable. Nor does it even apply in all cases to medicine: proof of a clinical trial can be from a single research report. Chemists consider per-reviewed journal articles as reliable source unless proven otherwise. (And one can generally establish the reliability of a particular paper, and its importance, by looking at the references to it in the literature.) (the Medres special requirements for sourcing is intended to prevent the use of out of date or unrepresentative publications for citing clinical articles, which is a different problem.) Some of the links to Selkirk are even conceivably useful links to a list of the literature on a subject. Manufacturers and distributors data sheets on chemicals although not peer reviewed are used widely in the academic world, and I presume in the commercial world also, and I do not think they are necessarily unacceptable documentation. I mention that "novel" can normally be specifically cited to the literature, and is actually a very weak claim--what is important is the usefulness--the synthesis of every one of the millions of chemical compounds is" novel."

What does bother me is that the firm is not the manufacturer or the primary distributor of these compounds, but purely a regional distribution for Prier and I think other manufacturers; using them as a source in highly promotional and overly selective emphasis--one would normally prefer the manufacturer's sources. The overall pattern is of course totally unacceptable. But such blatant misuse of WP is very easy to detect. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• selleckchem.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Should we blacklist this site? MER-C 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Could an admin please block user 173.32.72.64? He/she keeps deleting an official laureate from Oxford's count (as referenced), plus editing the count to a lower number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki 233 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I see only two occasions: 17 October 2014‎ and 11 October 2014. That isn't disruptive. Have you tried raising the issue on the talk page or directly with the contributor? --Tóraí (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence and the RFC over the lede.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but could some experienced editors please look at Talk:Artificial intelligence?

Basically, there was a dispute over whether or not the lede should describe the field as trying to make "human-like" software.

• A user called an RFC.
• User User:FelixRosch started edit waring to include a template-breaking "disclamer" that he didn't think the RFC was created by an impartial editor. [118] [119] [120]
• (An experienced editor warned him not to do this..)
• It started to become clear that the RFC would not arrive at the conclusion FelixRosch wanted.

Now, users User:Robert McClenon and User:FelixRosch have prematurely closed the RFC to form their own, private two-person agreement[121] on the issue. Of course, User:FelixRosch is edit waring [122][123] to keep it closed.

Thanks. APL (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I closed the RFC, after its wording had been changed and after discussion of other ways to word it, with the understanding that User:FelixRosch would open a different wording of the RFC that he thought was neutral. At this point, since there doesn't seem to be agreement as to how an RFC should be written to address the question of the wording of the lede sentence, moderated dispute resolution may be a better answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP forgot to notify the two parties. I have notified User:FelixRosch. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation to editors to pointing me to this notideboard since @APL did not do this. My understanding is that @Robert McClenon currently has successfully made a 5 (five) editor consensus upon his closing the RfC following the "Steelpillow" consensus edit on Talk. User @APL has not notified me of this noticeboard and has misrepresented the total number of 5 editors in the consensus. The consensus of 5 editors was established by @Robert McClenon with the following offer which consensus I joined, with @Robert McClennon currently holding the 5 editor consensus as follows:

@Robert McClennon: You appear to be saying that of the 4 options from various editors which I listed above as being on the discussion table, that you have a preference for version (d) by Steelpillow, and that you are willing to remove the disputed RfC under the circumstance that the Steeltrap version be posted as being a neutral version of the edit. Since I accept that the editors on this page are in general of good faith, then I can stipulate that if (If) you will drop this RfC by removing the template, etc, that I shall then post the version of Steeltrap from 3 October on Talk in preference to the Qwerty version of 1 October. The 4 paragraph version of the Lede of Qwerty will then be posted updated with the 3 October phrase of Steelpillow ("...whether human-like or not") with no further amendations. It is not your version and it is not my version, and all can call it the Steelpillow version the consensus version. If agreed then all you need do is close/drop the RfC, and then I'll post the Steelpillow version as the consensus version. FelixRosch (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Your turn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Installing new 4 paragraph version of Lede following terms of close-out by originating Editor RobertM and consensus of 5 editors. It is the "Steelpillow" version of the new Lede following RfC close-out on Talk. FelixRosch (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

After he joined the Steelpillow consensus to form a consensus of 4 editors, @Robert McClenon had invited me to joined the consensus which I did do, and he at this moment holds the 5 editor consensus. He offered to close the RfC first, and I offered to post his endorsement of the Steelpillow edit in return, and he held me to these terms. Both of these were done, the RfC was closed by RobertM and I posted the Steelpillow edit as promised in the above. The RfC was closed by the author of the RfC and the Steelpillow version posted in the Lede following the consensus of 5 editors. FelixRosch (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch has been slow edit-warring on this article, pushing a perspective that is not backed up by the literature. Notice the absence of sources. [124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142].

Reasoned and sourced responses from other users get ignored, misrepresented or a curveball. There is very little effort to build consensus.

