Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Harassment and personal attacks by Dan56

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

---

On September 26, 2014 I opposed Dan's FAC nom based upon the FAC criteria and another user, Spike Wilbury's, earlier oppose for similar reasons. Dan56 then proceeded to badger the living daylights out of every comment I made until I was utterly exhausted. During that time, another editor also opposed the article's promotion.

Soon afterwards, Dan56 began a concerted effort to discredit me by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock. September 27, September 28, again on September 28, again on September 28, September 29, September 30, October 3, October 7, October 9, October 15, October 20, again on October 20, November 1, November 4, November 12, November 13, November 27, and again on December 2, and December 4.

I have repeatedly asked him to refrain from making baseless accusations: October 3, again on October 3, ditto, October 8, December 2 and again on December 2. All I am asking for is that Dan56 either, a) file an SPI report, or b) stop making baseless accusations. These continued false accusations constitute harassment designed to discredit and discourage me from editing Wikipedia, and they are personal attacks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: If you think Rationalobserver is a sock of Jazzerino, you're the one who needs to come up with evidence and file a report. If you're not going to, stop posting accusations on random admins' talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I mean, I'm not above calling out a duck when I see one, but I don't harp on it for weeks without filing a case at SPI. If this keeps up, we're going to be back here soon with a request for an interaction ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ivanvector and NinjaRobotPirate, Dan56 has once again accused me of impropriety and suggested to Nikkimaria that I am a sock. Will an admin please ask him to stop disparaging me in this way across multiple pages? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging Kww and Nikkimaria as they have been named in this. The edits above show that Dan56 is clearly hounding Rationalobserver, repeatedly assuming bad faith and repeating accusations of grave misconduct while taking care to avoid the proper venues for his allegations in which he would be required to provide evidence. It seems this is entirely in response to a FAC review which did not pass, which Dan seems to think will be resolved by attacking RO's character rather than address the issues which were brought up by several editors. As Dan seems to show no intent to stop this behaviour, I think it's time for him to drop this particular stick, and thus I propose that he be topic banned from FAC and interaction banned from interacting with Rationalobserver or commenting on her conduct anywhere on the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm about 70% convinced that Dan56 is right, and that uncertainty on my part has frustrated Dan56 to no end. Normally, he reports a Jazzerino sock and I just block. In this case, Rationalobserver is probably a Jazzerino sock. I just haven't been able to bring myself to say that he is definitely a Jazzerino sock. Perhaps the thing to do is just tag this conversation with {{checkuser needed}} and see if we can get this resolved.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please list your evidence at the relevant SPI if you would like to request checkuser. All I see here is accusations without the necessary evidence and diffs. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo, I'm not adverse to being checked, as I have nothing to hide, but the reason I filed this report was to put some closure to 6 weeks of continuous hounding. All I ask that an admin formally request that Dan56 either stop making accusations or file an SPI, as the way this sits now I don't see him stopping anytime soon, and he has already made me consider quitting. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, and I believe a number of editors responding here have explained to Dan56 that he needs to either file a report or stop making the accusations. My response above was just a reminder that an SPI needs to be opened to present the evidence as opposed to flagging a Checkuser via a template as was done by Kww in this thread.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, but Dan56 has not even acknowledged this thread, so it's not at all clear that he has gotten the message. I.e., I'm not sure that this qualifies as an official admin warning. Does it? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that excuses Dan56's behaviour - he could have just gone to SPI and let someone uninvolved have a look, instead of repeating accusations all over the place. However, I defer to your wisdom and have struck my call for a ban pending checkuser results. Ivanvector (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Normally, he reports a Jazzerino sock and I just block.

Huh? Are you saying that you block most everyone Dan56 accuses of being a sock without requiring Dan56 to file an SPI report? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You can do this per WP:DUCK, though you really need to be very certain of it. Certainly doesn't apply to your case. Please, someone do the whole SPI/Checkuser thing so we can move on from this. It's not right to complain about it across the project like this. Figure it out or drop it already. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I think it would be a good idea to formally restrict Dan56 from commenting on the likelihood of contributors misusing multiple accounts, unless he is doing so as an SPI report. He has done so again here in an entirely separate discussion. I think that is technically a topic ban. While he may have a point, if he is not intending to file a report then repeatedly accusing users of sockpuppetry is just plain uncivil and disruptive. Ivanvector (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind being investigated, but Dan56 has been harassing me about this for more than 6 weeks now, so can this happen today please, so I can move on? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I presented possible evidence over the past few months at @Kww:'s talk page--User_talk:Kww#Possible_return_of_Jazzerino.2C_not_sure_though --> User_talk:Kww#RationalObserver Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Ponyo: Today, Dan56 continued to accuse me at every venue possible except SPI. Will someone please address this issue? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's nothing in what you linked except me updating a link at someone's talk page O.o Dan56 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that you've been asked by several admins to take your "evidence" to SPI, and your continued insistence on accusing me at admin talk pages has not abated. You are harassing me, and you should stop now! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dan56, please calmly (and I cannot emphasis "calmly" enough) produce a listing of the parallels in an SPI report. I will comment on which of your parallels I think are strong enough to potentially justify a checkuser. Hopefully, we can get past this impasse. I don't find your evidence strong enough to block without a checkuser, but that's different from saying that your evidence isn't strong enough to warrant a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hahc21

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

---

When looking at the current ArbCom candidates, I noticed User:Hahc21, admin since March 2014.

Looking through his contributions, I noted that what we have here is an admin who created (in those days when he still was a content creator) a GA which was a massive copyright violation, even adding more copyvio paragraphs to it after these concerns had been raised at the peer review of it; who fully move-protected an article for "move-warring" when in reality he had been the only one ever to move it, and who made up a completely false reason when asked about it; who deleted an older article to move a newer article on the same subject over it, and sees no reason to restore the history of that page even when asked to do so; and who speedy deleted an article on a song by notable artists, with more than 100 reversions at the time, claiming that it was done under WP:NSONGS, which is not a speedy deletion criterion and specifically says to redirect instead. When confronted with all this, he claims to feel bad about the copyvio, and defends all his other actions to the end. I have linked to the evidence below.

I noticed a GA, San Antonio de la Eminencia castle, which I subsequently deleted as a copyright violation (translation of copyrighted texts). It turned out that Hahc21 was aware of these problems at the time but he gave a variety of reasons why he hadn't done anything about it[1][2][3][4], not all of them believable. No explanation was given on why he added a further copyvio section after the first concerns had been raised.

I then checked his admin actions, and encountered an at first sight recent misuse of protection. I asked him about this[5], but got no reply. So I went to his user talk page and repeated the question[6]. His reply, while plausible on the face of it, turned out to be completely incorrect[7]. He then undid the protection, but when asked for an explanation claimed "I don't think it was a mistake to do the protection, but I don't really care enough to try and defend it." and some other fluff.

This lead me to further look at some other admin actions he did, which I briefly described in this post. When asked to defend a speedy deletion of an article on a song by two notable artists, he replied "A simple answer: WP:NSONGS. Take a look at it." (with edit summary "basic policy knowledge"). Seeing how this answer was completely wrong and showed a disturbing pattern of misuse of admin tools and either lack of knowledge or lack of care about our policies, I warned him that I would start this section, giving him a final chance to go back and change his answer[8]. His final reply was "Sure, go ahead."