More Rosch drama [143][144][145][146][147] (and there's more on other subjects unrelated to artificial intelligence)

I haven't seen an editor single-handedly create this much drama in all my time on Wikipedia. Pretty impressive for an editor contributing for less than a year. pgr94 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: reverted to close the RFC prematurely yet again (2014-10-18T15:01:47) just after his response here (2014-10-18T14:47:52). I have waited some time in the hope that there would be a response to this request for assistance. Since there has been no response yet, so I have reopened the RFC myself. We really need admin intervention here (whether to allow the RFC to complete without further disruption or otherwise), so will someone please respond. --Mirokado (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Spiritclaymore at Huns

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

Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spiritclaymore added material that plagiarized from the sources Najjar and Livingstone, and was warned about it. He then restored older material that plagiarized from the Russian Translation series (last source in there), was warned again (with the explanation to not use the same words), to which he readded the material, paraphasing a different part and only removing one word from the Russian Translation Series plagiarism.

He appears interested in learning to do it right, but there's still a degree of responsibility on him to be able to not plagiarize (even if it's unintentional).

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He's also been edit-warring over content, but at the moment he seems to have stopped (perhaps a time zone thing). We'll see what happen when he returns to the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He's restored the content after I warned him about 3rr and asked him not to. Filing a 3rrnb report now. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And Spiritclaymore seems to think that 12 hours is more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article

I wrote the following before becoming aware of the ANI report almost immediately above ((since archived)), but it is in any case a separate issue. Dreadstar wtites there, "I've fully protected the article due to edit warring. I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation. Work it out on the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)" But this is not ok. You don't get to win edit wars and delete what you want merely by alleging a BLP vio. Some consideration must be given to whether the allegation is simply gaming the system.

I went to look at this article after not editing it for some time, and was not shocked to discover that it was protected again. What I was a bit shocked by was this edit [148] by the protecting administrator, immediately after the protection. I had consulted a previous protecting administrator, HJ Mitchell, about scare quotes added by a third administrator, drmies, to this article which HJ Mitchell had placed under full protection, and was assured that "[an admin... work[ing] on a protected page as if it were not protected] is definitely out... Adminship is about enacting (and sometimes enforcing) consensus and, by extension, policy (which is a codification of policy). Admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and they have to respect full protection like anyone else. So they can make edits requested on the talk page that have consensus or are uncontroversial (eg typo fixes), and they can remove serious policy violations (copyvios, I would say it would have to be a serious BLP violation, vandalism, and other serious issues), but they shouldn't just edit through protection as though it wasn't there, even though they have the technical ability."[149]

But here[150] admin Dreadstar removes the disputed material from the page AFTER fully protecting it, with the comment, "BLP has been invoked, take it to the talk page". But of course HJ Mitchell had assured me that BLP had not merely to be "invoked", but there had to be a clear and serious violation for an admin to take sides. In this case the material (on Neil deGrasse Tyson's "misquote" of GWBush) is fully cited and had been on the page in substantially similar form, except when briefly removed during edit wars, for a considerable time and is substantiated by Tyson's admission of the mistake.

I brought this up with HJ Mitchell, and he pointed to WP:PREFER's statement that, "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists", otherwise declining to get involved again. But that can't be right: The Tyson material has been on the page, in substantially similar form, far longer than the coatrack of anti-Federalist material that is now the sole text content of the protected page. It has been off the page briefly during edit wars and when protection happened to catch it off the page, but the current version is in no way "an old version of the page predating the edit war".

Can I here get a recommendation that Dreadstar self-revert? Andyvphil (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 2607:FB90:704:938C:C9D:4B21:F6A3:A960 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel the right thing was done per WP:HARM. Consensus is not clear if the material goes against WP:BLP yet, so rather than going on like it does and it is okay to include the information it is best to air on the side of caution here and keep it removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar did not "keep it removed". He took affirmative action to remove the contested material. THAT is why I am here.

So-called "erring on the side of caution" has, as I noted, the effect of freezing the article on "The Federalist" in the state of being a straight attack piece on its subject. The attempt to delete this article, as well as keep any mention of Tyson's inventive way with the truth out of Wikipedia has received significant negative coverage in the conservative press, enhancing Wikipedia's reputation as a partisan environment. The attempt to delete this article failed BrD, but this gaming of the system has the effect of handing the failing side in that debate the result they wanted. Further, there at least was a tradition on Wikipedia of editors instituting page protection leaving the article in the state they found it rather than involving themselves in the content dispute, absent a clear policy violation. Failing to seriously engage the question of whether such a policy violation exists before giving one side of such a debate what it wants has serious costs. Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good-faith invocations of BLP are generally to be supported; The Federalist is not a living person and is not subject to the same protections as actual people. If you think the article would be best completely stubbed, blown up and started over again, that's probably worth offering as a suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good-faith invocations of BLP are generally to be supported. The question is what to do about determined bad-faith or obtuse invocations of BLP. See WP:GAME. Is your suggestion that I have adopted a position opposite to the one I expressed in the BrD based on anything I have said? Andyvphil (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on this particular issue, but reality has a well-known liberal bias and Wikipedia reflects reality. --NE2 07:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The reality in this case is that there is no BLP issue with informing Wikipedia readers of The Federalist 's page of its success in bringing attention to Tyson's inventions. Somehow the liberal bias of this particular bit of reality has escaped the attention of the apparently "liberal" would-be censors, as they otherwise would presumably not be so anxious to make sure that in this case Wikipedia does not reflect reality. Feel free to inform yourself on this issue before again attempting to hijack this section. Your smugness is noted, but not helpful. Andyvphil (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Support indefinite block on reality. Facts are funny things, known unknowns, welcomed as liberators, mission accomplished, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I confess I have no idea what that's intended to mean, although an indefinite block on reality is exactly what I'm being forced to combat.

Despite my pinging you[151] you have not chosen to respond to my inquiry about what you meant when you said, I think, that Obsidi had been "previously corrected" in objecting to the misleading "1RR warnings" you leave on others' talk pages. Is that your final decision? Andyvphil (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Please be mindful of edit warring on the Tyson article due to the new WP:NEWBLPBAN discretionary sanctions. It will be best to limit yourself to WP:1RR and let the other editor get blocked or topic banned." What part of that statement is misleading? Obsidi was corrected on this point in another discussion,[152] now I would like the opportunity to correct you. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will take this up further at the target of your link, i.e. Talk:NDG (and not, unfortunately, your "correction" of Obsidi, which is what I would still like), since I will be referring to material there. Andyvphil (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me say this again, I did NOT say that you stated that 1RR was a part of WP:NEWBLPBAN, just that it could have been mistaken to think so for someone who didnt know WP:NEWBLPBAN. You are stating it as if the other editor would get banned for violating 1RR and so you should avoid it. Now I am NOT claiming that Viriditas should be sanctioned for misrepresenting ArbCom, what you said was not incorrect. I just said it so that next time you might want to think about clarifying the fact that 1RR is not a part of WP:NEWBLPBAN so more people don't get confused. (And other then yourself "correcting" me, I have not been "corrected", and I stand by what I said) If you do need to notify someone that discretionary sanctions apply, you can use: {{Ds/alert}} or in this case {{subst:alert|blp}} --Obsidi (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I wish if you guys start talking about me by name on this board, I ask that you ping me next time. --Obsidi (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ping" is an invention post-dating my last active interest in Wikipedia. I apologize for not mentioning that I had inquired of Virditas what he had said to you when I linked to here on your talk page. I'm still trying to find out if he was told then that his warnings were misleading. Andyvphil (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote does not in any way imply that "the other editor would get banned for violating 1RR". Per the applicable sanctions, editors must "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioral best practice". That especially applies to edit warring. Self-imposed 1RR helps avoid coming under such sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a trumped up version of "the admin protected the wrong revision". It's perfectly acceptable to remove a COATRACK allegation (to which the article owes its existence in a discussion many of us are now wishing ended differently) on the basis of BLP and protect the article. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay, not policy, and even if the article were that it would not be proper for an administrator to "fix" that problem as part of the protection process. Absent a policy violation requiring immediate address (and COATRACK is obviously not that) it is completely inappropriate for a protecting admin to "fix" the text for quality -- he can revert to a stable version prior to the edit war, if it exits (as I mention above) or just leave what's on the page undisturbed. This used to be widely uinderstood. When did it become controversial?

Dreadstar didn't "protect the wrong version". He protected the version that existed... then CREATED another. Andyvphil (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Close this Actual WP:BLP issue or not, admins are given wide discretion to enforce BLP on questionable cases. There are enough editors and reasonable information available to determine that reverting contested BLP information from the article is acceptable. The only argument is whether the material actually is a BLP violation or not. That has no impact at all on Dreadstar's revert. The fact that it is being discussed justifies his actions. Therefore, take the discussion to the talk page, gain consensus, and then restore the material.--v/r - TP 05:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Knowledgekid87 and TParis that removal was correct (controversial BLP content pending discussion). It sounds like there is a legitimate dispute about whether it's a WP:BLP violation. It might not be, and eventual discussion might find consensus that it's not (leading to re-adding it within a few days), but the case for it being problematic is not obviously nonsense and I don't see prior consensus that it should be included. BLP policy clearly gives very high priority to avoiding harm to LPs, so we should favor removing the material for now (avoiding harm to LP, at the lesser cost of the remaining content being claimed unbalanced against a non-LP). DMacks (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky Senate election

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

---

Unregistered editor Special:Contributions/74.128.213.87's edits to the page United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 have been increasingly aggressive, accusing any opposing editors of being vandals/trolls and using my real name multiple times here and here, as well as vandalizing my own userpage several times. I may be wrong on the original issue, including Libertarian David Patterson in the election infobox, but this user's tactics are inexcusable and it is my opinion the IP address should be blocked. Nevermore27 03:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you did not notify the user I have done so for you. I also warned them about making legal threats. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse on the Gamergate page

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

---

It doesn't matter whether my suggestion will be upheld or not, but it's worrysome that we can't even have a discussion about it. This seems like abuse. I can't contact the person.

Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Restarting_.22Although_these_concerns_proved_unfounded.22

http://i.imgur.com/NW7T8xE.png

--Butter and Cream (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As an editor on that page, the issue whether the accusation against the Kotaku editor is validated or not has been a subjected repeated frequently in the talk page archives, and pointed out repeatedly that all reliable sources assert the refuting of the accusation is likely true (and editors have had to defend that point several times from IPs and other new editors). It's not a point that needs repeat debate. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"pointed out repeatedly that all reliable sources assert the refuting of the accusation is likely true"

But all we have are statements from the accused and Totilo? All the respectable newspapers simply quote Totilo. This isn't how proving something works. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Which sources like New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, the Independant, have all accepted as true. There is also no "review" that is the center of this accusation. As such, for Wikipedia's strict sourcing requirements, we take the stance that the accusation was disproven. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any bit of evidence that they have "accepted it as true", instead of having just quoted what Totilo wrote? There is no need for a review score to exist, but only an article. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

They are now repeatedly close-warring it, while I'm having a discussion with a third person. And you condone this? --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed ad nauseam; perhaps a section should be added to the FAQ, but it is time-wasting and disruptive to repeatedly deal with repeated attempts at relitigating long-settled issues involving reliable sources dismissing allegations of wrongdoing as unfounded. I note that the above editor ran straight to WP:ANI for their third-ever edit on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But I have valid points you have not approached? All you do is close the section and tell me to zip it because "I've been proven wrong". --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't yet another place to rehash your argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a place to declare that you try to avoid having a reasonable talk about this. Now another person has appeared who suggested we use the exact words the sources used. And you still disagree. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn, targeted because of disproved claims that she slept with a games journalist in return for positive coverage. That's from The Guardian, one of the most respected news organizations on the planet. Are we done here yet? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not the title of that interview. And that is an interview. Now they are truly edit-warring on the talk page. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been told by multiple editors that you are wrong. Let it go.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User Ryulong is edit warring on a talk page

User:Ryulong is closing a section again and again, even though many people have joined and the discussion has increased.

For example, user User:Titanium_Dragon suggested we use the words the sources have used, instead of rephrases.

But Ryulong is going nuts. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple users other than myself have closed the thread he started after he reopened it after it was archived by the bots in the first place. Titanium Dragon, whose hands are not clean in this whole affair either, vaguely agreeing with Butter and Cream does not change anything. The content dispute has been dealt with time and time again. Butter and Cream will not drop the stick. It is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but instead to continue the external dispute on Gamergate when Wikipedia has not yet summarily dealt with them as Reddit and 4chan have before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No else but you has been closing it. We are discussing whether to use the exact words the source used. Don't paint us as some boogeymen. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranoff did it as well. Let it go. Drop the stick. Move on. You get the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He did, once, at the beginning, influenced by you. I wouldn't call that edit-warring like your 50 closes. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the hint already then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war, and the reporting editor is at least as culpable as the person they're reporting. Furthermore, they're edit-warring to reopen a thread which has been repeatedly closed because the editor has been repeatedly told that they are rehashing already-settled issues and need to drop the WP:STICK — as discussed directly above this ANI section. I suggest that Butter and Cream should be, at the very least, warned for disruption if not blocked — new editors don't generally start ANI threads within their first three edits and I suggest that they are likely not unfamiliar with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because I undid his closings? You're also guilty as I am, then. There have been multiple people joining in with new suggestions. You and Ryu just vehemontly want to color and word it how you wish. Looking at your history, you have both been long active on the GamerGate page. You must have bulldozed your version through. There has never been a concensus. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not the only people who have edited the article to the state where it is now. Masem has also told you exactly what NorthBySouth and I have. Let it go. Drop the stick. Move on. Take the hint. Etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem is impartial. He lets people talk. You don't. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because I should not have to sit through an umpteenth thread on the same subject raised by a brand new account who has done nothing on Wikipedia except attempt to push a point of view that is not supported by anything or anyone other than Titanium Dragon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I bet you have forced your way through by just being stubborn. There has never been concensus on this article. You have just forced your way. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming number of folks have been against you, Ryulong, and many of them were not, contrary to your claims, SPAs or new users, your claims of consensus on this issue are simply false. Indeed, the DRN which you deigned to participate in, and the present mediation, both seem to only indicate there are really only a handful of users on "your side". You have been warned by folks about closing discussions inappropriately on the page previously, and for trying to remove the NPOV tag from the article while it was undergoing dispute resolution. The RSs don't seem to support your point of view either, as noted in the DRN. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no overwhelming number. It's nameless new accounts repeating the same shit over and over and you giving them the time of day. The NPOV tag was unwarranted. I explicitly stated I was not agreeing to the DRN or the MedCom request because of the forum shopping that cannot be solved in those places. These discussions have been had time and time again. If anything is to be done in this situation, it's that the English Wikipedia needs to ban all of the accounts who have in the past two months done nothing but contribute to the dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This belongs on the 3RR page, not here; Ryulong has reverted talk:GamerGate at least five times today: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] From a quick perusal of the history. The number may be higher, but they may not have been listed as such; that was just ones I found with the line "reverted" in the edit. Is it alright if I move this over? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By all means. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Because an SPA should get the hint already. And you should still be banned from editing the topic area anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can this and the AN3 thread be closed already? Butter and Cream is indefinitely blocked and tTtanium Dragon is just digging through my history on this project for things to vaguely link to his report so he can get me blocked. He has seriously linked to my old arbitration case twice to point to a proposed principle that I don't even think was ever again addressed in the case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso continues to violate interaction ban