If some people can take a look and convince him to brush up on policies and actually follow them, it would be a nice improvement. Fram (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm looking at his AfD closes and accompanying deletes. Closing a string of AFD nominations by the same editor, with either no outside participation (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxie Raia,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Lee) or where the only outside participation is contradicting the nomination argument (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Perry (singer)) seems rather dubious as well. A subject like Moxie Raia seems worthy of a real debate[9], not summary deletion. The same goes for Spencer Lee([10]). Fram (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I spot-checked some of the user's past and recent contributions and found a number of additional edits where it appears he has contributed non-free text, or translations of it, to articles. I've opened a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Hahc12. As I'm a CCI clerk I could self-endorse this but given this is a high-profile case it would be better if another clerk or administrator could review the request. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the additional edits that might contain copyvios. They might be located here: Santa María de la Cabeza castle, Santa Rosa de la Eminencia castle and Solano castle. I'd appreciate if somebody could go and check if there are any copyvios and help me fix them. I know I should have done this ages ago but I completely forgot about it after I stopped working on these articles. → Call me Hahc21 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have more serious issues with competence. After reading some of those AFDs, I have to ask if you have ever read Wikipedia:BEFORE. Don't you think that those listed AFDs should be reopened? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to remind you that Wikipedia:BEFORE applies to the filer of the AFD, not to the closer. That said, I closed these AFDs boldly, and I will happily apologize if it was a mistake. I already stopped doing such bold closes, and I will undelete and relist them if that's what's desired. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about AFD closure, then you must know that you could have voted instead of deleting as there was no other vote. You haven't answered, so I have to re-ask: Do you think that those AFDs should be relisted? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not "if that's what's desired", I asked for your own opinion in this matter. Bladesmulti (talk)

I was about to say the same thing, Blades -- the closer should only go on what's presented in the AfD. If she does her own research, that's risking a super!vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the admin must go with the consensus but in these AFDs there was no vote except the nomination. In these types of AFDs, it is better to vote rather than delete. I didn't clarified but I was also talking about the speedy deletions that have been mentioned by the OP. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

if there is no vote, relist it. If it has been relisted twice and still no votes, do what you think is right. --Obsidi (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion about the AFDs is a distraction. There are plenty of admins who consider uncontested AFDs akin to uncontested PRODS which can be deleted after 7 days (and its been the subject of considerable discussion). Yes, it might be preferable to opine there or to re-list but my understanding (with the caveat that I may well be technically wrong if one has since been introduced) is that there is no specific requirement in that regard. Beyond that, the appropriate place to discuss AFD closures is DRV, but I note that despite concerns about process, few here seem to actually advocate for an alternate outcome. I would think each would be considered well within discretion, though ill-advised. None of the advice above is bad advice, it's just not particularly relevant to the broader concerns expressed by the OP. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Stalwart here. The AfDs are just another indication of the problems with the editor (and remember that he was banned from closing AfDs for three months at a time when he wasn't an administrator yet). The main problems are copyvio, some admin actions (protection for bogus reason, speedy deletion without a speedy argument), and the lack of WP:ADMINACCT afterwards (making up reasons for the protection, ignoring the evidence against it; not caring about preserving article history and attribution; and not knowing or caring about the difference between speedy policy and something like NSONGS). How hard can it be to reread WP:NSONGS and realise that it is not ever an acceptable reason to speedy delete a song article, instead of claiming that it is "basic policy knowledge" that an article on a song by notable artists can be speedied under that guideline... Fram (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So how does someone known to violate copyright manage to get an admin position? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

With a bit of (bad) luck, you can soon change that question to "to get an ArbCom position"... The deleted copyvio article was even cited (by the nominator) as evidence of his best work in the 2nd RfA he tried. Hahc21 didn't feel the need to point out that that article (and a few similar ones apparently) might not be the best example to use. Fram (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it true, as he claims, that he only made this mistake early on, and that he doesn't violate copyrights anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not "known to violate copyright." It happened once, several users weighted in to help, and it never happened again. had I been "known" for copyvio, I wouldn't have passed my RfA. Now, with regards to ADMINACCT: I explained my actions, and that's what's required. If Fram finds them to be insufficient or wrong, thats his assessment of the situation; it doesn't mean that I am not being held accountable. What it means is that he is not satisfied with my response. I am not required to do whatever is needed to satisfy him. I complied with ADMINACCT by answering his questions. → Call me Hahc21 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ADMINACCT doesn't allow you to fabricate explanations out of thin air, or to completely misrepresent policies and guidelines (with the gall to call it "basic policy knowledge"). If, despite all this, you still feel that you have explained your actions adequately, then I seriously have to wonder whether you are fit to be an admin. As for the copyvio, note how User:Psychonaut listed multiple other articles where he feared copyvio's by you might have happened, apart from the multiple articles you listed here. But you are right, had it been known at the time of the RfA that you violated copyright, you wouldn't have passed it. Sadly, it wasn't known at the time, but it is now. Fram (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the problematic edits I identified in my spot checks span a period from January 2013 to April 2014, and cover several different articles. Unless I'm mistaken in my assessment, I don't think it's correct to say that the problem happened only once, nor that you never repeated the problematic behaviour after being notified about it (which was back at the beginning of this period, in January 2013). —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: I re-cheked the CCI request, and I see the edits you highlighted there. Yes, I used to extract, from the sources, the information I was going to work with to make the job of writing much easier and organized. I then removed all the html text before moving the article to mainspace. I was not an admin back then so I was unable to delete the revisions that contained the hidden HTMl text, but I will do so now if necessary. I didn't consider it to be a copyright violation back then, given that i) it was hidden, ii) was not in mainspace, and iii) was used temporarily and was never part of the visible text. If it's considered a copyright violation, I'll make sure it won't happen again. → Call me Hahc21 13:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21, can you for once try to check the facts before you post an answer? this is one of the highlighted edits. It was made on 19 March 2014, six days after you became an admin[11] and started deleting articles[12]. So your "I was not an admin back then" statement is obviously incorrect. You then give three reasons why it wasn't a copyvio anyway, including "1: it wasn't visible" and "3: [...] was never part of the visible text". However, the same example given by Psychonaut was visible from the 19th[13] until the 25th[14], or 6 days. How hard can it be to give a correct answer about your own actions? How are you going to work as an arb if you aren't able to check even the simplest things like this history, and if people can't trust any statement you make? Fram (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are so biased towards whatever purpose you are (unsuccessfully) trying to accomplish that you can't even take the time to ask me what exactly was I addressing. Not that it matters to you, given all your comments here. I am happy that the ArbCom elections will be over in 3 days, and all the harassment with it. And now the facts: this is not a copyvio. → Call me Hahc21 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec, will check your reply now)Me: "you are wrong, because of evidence #1, evidence #2, ...". You" "no, you are wrong". Note the difference? It is not "harassment" to look at the edits and admin actions of an ArbCom candidate, note some serious problems with them, ask questions about them, and then note that the answers are completely insufficient and unreliable, display a shocking lack of knowledge of our policies, and an equally shocking indifference to this. But feel free to show me where I am wrong and tell us what you were addressing. It will be much more effective and convincing than another "poor prosecuted me" post. Fram (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, "the facts". Changing your answer and ignoring the holes in your previous one is not "the facts"... So, what edits were you referring to when you said they were made before you became an admin and were invisible all the time? Fram (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you came to my talk page with these concerns in an appropriate way, it would have been different. But when I had you on the questions page, then questions talk page, then my talk page and now ANI, I do believe that your behaviour is concerning. Highligting the mistakes of an administrator is always a good thing. Providing evidence so that the administrator can fix their behaviour is good. But following said admin around Wikipedia is not good. Putting random diffs to "prove" that your are correct without actually suggesting ways to fix said behaviour is not good. Trying to make a big deal about issues that are not a problem anymore is not good. Did I make copyvios, yes; do I aknowledge it? yes; did I continue? No. You seem to fail to understand that. What do you hope to accomplish? A desysop? I passed my RfA because the community believed I was mature enough to identify my mistakes and fix them, not because they weren't aware of them. I already know that you don't want me to become an arbitrator. The way to express such feelings is to write a guide and vote against me using the SecurePoll interface. Going around the website splashing your thoughts the way you did on my questions page is very inappropriate and problematic. I'm not the first one you go after, but it won't work with me. → Call me Hahc21 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) If your asnwers had been slightly believable, it would have stayed at your talk page. "Following said admin around Wikipedia"? Where did I follow you around Wikipedia? I deleted one of your articles as a copyvio, I raised my concerns about this, and I did not undo one other edit you made, I did not reply to any discussion you participated in (which I hadn't started first). I checked your edits, yes, it's a bit hard to see whether an error is occasional or part of a larger pattern without doing that. I raised these further issues at the questions page, got no answer, went to your talk page, got an insufficient answer (well, a heap of nonsense couples with a total lack of knowledge and insight on your side), and found this sufficiently problematic to bring it here. This is standard procedure, not some evil harassment.

"Putting random diffs to "prove" that you are correct"? Care to explain which of my diffs were random and not relevant to the discussion? Suggesting ways to fix your behaviour? Yes, write the truth and check your facts. Don't make up incorrect excuses ("I wasn't an admin at the time"! "It was never visible"!), don't invent policy rules even after you have been challenged on them ("NSONGS allows me to speedy delete Physical (Enrique Iglesias song)", even though NSONGS doesn't make this claim but suggests redirecting, and A7 specifically excludes creative works), and don't be surprised if someone people think you are unfit to be an arbitrator or an admin if you can't follow these first two advices. Yes, you passed your RFA. That doesn't give you some form of immunity. Fram (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to fix the copyvios myself si if somebody weighs in, I would be grateful. is Hahc21's most recent comment on his talk page, and I believe here before he gets into a fight with Fram about ArbCom voting. I'm really concerned about the user's understanding of copyright policy, specifically their admission and demonstration in several places that they don't actually understand any of the copyright policy. There's comments like If it's considered a copyright violation, I'll make sure it won't happen again. which appear to suggest that Hahc is going to be reliant on other users to determine what is and isn't a copyright violation. We can't have administrators going around with such ignorance of one of our most important policies.

I didn't consider it to be a copyright violation back then, given that i) it was hidden, ii) was not in mainspace, and iii) was used temporarily and was never part of the visible text. Thinking that copyright violations can only exist in mainspace and only in the most recent revision of an article are frightening admissions and enormously concerning. I was taught and have always worked on the basis that any revision which can be permanently linked to by a normal user should be free from copyright violations.

I think, if I'm being honest, I'd be expecting a resignation here. The copyright violations are concerning, the underlying reasons for them are enough reason to suggest Hahc21 shouldn't be an administrator charged with dealing with copyright violations, and the extremely hostile responses to Fram really raise my concern. I'd expect, in the absence of a resignation, someone familiar with copyright policy and mentoring to pair up with Hahc and get them up to speed on policy as quickly as possible, and we'll just have to live with an admin who might never get copyright, but I'd prefer Hahc to resign, get up to speed and be re-assessed by the community. Nick (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing here, Hahc21 is unfit to be an admin, much less an arbcom member. In fact, his casual attitude toward copyright suggests he should be banished from Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've just spent about 2 hours going over Hahc21's Wiki career and frankly it has left me greatly disturbed. Although I have voted on almost every RfA over the past 5 years, the first two closed so quick I didn't have a chance, and the successful one took place when I was on a Wikibreak - if one can really call it successful - IMO if an consensus had been drawn on the strength of the arguments alone instead of the usual vote count percentage, the result may have been different but we leave our closing Bureacrats no options. As one user who is highly critical of our RfA system I feel that this is one occasion where an RfA failed to do its job. I'm afraid I tend to agree with commenters who perceive hat collecting and I see a determined climb up a greasy pole, especially in the light of a current Arbcom candidature. Born of my research and the issues brought up here by Fram including, and most worrying, the 'self' protection mentioned below, I think we are already past 'taking a look and convincing him to brush up on policies and actually follow them' , I regret to admit that I consider this a case for escalation and where contrary to Wikipedia general practice, the user's pattern of participation on Wikipedia, rather than some isolated incident, should be take into consideration with a view to applying some kind of sanctions that would prevent the use of admin tools and judgement. He could of course opt to do the honourable thing, as Nick suggests, and fall on his sword. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kudpung, I don't want to pile on wrt this particular RFA (I was also absent and did not weigh in), but this RFA business is by no means new or unique. Over and over and over again (and even with Featured content standards declining to a point of being hardly distinguishable from GA), RFA candidates put up their "Featured" content as samples, and they pass without anyone scrutinizing that same content. Many times when I have scrutinized poor content that passed GA, DYK, FA whatever, I've been skewered for assaulting the poor children (which I've always had to do when encountering an RFA that already has multiple pile-on supports), so weighing in on RFAs no longer interests me much. What RFA "voters" really need to begin to look at are the new "standards" at FAC, but then they've rarely looked at the standards at DYK or GAN or anywhere else when RFA candidates offer their "content contributor" records , so ... just some context for you and Baseball Bugs on the rhetorical, "how did this happen at RFA?" It happens All The Time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I ran for admin once, in 2009. If standards have dropped this low, maybe I should try again. I would start with an advantage, never having been accused of copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I agree with you, I do, I do. Contrary to what some believe, rather than wanting all candidates to pass, I always oppose if I have to, and I am still hoping that one day the drive-by and peanut gallery 'support' voters will learn to do some research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of encyclopedias and some related articles on both encyclopedias and reference works in general are being developed to make it easier to do just that. They won't help as much with those areas which experience a lot of "breaking developments," but they can be useful in other areas. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully create-protecting a page while you are writing a draft article?