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

---

I really don't like to do this, but this is a clear, willful and blatant violation of the interaction ban between Ihardlythinkso and me. What was he even thinking? Obviously there is another side to the story with regard to the narrative he presents there, but you probably don't give a damn so I won't go into it unless you request further information. The pertinent point here is that the interaction ban has been explained to him in unambigmous terms on several occasions, yet he continues to violate it. This is the fourth violation. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no: we don't archive a debate within minutes [158]; especially when a hasty block has taken place [159]. This place becomes dafter by the second. Giano (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no debate. The topic ban was unambiguously violated, and a block was applied in keeping with the ban. Keeping this thread open is what's daft. Enjoy! Doc talk 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The link provided does not mention "Max Browne," only a wiki dispute resolution board insider would know that's who IHTS was referring to. MB's monitoring of IHTS's contributions looking for violations is as much the cause of the disruption as IHTS's comments. Now, would someone please unblock IHTS? NE Ent 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would that you were as forgiving with me as with IHTS, who was clearly violating a topic ban. Nothing against IHTS as such. But topic bans must be enforced against all violators, not just against users you don't like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This has a bad taste to it. It would have been better if another editor had made this report. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the right way for user A to report it when user B violates their interaction ban? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Titanium Dragon — continues to make unfounded accusations about living people

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

---

I have to once again request that User:Titanium Dragon be topic-banned from any and all discussions related to the Gamergate controversy. They have once again made entirely-unfounded negative claims about Gamergate opponents.

This user has been the subject of a previous topic ban but was unbanned and warned. They cannot possibly claim a lack of knowledge or understanding of the issue.

In this diff on the talk page, the user makes a statement which amounts to an accusation that the death threats issued against Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu — which are impeccably sourced and the subject of international news — have been fabricated for attention.

“ We really need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past people have made them against themselves for various messed up reasons. ”

“ We ''really'' need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-hoax-university-wisconsin_n_3210326.html people have made them against themselves] for [[victim playing|various]] [[Persecutory delusion|messed up]] [[WP:HOAX|reasons]] ”

Further down:

“ ...many folks involved (on all sides) have reasons to lie about being the subject of persecution, or simply exaggerate in a play for sympathy. ”

You will note the inline and wikilinks — linking to a story about someone who fabricated a threat and to negative statements of "victim playing," "persecutory delusion" and "hoaxing." The intent here is crystal-clear despite the attempt at obfuscation — Titanium Dragon is claiming (or "suggesting" via an impossibly-loaded question) that the three people in question made up their own death threats to gain attention. These claims are entirely unsourced, amount to a criminal accusation, are a blatant violation of BLP and have absolutely no place on a Wikipedia talk page. It has nothing whatsoever to do with constructive discussion of article improvement.

This user has shown a total inability to respect living people who are opposed to the Gamergate controversy and a continued obsession with depicting such persons negatively. They have received every opportunity to contribute constructively and in a manner that abides by Wikipedia policy and human decency. They have repeatedly refused to do so and as such, they need to be indefinitely prohibited from editing any article related to it or them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Given that this time there can be no question about the formal validity of the discretionary sanctions procedure, I will re-impose that topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This nomination was made in bad faith, something of which this user has a long history, along with misrepresenting and outright lying about what other users say.

First off, this wasn't directed at any one side in particular, as I specifically noted in the text.

Secondly, I will note that you have worked to keep the harassment of folks by the various anti-Gamergate folks out of the article as much as possible, such as, say, the mailing of a syringe to a reporter, which was an actual, physical death threat on top of the numerous electronic ones he claimed to have received.

The problem is that in many cases, these are being self-reported and being uncritically repeated by the media. The Escapist got in trouble for this as relates to one of the people involved in the present day controversy, and actually issued a formal apology for failing to verify the claims of harassment; said claims of harassment resulted in the harassment of users of a messageboard that Zoe Quinn had accused of harassing her. Thus, we need to be very careful when we are repeating claims like this, because it can result in real world harassment - we know for a fact that many of the folks who have spoken out against these folks have been harassed. John Bain was called a misogynist for stating that he was against censorship and invalid DMCA takedown requests on YouTube. The Fine Young Capitalists were hacked and attacked after they came forward about a dispute they had with Zoe Quinn.