Could you please explain why you create-protected Ancient Trader on 28 March 2014, so that only sysops (i.e., you) could create it? You were working on a draft at the time, and the only other activity was from 2010, nearly three years earlier, so it doesn't look as if there was any need for protection, except to make sure that no one else created it while you were making your draft (you started on the draft on 17 March, and moved it to the mainpage on April 4). Is there some other plausible explanation I am missing here? Fram (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21 I'd like an explanation for that too. Otherwise it looks to me like Fram's conclusion is apt, and if so this is antithetical to how this place is supposed to work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Insures the chance for a Dyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.34.210 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

I would like to suggest to User:Hahc21 that before further embarrassing behaviors come to light and the community sees a need to act, he voluntarily resign as an admin and step down as a candidate for ArbCom. BMK (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Revdel needed for possible outing.

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

---

I'm not sure who He'll in a Bucket is but I live in Colorado says so on my userpage ;) but I'm not sure that the other part is public info and I believe is an attempt to out another editor. Currently User:Lightbreather is in a witchunt trying to prove another editor is User:Sue Rangell. It appears that attempts to match her to other people or reveal her family ties is what is going on here. [[15]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

While the edit summary should probably be revdelled and LB was unwise to do so (WP:TROUT), especially while already under sanction. the WP:BAIT and gravedancing that she was responding to are mitigating to some degree. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure the problem is she has shown she is very aware of the WP:OUTING policy as shown by her own userpage, and for the record if anyone is wondering my connection is through Comcast and I get aweird ip address Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have revdel'd the edit summary as it is better safe than sorry when dealing with the release of identifying information. I will leave it to others to decide if further action/warning is needed. Chillum 17:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you are curious. 2601:1:C080:EEF:D188:D408:3BBD:2D14 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"weird", a word which here means IPv6 :) LFaraone 23:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• The postings on Lightbreather's talk page are helping no one, including Lightbreather. It would be beneficial all round if, for a short period, it were fully protected and Lightbreather blocked from it. DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the matter, but I just turned down the RFPP request asking to semi-protect her page, since Lightbreather is an autocinfirmed user, and semi-protection would have no effect. If she needs to be stopped, she has to be reblocked with the talk page access withdrawn (again, I have no idea on whether this is actually needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter It would stop the IPs from posting to her page and baiting her tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A good point, thanks. Now indeed I see a couple of IPs posting earlier today, at least one of them clearly not constructive. Semi-protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Ymblanter made the right move. Baiting was going on. Chillum 20:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That being said, this sock puppet investigatory business needs to stop. I've seen many an admin say talk page access is for appealing blocks. She's been shown far too much leeway already.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access is not solely for appealing blocks. --NE2 21:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork, this is the case for for bans but more leeway is given for blocked users. Chillum 21:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork if you hear an admin say that about blocked (not banned) users, tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong. It's a frustratingly common misconception and it leads to a lot of really unnecessary meddling from admins and gadflies. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to to really technical then in the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned. This actually applies in a lot of cases, though not saying it applies here. Chillum 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, requests to revdelete outing shouldn't be posted here, because that's just giving a big audience to info that shouldn't be here in the first place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, according to the page for revdel, it should be done via email to administrators, on their talk page (Which I consider to be bad form) or in #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Pbergeot

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

---

This user continues to add a non-free image to Draft:Goverlan Systems Management in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite warnings. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The image is the Goverlan logo and goes with the article Goverlan Systems Management. From reading the non-free image criteria I could not find a reason that this logo should be deleted. I updated the file to point to the correct article, so I don't understand why you keep deleting it. --User:Pbergeot — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As it is not used in any article, it must be deleted. As Draft:Goverlan Systems Management is not an article, the page mustn't contain any non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok. I understand. Thank you for clarifying that. --User:Pbergeot (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (EST)

• Stefan2, if you had said that, in human language, on the editor's talk page before you slapped all those preformatted warnings there, all this could have been avoided. you do a lot of good things here, but REALLY, do you have to bite this badly? Fewer templates, more written words please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concurring very much with Drmies (due to my own experience). I'm closing this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Quercetin

• Quercetin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rozo93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isabel.guillen.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M.diop2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editorial work on this page is being made challenging by the persistent insertions of material that does not meet WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS. Novice users, who members of WT:MED group say are known students in a university-level biology course, are inserting material repeatedly without acceptance by experienced Wikipedians. On one student user's Talk page, Rozo93, is stated that the inserted content is needed to demonstrate proficiency for a biology assignment! I'm requesting a block of 3 novice editors sparring on the Quercetin article content: Rozo93, Isabel.guillen.5 and M.diop2011. Zefr (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Have fully protected for a week as two of the users were simply adding plagiarism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Zefr, I've already discussed this with Doc James. I've run similar course based Wikipedia editing assignments for several years with very good results and have not had a problem of this magnitude before with improper referencing. The students know the difference between primary and secondary sources, but I'm guessing that this was in part a case of laziness. One or more of them did not actually read what they were referencing, and they did not read the detailed |instructions provided for them. I will deal with the plagiarism internally and the offending students will not be attempting to edit the Quercetin page again. My apologies, NeuroJoe (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I only found obvious problems with two of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is admin action required? Yes. I disagree with the professor's characterization of his course work, and that he is now operating his course outside of the Education Program is creating a problem. What occurred at quercetin is pretty much the same as meat puppetry, with a group of editors working in collaboration. NeuroJoe should be told to register a course and work with the Education Program, or perhaps admin tools need to be used to encourage him to do that.

From my response to NeuroJoe at User talk:Doc James: We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).

Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic from my content area about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work. The article is a stretch, since it is basically trying to eek permissible information out of primary sources.

So, now, you are appear to be operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.

And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the obscure klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the time I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Wikipedia editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.

It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). But you should be working though the Education Program so that volunteer editors aren't forced to track down your students and their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with NeuroJoe in the past, and had a much better experience than this, so I know from experience that he is here in good faith and I'm sure he is willing to listen to this feedback and take it seriously. NeuroJoe, please do work with the Education Program and create a course page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Trypto, but if he doesn't engage the website, we can't talk to him. (As you know from past discussions, I don't consider it appropriate or individual editor responsibility to have to be emailing profs to get them to review their students' work.) And he hasn't engaged for two years, even though he's running a course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated reverting without discussing

The following is copied from the archives

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

---

User:Roscelese has today repeatedly reverted, while keeping a little shy of the 3RR rule, to her own version of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism from texts by User:Bromley86, User:Padresfan94, and me (twice):

1. at 17:40 on 26 November 2014
2. at 05:41 on 27 November 2014
3. at 07:15 on 27 November 2014
4. at 18:20 on 27 November 2014

She has ignored appeals made to her both in edit summaries and on the article's talk page to discuss rather than edit-war. See in particular:

1. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information
2. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion

Please advise. Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The page has been fully-protected and I've offered to help clear things up on the talk page. m.o.p 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

1. Roscelese still will not discuss her claim that the statement, "circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable" means "homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation".
2. She also ignores the agreement by all participants, except herself, in this discussion and, as soon as the article was unblocked, has inserted her own unsupported text.

As long as Roscelese will not "discuss with the other party" and makes further edits without support from anyone else, the other party has no choice but to undo her undiscussed edits, while continuing to appeal to her to discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's less "Roscelese will not discuss" and more "the discussion has gone stale". Master of Puppets, would you like to give this another try? One of the content disputes seems to have been adequately resolved through mediation, at least. Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still here, though I can't do much about a stale discussion except remind the parties that edit warring is not going to get us anywhere. For what it's worth, the page has been protected again. m.o.p 20:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you not get the parties to discuss? The discussion has got "stale" only in the sense that Roscelese refuses to take part. You surely have noticed my appeals to her to discuss. I have now made yet another appeal. But Roscelese says: "I have no interest in what Esoglou has to say", and on the grounds of her lack of interest refuses to discuss. You may remember that I pointed out (in the last part of that long edit) that this is the basic difficulty; and that User:Elizium23 then commented: "Esoglou has hit on the crux of this matter." Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, is it acceptable to edit Wikipedia insistently while refusing to discuss the difficulties raised against the edits? Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass moves

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

---

Taimurijaz97 has been involved in mass moves to unconventional, bad titles. He has been warned several times but he did not pay heed. The user has created a menace for other editors, who are busy chasing him to revert his edits. He was given final warnings but he did violate the policy.1 2.  SAMI  ^talk 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Holy moly. User now blocked indefinitely (not infinitely) since they a. have a talk page full of warnings; b. move and move and move; c. refuse to engage in discussion. I made it a NOTHERE block; it could have been a "disruptive editing" block (they've been blocked for that before by an editor using the pseudonym "JamesBWatson"). They should not be unblocked until they start to talk. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• I fixed some of this, but the moves/redirects would benefit from further checking by other editors. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, Holy *#$% indeed! Most (14!) of those warnings/messages were from me. 'TJ97' also had a habit of removing maintenance templates and the References hdg/template from 'their' pages that I had added them to, without correcting the problem/s of course! I also spent a great deal of time 'chasing' them fixing/reverting their edits. I am, of course, mortified that they have been blocked! They also copied the content of the Lahore Garrison University page and pasted it into at least 9 other 'new' pages, changed the name, but not much little else. Hence many details were the same for those pages! I suspect TJ97 may have made earlier edits to that page as an IP here.

Shame I didn't get here earlier to comment, but I've been busy chasing another editor with a "failure to communicate" anyway! (Only 13 talkpage messages, but they have actually, finally, replied on my talkpage!) --220 of ^Borg 01:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know that the phrase came up during today's SEC Championship game, Luke. Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Groundless accusation against WMF employee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Complaint withdrawn as too funny Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

---

At Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Using the NSA wayback machine, Mion groundless accused a WMF employee of having an undisclosed relationship with the NSA. I removed the name from the discussion. I don't know if any action is required, but I'm bringing this here in case it is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I dunno. Aside from being absurd and inappropriate, it's little different from the vitriol and abuse aimed at the WMF we routinely let fly from established editors under the aegis of bitching about some new feature or another. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, we should stop doing that, too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • naturally. And as aware as I am of WP:OSE, I don't feel too impelled to bring the hammer down on someone who has made comments that we've let slide from others. At least this was so cartoonishly silly that someone could conceivably laugh about it. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That WMF employee is rumored to be named Peabody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Whew. At least nobody found my connection to the Illuminati. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Gutter69

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

---

Please see contribs for subtle vandalism, and editing other editors' talk posts, followed by this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Vau-block applied. It is my sworn, bureaucratic duty to tell you that you should, ahem, you know, report this to AIV, and in this case you could have reported to UAA as well (I'm surprised the bot didn't catch this--it reports everything else). Really, SandyGeorgia! Quit hogging the board! But this is much faster, of course. Thanks, and many happy 3s and 4s, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Blocked by Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'm not up on UAA, and it wasn't clear at first if it was a case for AIV, or just ... something neurological. Thanks anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

UAA is very boring, unfortunately, and not good for my RSI. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Long-term disruptive user Cydevil38

Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring. He has been brought to ANI and other forums at least six times by five different editors before, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 article edits, but somehow has always managed to evade sanction because of admin inaction:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), May 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012, with support from several other editors
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive264#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: ), November 2014

In addition, there are many other incidents not reported to ANI, including:

• Long term edit-warring (at least 30 reverts) against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the nationalistic fringe theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC, even after overwhelming evidence of academic consensus to the contrary was provided on the talk page. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], and many more
• Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival [22], [23], [24], the last revert by an obvious IP sock
• Inappropriate canvassing [25] [26] (not included in Benlisquare's complaint above)

Most recently, Cold Season filed a complaint on the 3RR noticeboard after Cydevil38 repeatedly deleted content from Gojoseon, claiming it was "North Korean fringe view" even though it was sourced to a book by a well-known University of London professor. His disruptive behaviour was verified by myself, as well as the uninvolved user Legacypac [27]. (I also posted much of the above evidence to Cold Season's 3RR complaint and requested a topic ban, but was told 3RR was the wrong venue.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence and confirmation from multiple users, Cold Season's complaint, like many others before his, was not acted upon by administrators and became archived on December 3. Unsurprisingly, Cydevil38 almost immediately resumed his edit warring [28] [29] [30], and using an obvious IP sock 121.161.79.35 [31], after Cold Season warned him of 3RR again. The IP is closely related to 121.161.79.120 used earlier to revert RGloucester [32] on Mid-Autumn Festival.

At the end of Benlisquare's ANI complaint two years ago, another user presciently remarked: "if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles." And that is exactly what is happening. Cydevil38's disruptive behaviour has gone on for way too long, and I request, yet again, that this user be topic-banned from Korea-related topics. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I concur that as an uninvolved editor I looked at the situation when I saw the most recent 3RR complaint and found that Cydevil38's behavior was edit warring and completely unjustified by the presented sources. I have no idea what his point is continually reverting 2000 year old history. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. That was the first time that I've substantially came in contact with said user but I've seen it before, I found that the user was very Korea-centric/nationalistic in his or her views and it reflects the user's editorial behavioral to such an extend that is disruptive and impossible to work with. The user is certainly stretching what's acceptable behavior: The user will seek every unjustifiable mechanism to impose said user's own will, including edit war until reported to switch over to some other method and blatantly use ducks [33] (unilateral edits and suddenly an IP pops up doing the same edit, right after a second 3RR warning, and a very close timestamp to Cydevil38 [34]) to further his views at the Gojoseon article. The user was also canvassing at Wikiproject Korea (See: Talk:Gojoseon#RFC on founding legends), while the user should know by now that this is unacceptable (especially considering the user was taken to ANI over it in the past... as shown above), which is an indication of the unchangeable nature of this unacceptable behavior. The user Cydevil38 is a disruptive presence to editors that dare touch Korea-related articles that does not meet his or her own views, even ignoring secondary sources or consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I'm very appalled and angered at what Zanhe calls "evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments". I have clarified in that ANI that I have nothing to do with those comments. I never visited the website, and never made any comments there. It was obviously the work of some other person trying to framing me of being a racist bigot. Also, Zanhe's derogation of my contributions to Wikipedia, that I have only "1000" mainspace edits(plus 126 in templates), where as I have more than 650 edits in talks(224 in template talks), only attests to my efforts to dispute resolution. I have dedicated myself to articles on Korean prehistory, history and culture, which often brings me into conflict with Chinese editors, who have conflicting POV with Korean editors, and often so against NPOV. Reflecting this, most of the ANI notices come from topics of controversy between Korea and China, such as Goguryeo. Most articles concerning the ANI notices were eventually resolved through dispute resolution protocols, with two of accusers eventually being decided by consensus for being disruptive editors by WP:RFCU for anti-consensus editing, racist behavior and personal attacks. Zanhe's "prescient editor" who "warned that my disruptive behavior would continue" is himself a very POV editor who attempted to rename Goguryeo's capital, Pyongyang, into "Piarna"[35], a Japopnic-language reconstruction that is rejected by most scholars in the field. I'd also like to refer to to this page[36], where he and one of my previous ANI accusers were deeply involved in an anti-Korea article that compared Koreans to the Nazis and prompted much anger and made even discussing it repulsive. I strongly suggest that administrators and editors take a look at the ANI, the articles in question and the contentions before making comments to avoid Zanhe's fervent accusations of my disruptive eidting. Zanhe's accusation that I "edit-warred" in Template:History of Korea with multiple users actually involved a sock-puppeteer using four accounts and Zanhe. I've actually made some concessions there in my efforts to resolve the dispute, but Zanhe continued to edit-war until I presented firm evidence of scholarly consensus, based on "official handbook" sources that reflect scholarly consensus. The accusations of WP:CANVASSING comes from alerting WP:Korea in articles that are about Korea. I'd like to also point out that either Zanhe or Cold Season added WP:China project to Gojoseon simply to alert the project page there. My issue with Mid-Autumn Festival was that concerning a hard-earned consensus that has been standing for quite a while[37], and which of which the arguments made there I believe stands.