In this case, the issue in question was that Anita Sarkeesian was scheduled to go to a talk at a university in Utah; an anonymous death threat was issued, and the police and FBI investigated and found that it was similar to the others that she had received and that it was not credible - that there was no threat to the public, and as a result, no alert was ever issued at the university. However, many other secondary news sources continued to talk about the death threat as if it were credible, even though it was not.

And this is a problem. Wikipedia is not a news source; we're an encyclopedia. We are supposed to report reliable, accurate, well-sourced information. If sources are yelling about something which was found to be not credible days before they published their articles, that indicates a lack of fact checking on their part, and we need to be careful to try and source this stuff reliably and accurately; the FBI and police are going to be ideal sources for this sort of thing, because they have to deal with them directly and make judgments about whether or not these things are actually a threat to the public. Anonymous death threats are, unfortunately, not terribly uncommon, and while we may report about hoaxes, it is important for us not to present hoaxes as reality.

That's the real issue here. There is no evidence that anyone in question is in any real life danger. The FBI and police do not seem to feel that these threats are credible, but that they are hoaxes - people just yelling and screaming at each other without any actual intent to do anything. We have no idea who is even making these threats in many cases. No charges have been filed against anyone in real life as far as I know.

Moreover, we have issues with selective coverage of this sort of thing; as noted, a writer for Breitbart apparently received a syringe in the mail, and has claimed to have been subjected to "double digit" numbers of death threats, but, again, we have no evidence that any of these things are serious (though the syringe is pretty messed up, on the other hand, while other people have reported on him getting it, ultimately it all comes back to him claiming he got it - and as far as I can tell, it hasn't even been reported to the police). How are we supposed to report on this stuff? We have really big issues with reliability here given that many of these reports are coming from the people themselves, and they paint their adversaries as terroristic monsters.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a clearinghouse for this sort of thing. We need to be cautious when we're reporting about living persons, and that includes anything - positive, negative, or neutral.

Now, because North is yet again attempting to abuse the rules in order to try and get someone banned who he doesn't like because he is an effective advocate, I present to you what I put together for an ANI about him a while ago but haven't yet filed. I feel there should probably be some consequences for his ill behavior. This is a clear-cut case of WP:CRYBLP. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted another lengthy screed by Titanium Dragon from this page, in which he was making reverse accusations against NorthBySouthBaranov and explained his opinions on the content dispute in great length. Titanium: You are topic-banned, as of now. That means you are not allowed to continue fighting over this topic, including on this page. The only thing you are allowed to do is to appeal your topic ban, if that's what you want to do. If you wish to do that, keep the content debate and the accusations against other editors out of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: Well, did you read the above text? How was this a BLP violation? Did I make any specific claims about any living persons which were not backed by reliable sources? I said that we need to be careful about these things, and I cited sources. I did not claim that anyone was lying about it, but I noted that it is a potential issue because people have lied about similar things in the past and that even now we're having issues where we have sources which are reporting the discredited death threats as being serious things. I did not claim that Sarkeesian or anyone else was lying about it, and indeed in my post noted that we needed to be careful about these claims from everyone involved (I specifically said either "both sides" or "all sides"). Given the history of some sources in reporting material from a single source without outside validation (as I noted, The Escapist issued an apology for this article, noting that "Update: This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."; as a result of that, they changed their reporting policy about such matters). Given that, as The Escapist noted, those associated with a message board accused of harassing Zoe Quinn themselves became the target of considerable harassment, this is a very real issue. As is noted by WP:BLP, it is important that we get this stuff RIGHT the first time, and that we don't mess things up, and this sort of thing is precisely the reason why it is important - people attack people over stuff that happens online. Indeed, that's what this whole debacle is. Urging caution because death threats are sensationalist but oftentimes not found to be credible by the police or other authorities is entirely correct, and well in line with WP:BLP - indeed, to not do so would be a violation of said policy, along with WP:HARASS. Given that people are being harassed for this stuff, it is a big deal. Heck, I've been harassed by folks for editing these articles on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Come off it. It's impossibly obvious what you intended by what you wrote. Despite having been repeatedly warned, you chose to write a talk page post that made tendentious accusations against people who you perceive as your enemies. A good-faith discussion of vile and vicious death threats that were reported on the front page of The New York Times and media outlets around the world does not include wording and links that plant the entirely-unsourced intimation that the victims of those threats fabricated them for personal gain or out of mental illness, and it does not include the statement that people have "reason to lie about being the subject of persecution." Just because you couch it in the form of a loaded question doesn't make it any more acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, there is the issue of WP:HOAX, as I noted. Wikipedia may report on hoaxes, but it does not perpetuate them; if something is a hoax (like a fake bomb threat, a fake death threat, ect.) then we need to report it as such. We need to be careful not to report hoaxes as real things. This means, again, waiting for independent verification, listening to the authorities, ect. When someone claims something serious like this, we need to make sure we're not participating in spreading a hoax and creating additional fear and panic. In the case of the Utah thing, the threat was determined to be non-credible by the FBI and the police, and as they noted it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian had received. No one has been arrested in conjunction with any of these things, and when law enforcement authorities say that there is no threat to the public, they are generally the most reliable source on the subject matter. Even after this, though, some sources still report on the threat as though it was credible, clearly not paying attention to what the FBI and police said, despite that information being readily available. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TD, it is utterly outrageous to imply that "non-credible" death threats are the same as lies invented by the very people the threat were directly at. To say that the threats are not credible, is simply to conclude that there is little likelihood that anyone really intends to carry them out. It's just idiots mouthing off or trying to intimidate. You are continually twisting this to imply that the terms "hoax" and "non credible" suggest that the victims have created the suppose threats! This is completely unwarranted and frankly disgraceful. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