As with the recent dispute over Gojoseon, I'd like to mention that this is yet another contention topic between Korea and China, particularly concerning the Gija theory. I've already presented evidence that Cold Season's one and only source, which Zanhe calls "a book by a well-known University of London professor", was heavily distorted by Cold Season. Please also consider the rest of the article, which already addresses Gija[38], making Cold Season's edit simply repetitive and ignoring the stable structure of the article that was already in place. With regards to the Gija theory, the book basically says that most scholars either evaluate it as "a Chinese fabrication that has nothing to with Gojoseon" or simply just ignores Gija regarding the foudning of Gojoseon. I have cordially asked Legacypac here to reconsidered the detailed evidence I have given, but dishearteningly he simply chose to ignore it and comment here that I was reverting "2000 year history". Also, Zanhe's accusation of my subsequent reverts after ANI:3RR are actually myself adding the NPOV tag to the concerned section, which Cold Season and Zanhe accused of being a continuation of edit-warring. The exception is one edit which I made on the basis of WP:Consensus, that "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."[39] I made the revert concerning WP:Consensus AFTER they reverted my NPOV tag edits, which again, Zanhe distorts the evidence by showing as if I made the WP:Consensus edit first. I'd also like to state that my previous reverts were also based WP:Consensus, in response to Cold Season's very bold edit. The "IP socks" are edits that I made when I forgot to log-in. These are honest mistakes.

This ANI comes at a time when a dispute resolution process is in place. I consider this ANI a disruptive attempt to ignore dispute resolution and attempt to "topic ban" a user that goes against their POV. What I believe is that Cold Season seriously distorted the source at question, and I don't think the "uninvolved" editor Legacypac here haven't gone thoroughly with the source before he made his comment, which is made apparent in his comment that my view is "completely unjustified by the presented sources" when only one source was presented. I again point out that Legacypac ignored my request to consider my detailed presentation of what the source actually says, which he didn't address and ignored and went on to accuse me of disruptive behavior. What this Gojoseon article needs right now is more attention from other editors, not only neutral editors, but also editors with in-depth knowledge of the topic at hand, which is why I alerted WP:Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive pushing of original research by GLPeterson

GLPeterson (talk · contribs), probably also User:GaryPeterson, apparently the owner of the Tesla orientated websites 21st Century Books and teslaradio.com keeps adding, and reverting back in, article sections or creating entire articles that MIRROR versions of his own writing and his collection of primary source writings of Nikola Tesla. He seems to edit from the POV that Tesla's more far fetched ideas of wireless power transmission should be stated as valid or can be proven to be valid (example). As he states at "TESLA'S WIRELESS WORK" Gary Peterson, 2004 he wants to show "that the energy from a Tesla coil transmitter energy source can be received by a Tesla receiving transformer" and seems to heavily quote himself as a source (you can see his wording "The body of the earth is an electrical conductor" [40] from his self published "TESLA'S WIRELESS WORK" Gary Peterson, 2004. He has been copying/pasting his material into Wikipedia for some timediff and keeps creating articles and shunting this mixture of his own primary sourced writings and Tesla quotes around Wikipedia, trying to find a home for it, re: at Wireless energy transfer, Wireless energy transmission, World Wireless System, Wireless power, under a redirect pagediff (until another editor deleted itdiff), at Wardenclyffe Towerdiff - moved it off to talk by me as original researchdiff - respawned by GLPeterson at World Wireless Systemdiff

In over a decade of editing GLPeterson has hardly ever responded directly to other editors inquirers about his edits. I noticed one editor try to quiz GLPeterson on exactly what his goals were, got little in the way of feedbackdiff or simply bizarre responsesdiff. The editor ended up moving the material off to a GLPeterson project pagediff. Responses to other editors lately on his talk page have consisted of posting back Neil Armstrong quotesdiffdiff. When pushed at Wireless power he simply re-posted his "findings" in talkdiff or tried to (prove how his analysis of primary sources are valid?)diff. Attempts by several editors to cleanup Wireless power have been wholesale reverted by GLPeterson, without comment or characterized as "DAMAGE CONTROL"diffdiffdiffdiffdiff "DAMAGE CONTROL" (with some odd concept of "vetting")diffdiff. The editor is now continually removing cleanup tags at World Wireless System with no comment[41][42][43][44][45][46].

I see GLPeterson seems to be aware of the wiki sister projects where public domain primary sources and original research can be posted but seems to want to PUSH things on Wikipedia. I don't know if it is a lack the social skills or competence (the editor has been on Wikipedia a long time) or simply WP:GAMING. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, although I have only had personal experience with GLPeterson on the World Wireless System and Wireless power article. The Electrical conduction section of the latter article, which he wrote, seems to be a WP:SYNTH of 110 year old ideas of Nikola Tesla with his own interpretations thrown in. Although it is sourced, virtually all are WP:PRIMARY Tesla works, not modern engineering WP:RSs. The few modern citations Wei, Liu, Mahomed, Leyh do not support the text for which they are cited. The consensus of modern reliable sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 seems to be that Tesla's ideas were wrong. When I tried to rewrite it, he repeatedly reverted [47], [48], [49] several times saying REPAIRED DAMAGE BY Chetvorno". Although invited, he didn't participate in the discussion on the Talk page except in one instance to repeat the irrelevant quotes he had already added. When I tried to discuss it with him on his personal page, he declined. World Wireless System, virtually the entire article written by him, has similar problems. When I put tags on this article he repeatedly reverted them [50], [51] again without answering complaints on the Talk page.

Although he is polite, does not edit war, and knows how to stay below the radar, he seems to be a WP:Single-purpose account whose agenda is to tenaciously push his own WP:FRINGE views about Nikola Tesla's wireless power transmission on a number of articles. I don't know whether his motive is to promote his own Tesla website or not, but his large use of WP:OWNSITE citations would appear to be a WP:COI. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm not an administrator, I've urged him to make a statement here to address the concerns. I've also left him a warning that continued disruption will be met with blocks. Blackmane (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Resumed disruptive editing and socking across multiple pages

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

---

Reported last week.[52] 99.247.57.5 has again started to revert to his preferred version.[53]-[54]-[55] He should have requested unblock on his main account, User:HistoryPK14, which is still blocked. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not a checkuser, and can not convincingly identify the IP and the blocked user, but the behaviour and the block log of the IP was sufficient for me to block them for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I tried to get the IP to discuss the changes they wanted to make and wait for their unblock (it maybe so that the IP has considered their block as "expired" since their block didn't match that of the username and the IP was their original editing identification; suggest matching user and IP block to same interval). On a side note, I had notified WT:PAK of this major split of article when all this started and a content discussion is in place. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, don't forget to increase block length of User:HistoryPK14. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I will not do it unless there is a clear proof that this is the same person.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See [56], User:User:HistoryPK15(not 14) was blocked indefinitely. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Now I see that there was a good reason, but Favonian already reblocked them indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Favionian blocked and tagged by 12:00. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Brie & Nikki Bella

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

---

A user recently moved this article from its original (and proper) title, The Bella Twins. I was unable to move this back and another user has since made Brie & Nikki Bella a redirect to The Bella Twins. This does not work because Brie & Nikki Bella has the real article history. I'm not sure if I'm going through the proper channels, so I apologize if I've messed up here. Could an administrator help with this situation?LM2000 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This situation is now fixed.LM2000 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:Sockpuppet master User:Pass a Method having changed his username across Wikis

Opinions are needed on the following matter: User talk:Stephen G. Brown#User:Pass a Method. A WP:Permalink for it is here. I also requested outside opinions elsewhere, a fruitless request. I'd rather this discussion continue here at WP:ANI, and I've brought it here because it calls for WP:Administrator involvement. The case concerns a WP:Sockpuppet master, User:Pass a Method, having changed his username across Wikis seemingly to make it less easy to associate his Pass a Method account with having WP:Sockpuppeted. Two WP:Administrators (Bbb23 and John Carter) who are significantly familiar with him agree that he likely is trying to evade scrutiny. Considering that Pass a Method is a very problematic editor, I believe that his English Wikipedia username should remain Pass a Method, and that it should then be indefinitely blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet. However, there is apparently a problem with changing his English Wikipedia username back to Pass a Method because it means that it will be a global move. There must be a way for a WP:Administrator to reverse the name change without affecting the other Wikis. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of clarification, I am a former administrator, but I agree that to the best of my knowledge the only reasons that this name change could have been requested, given the account has been according to Stephen G. Brown globally inactive since the name change was implemented, either for promotion of personal beliefs of some sort, which is at best dubiously acceptable by policy for an editor who has had apparently no subsequent activity, or as stated above an attempt to try to avoid scrutiny. Given that the account has apparently been globally inactive since the name change, I think that there are reasonable grounds to believe that in this particular case the name change might be reversible. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:187.5.175.206, sockpuppet of User:Gringoladomenega

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

---

Hi,

I recently noticed that this IP is the same as Gringoladomenega, who was blocked indefinitely for abusing editing privileges. Their edits are the same, and both add little (or mainly nothing) to the modfied articles.

Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 22:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Clerical note: MYS77, please remember to notify all users you report to ANI by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk pages. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Racism and bad behavior

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

---

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. I have a problem with ELreydeEspana because he commited a racist statement in his userpage. He was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia for insulting me and insulted the panamanians with racist words. Please take measures and suppress this defamation. --Taichi (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No racist words here. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: left a final warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Followed up by an extra warning by Drmies and apologies from ELreydeEspana. Going to close. Blackmane (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Canvasser canvassing again

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

---

Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been involved involved in canvasing previously, canvased Bromley86, an editor sympathetic to her POV asking him to participate in a discussion. She asked for no one else's impute and she told him which section of the talk page she wanted him to comment on. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Her invitation is perfectly appropriate and acceptable. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to participate in a discussion, and in fact, it is encouraged. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Canvassing before continuing down this path. Recommend that this report be closed... Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Padresfan94 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication of any "votestacking". There is, however, some indication, expressed by myself and others, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* Bromley has disagreed with me on many or most issues on the talkpage, and I think this trumped-up complaint by Padresfan, who is a single-purpose account existing to stalk me and edit-war, says more about Padresfan than it does about me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm seeing from his edits to the article. Padresfan94 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell us about your conspiracy theory, then. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the link Viriditas posted and I am thinking the observations of Black Kite justify watching Padresfan94 closely. Chillum 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think both Padresfan94 and Roscelese need to be WP:TROUTed. Roscelese, that is fairly close to WP:Votestacking, why choose that editor in particular to notify? That said we can't be confident that it was based on his known opinion on this issue (compared to if Roscelese had notified a lot of editors all on the same side of an issue). And Padresfan94, after reading that thread from Black Kite, you really seem to have something going on between you and Roscelese, I really suggest you stop it. Overall though nothing actionable. --Obsidi (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Obsidi, I asked Bromley for feedback because, by discussing other issues on the talkpage, he was demonstrating a present interest in the article. Had I really wanted someone to support a position, there are dozens of users I could have called on, rather than someone who had disagreed with me on almost everything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • • But he doesn't disagree with you on almost everything. There were dozens of people who edited that page. You contacted one, and one who was sympathetic. Padresfan94 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Are they the only editor who demonstrated an interest in the article? (for instance I have seen people sometimes, rarely, notify everyone that had edited the article recently. Then you have a fairly equal way of showing that you are not trying to select any individual based on their opinion.) --Obsidi (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by User:Viriditas

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

---

viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) To the best of my knowledge I have never had any interaction with this user. Unprovoked, he left the following on my talk page: "Is there something in the drinking water in Pennsylvania (besides methane and fracking chemicals)? It's a tossup between your state, Florida and Ohio. Are y'all competing to see who can be the most outrageous, backwards, and 17th century in their approach to civilization? Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)" Padresfan94 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. However, there is something in your drinking water.[57] I have no idea if this is causing you to edit like this or not. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please stop attacking me? Padresfan94 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped. Is there anything else I can do for you? Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I hope you understand how completely unacceptable your comment was. When a dispute becomes heated, I recommend that you step away from your computer before saying something you may regret. —Dark 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, it was a joke. And I'm not involved in any dispute. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could remove the comment? It would be a nice gesture of good faith. Not everyone has the same sense of humor. Chillum 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed by special request.[58] Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas May I gently suggest you fine tune your sense of humor. I think most people would miss the intended amusement in such a post suddenly popping up on their talk page. That said,I see no reason to press this beyond removal of the offending comment with an apology. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been spending far too much time in RL, where most people are actually happy and have a sense of humor. I tend to forget that this place is known for lacking that particular capacity and tends to be very negative, paranoid, and politically naive and immature. The average Wikipedia editor reminds me of Henry Starling, a bipolar megalomaniac.[59] Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Are y'all competing to see who can be the most outrageous, backwards, and 17th century in their approach to civilization?" Is not a joke Padresfan94 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you would call it "libtard humor". Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Viriditas, as long as you include yourself in your definition of the average Wikipedia editor I'm sure that after 10 year presence here you will have appreciated that humour is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. You are excused the temporary loss of memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