...and a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The notion that these threats are a hoax is a significant BLP violation, not to mention a violation of RS. Also, Titanium Dragon is continuing to post these screeds even though he is already topic-banned. Can we just get rid of this obvious troll already?? 2607:FB90:704:938C:C9D:4B21:F6A3:A960 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How is the notion that these threats are a hoax a BLP violation? What living person are we saying caused the hoax (assuming there is one)? Do we name names? Stating the idea that someone faked these is not a BLP violation. If we were to state that someone in particular did them, without reliable sources to back up that statement, then we would. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it maligns the ones who made the claims of being threatened. Unless there is solid evidence that someone lied, you can't call them a liar. It's a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Except you're not calling them a liar. You can have a hoax without the person being targeted by the hoax being a liar. The recent Emma Watson Nude threats after her appearance for UNWomen supporting HeForShe was a Hoax. That wouldn't mean that Emma Watson would be a liar if she were afraid of it. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A hoax is, by definition, a lie perpetrated by someone. Unless there's definitive proof of a hoax, that term is a BLP violation and should not be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The user in question specifically suggested that they were fabricated by the recipients of the threats themselves either for self-promotion or out of mental illness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A bright-light-obvious BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get a clue what this is about is certainly not easy from Wikipedia. Luckily, CNN explains it here.[160] I still don't know much about this Gamergate, but I know about topic bans. If Titanium Dragon has violated a topic ban, then he needs to be blocked immediately. And if it's a repeat violation, two weeks miniumum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violations by editor

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

---

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

Marcellenchmob has been repeatedly copying the text from here into [161], [162], [163]. No response to warnings: [164], [165]. The article is currently a redirect, and the album may be notable now, but copying text from another site is obviously not the way to go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked with a longer explanation about how to verify license, since he very likely is connected to the record label. This is one of those instances where indef is not intended at all to mean infinite; he's an irregular contributor with a tight focus, and it's important that he understand that this is not optional. I've also explained COI. I've left him a suggestion for further participation. At this point, I think there is the possibility of IP editing or sock puppetry, though, given lack of communication before. Just in case, good idea to keep an eye on that article. :/ I'm doing so, and it looks you were anyway, User:NeilN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

Filedelinkerbot is deleting entire pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.194.124 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff. I do not see anything suspicious in the contribution of the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The deletion log of Filedelinkerbot as a performer has no entries whatsoever. Not to mention that the account does not have administrative rights and therefore would not be able to delete any pages. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cicciononno

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

---

Maybe someone else can reach this user; I've tried and failed. For the past month, Cicciononno (talk · contribs) has edited film-related articles. The vast majority of these edits are disruptive and have been reverted within minutes. The problem is that Cicciononno likes to convert numbers in the infobox to use periods instead of commas (in violation of MOS:DECIMAL). Cicciononno also strips the infobox of citations, sometimes changes the values (without a citation), and adds wikilinks to every single name: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], etc. Cicciononno's talk page is littered with ignored warnings, and I really don't know how to get this person to stop. If someone can get Cicciononno to communicate, maybe a block is unnecessary, but cleaning up after Cicciononno has become a minor aspect of my daily routine now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thrown over to WP:AIV for a hopefully quicker repsonse. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Byelo userpage

Byelo made two edits to José Pozo back in September [173][174] but otherwise all of their edits have been to their userpage. 89.165.168.18 has been editing Byelo's userpage as well as the userpage of Bogudan who seems to be another editor who made a couple of perfunctory edits and has used the rest of their time editing their user page. Both userpages seem to be used to keep track of a tournament of some kind and this seems to violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. Helpsome (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Helpsome: did you try discussing this with either user before coming here? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

SMH Records Spam and possible meatpuupet/sockpuppet

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

---

Could use some eyes here, :Either we have a sock or a meatpuppet haven't decided on which, for relevant past history please see [[175]], you can also see via edit summaries here [[176]] and attemptes to direct to relevant policies here [[177]] and [[178]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It may or may not be a case of sock-/meat-puppetry, but it is not obvious that it is, without your saying what evidence makes you think so.
2. The place to ask for possible sock-/meat-puppetry to be investigated is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, not here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Offering cures to Ebola at the Ref Desk

Users User:Wnt and User:Aspro have decided that we should be offering links to unreferenced cures to Ebola at the reference desk, and have reverted hatting of such material. This is not only in violation of WP:RS it's in violation of Wikipedia:General Disclaimer. The material should be deleted, and the editors admonished, if not blocked for obvious violations of WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Cures? More like comments on the observance of good hygiene practices. The question of references on WP articles vs Ref Desk has come up before. The sun will rise tomorrow- do I need to add a reference to that? Yet μηδείς (who until very recently, has added some very good contribution) recently added Nitrous oxide works largely as an asphyxiant, and regularly kills those such as dentists who abuse it. Google laughing gas death. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC) [179]. I would have thought that that needed a reference, as I myself have had more than one tooth extraction with nitrous oxide and that is not how it works. Oxygen is given with nitrous oxide to prevent hypoxia. Is the pot calling all the other kettles black? This editors appear to have changed of late and wants everybody to dance to thier tune.--Aspro (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My response to this is at [180]. My sources are in my original comment as linked in the unhatting above. To claim that I "violated WP:RS", let alone the General Disclaimer (!) seems very peculiar. The purpose of this discussion should be to encourage people to think about the question and try to bring relevant sources and concepts to bear on it, and I think I've done so. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here are a few thousand Google hits on Nitrous Oxide suffocation: [181]. Here are zero hits on curing Ebola with fossils: [0]. This unreferenced and unreferenceable bee ess needs to be hatted, and I suggest an admin do so. Wikipedia:General Disclaimer μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the CDC's Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse program missed the problem of editing wars breaking out on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• The OP on that question asked about some quack remedy for ebola. We don't need Wikipedia's ref desk being cited as a potential source for such misinformation. The question had been answered, namely that there is no remedy proven so far, except treating the symptoms and letting the immune system take over. There was nothing else to say about it, and no reason to keep it open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong quacking sensation

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

---

Hi

User:Riotr, User:99.247.39.80 and User:Riotr911 appear to be making a strong quacking noise with regards to their article their username and their edit histories, not sure its worth the SPI givent he blatentness of it but if nessecary I'll go there. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the same guy. And even if that Giganaut article weren't a hoax, the wording of the article is very poor. For your user page, you might want to consider asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer my Userpage unprotected, it keeps the vandalism off the mainspace and anything improper is unlikely to get spotted by anyone looking for somethign useful. People tend to get a bit frustrated by my anti-vandalism work and some damage in a corner is far less problematic than damage somewhere else. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha, making yourself a lightning rod for the good of the team. I can dig it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And this was quick but think weve got another - blanked this section of the page User:50.101.91.90, Amortias (T)(C) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the accounts and IP for disruption and abusing multiple accounts. Chillum 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can flatten the one above as well he even posted Giganaunt on my user page... Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you google "giganaut" there are a few entries, not necessarily anything to do with the now-deleted Wikipedia article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion Review -- All open reviews accidentally hidden?

This is wayyyyy beyond my expertise, but when I go to Deletion Review Active Discussions [182], it appears that the close of a 19 October case has accidentally hidden all prior open cases. If I'm right, could this be fixed? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure this fixed it. Table wasn't closed. Stickee (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Look good. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:RubySea

Not sure what to do with this: user has been blocked for 4 years for block evasion (being a sock of someone, presumably) and had their talk page deleted per G7 the same day, but is now using their recreated talk page to store a cut-and-paste copy of a page up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Windows Phone 8 devices. There have been no comments on the AfD by IPs or low-edit/relatively new accounts, so presumably the user stumbled upon it independently. The talk page has also been used to store another article cut-and-paste, of Neumont University, back in 2012. Can the page be deleted, and if so, should it be? I'm not sure if any WP:CSD fit, or if such an argument would be better suited for WP:MfD. It certaintly doesn't follow WP:TPG, that's for sure.

As for what admins can do about this: should talk page access be revoked again? It was in the original block, but User:Dcoetzee (now arbcom-blocked, unfortunately) restored it the same day that the first cut-and-paste was made, apparently per a request on IRC. What the page has since been used for seems like abuse of TP privileges.

Also pinging User:Vianello, the blocking admin, but as they've (sorry) been inactive for a couple months, I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, not notifying the user beyond the talk page ping (I think it does work if it's section header?), for obvious reasons. I'm not watching; ping me if anything important comes up. ansh666 07:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweet, another double secret block. --NE2 07:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering this it's probably either self-requested or justified - not that it makes it any less unfortunate. ansh666 07:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this works, obvious vandalism is this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

Read under Kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:E1A:3CE0:5CE8:29F0:44BC (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism there. I do see a point one could raise, about whether that section about Kosovo is misplaced there (the erection of a single poor-taste statue of a foreign politician hardly rises to the level of what all the rest of the page is about, even though some commentator in some newspaper once remarked that it is "reminiscent" of such patterns), but that's a matter to be discussed on the article talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)