The harassment continues

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

---

Mriduls.sharma was recently blocked for her personal attacks on my user page and talk page for a period of 2 weeks. Following attacks by several IPs (which were being used by the same editor) an ANI report was lodged by 5 albert square, and my user page and talk page were indefinitely semi-protected. However, the 2 week ban on the parent account has now expired, and now they are back with the same personal attacks, here and here. In the latter, they even threaten to hack into my account, something which they have tried to do earlier, as was reported in the previous ANI. To quote them, "You are a bloody asshole and fucking hijra, chootiya and if you block then remember i will hack your account and find you. i will beat you so hard that you will remember." Can something be done to stop this constant harassment? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user again, this time for a month. I have left a crystal clear message on their talk page leaving them in no doubt about what will happen if they do not edit civilly. However, the threat to hack your account is a worry especially as they did try that before. From what I remember @Krimuk90:, as I didn't want the editor to read this on ANI, I emailed you further suggestions last time. I can't remember, did you do these?

@HJ Mitchell: any further suggestions? Or anyone else? --5 albert square (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this should result in anything but an indef block. This is a threat clear and simple meant to have a chilling effect. If someone gets their account hacked we block it so this is a significant threat. I think 1 month is too lenient. Chillum 04:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: yup I had a think about it afterwards and I genuinely can't see anything else that can be done. I then re-thought my block and decided to make it permanent--5 albert square (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you 5 albert square. Yes, I did follow the instructions from your last e-mail. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat by Marcesco

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

---

Editor Marcesco clearly has a COI on the artice Francesco Aquilini, however with this edit [60], the editor made a legal threat. Thanks. VViking_TalkEdits 06:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is truncated, it says "...we now have our lawyers prepared to send you all legitimate up to..."

That could finish "up to date information" which is not a threat. Not a clear cut case in my opinion though the mention of lawyers can have a chilling effect if repeated. Chillum 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, an obvious legal threat, but before indef'ing the user, the OP should check and be sure the article has it right, i.e. that whatever Marcesco is griping about is verifiable, not undue weight, and otherwise conforms to BLP policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given the user a link to our NLT policy and an only warning regarding the matter. If another admin interprets the truncated edit summary as a clear threat then I do not oppose them acting on that. Chillum 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to advise him to post those lengthy edit summaries as talk page comments instead. That way, his intent should become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all, after re-reading the "lawyers prepared to send you all legitimate up to..." it does seem to be she could have been meaning to add "up to date information". Looking over a number of this editors changes, most are correct, however some of them seem to be an issue of what should and shouldn't be included in the article. I have no strong feelings on this article. I just noticed the edit summary in the recent edits area and the "lawyers" talk with the "..." at the end seemed to be a redflag. Thank you for the quick response. VViking_TalkEdits 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at all the comments he's made, all of them truncated, I can see where he "might" be just trying to set the record straight. To be watched, though. One of the truncated comments started to say something about defamation, and that's usually at least a yellow flag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Bugs here. I don't think it's time to pull the trigger on a NLT block. Given this editor seems concerned with BLP issues on that article, the best option is probably to ask him or her to use the talk page and let a more experienced editor address whatever problems are in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a her, based on edit summaries. There's a clear conflict of interest, but, to her defense, she has removed some serious BLP violations ("four dead children" - uncited). This one, while likely not the intention, removed a copyvio from CBC.ca. There's a bit of whitewashing, and a bit of legitimate cleanup in these edits, so let's be nuanced in our approach. I don't see any clear legal threats in the edit summaries, "lawyers" are mentioned in the context of sending "us" documentation to back up assertions. The Interior (Talk) 16:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Zeitgeist followers vandalizing articles

JamesB17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

JamesB17 has previously been blocked for edit warring at The Zeitgeist Movement, and has previously shown more sympathy toward TZM, if not promotional for TZM. SweetGirlLove likewise.

Both accounts have few edits outside of the topic, and are currently vandalizing Zeitgeist (film series). Indefinite blocks seem fair. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has blocked JamesB17. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've left an edit warring notice on SweetGirlLove's talk page. If the disruption continues, a block will follow.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Sweet girl love' is a sock or meat puppet for a determined group that assaults the Zeitgeist related material regularly. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We assume good faith as far as possible, but letting User:SweetGirlLove off with a 3RR warning after assisting User:JamesB17 to revert war this edit into the Zeitgeist (film series) article, apart from other long-time disruption, seems impossible to me. I've indeffed them as a disruptive sock/meatpuppet, even though they haven't edited after Phil's warning. Hope you don't mind, Phil. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC).

Not that I can confirm it, but different computers on a shared IP address seems possible, doesn't it? Wouldn't JamesB17's block prevent SweetGirlLove from editing in that case? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem, Bishonen. The sock puppet thing looks pretty definite. Good block.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert pedley/ 3 times disruptive editing

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

---

this is the third time this person disrupts my editing below is the first

2014 (UTC) robertpedley/disruptive editing[edit]

apologies were made, the rest is a matter for the articles talk. No admin intervention needed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this individual has disrupted my editing here[151] and also here[152] and has also done personal attacks by stating "garbage" to an edit stating -"Treatment: Removed - this is unverierified, anecdotal, and NOT currenly proposed for clinical trial in West Africa. Oxxie, please stick to WP guidelines, you know this kind of stuff is garbage"(btw it was referenced)the individual apparently also made fun of my name by placing "oxxie"[153] I am asking for a warning on this person . thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Agree the word "garbage" was unjustified, and prepared to apologize. Regretted using the word the instant I had pressed the "save" button. However I stand by the other comments - the edit in question was unverified, based on anecdotal evidence, and not relevant to the page in question. I subsequently posted as follows on Ozzie10aaaa's talk page - ##Hi Ozzie - I researched this.

1. 1. a) it's an early stage product which may never come into general use ( http://www.aethlonmedical.com/products/hemopurifier/index.htm )
   2. b) it must be attached to a kidney dialysis machine - not many of those in W Africa !! ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
   3. c) the patient was receiving multiple therapies and his viral load was already in decline ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
   4. Cheers, Bob. Robertpedley (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the second is [1] reviewing this diff though you are correct that his stance is not logical. The material in question was the USA answer and precautions to the Epidemic in west Africa. So it is related and belongs in the article. But that is only my opinion. I think they are suggesting you should put it Ebola virus cases in the United States. This isn't unreasonable. You really just to get with them and talk. Take it to the talk page. If that don't work open an RFC or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. There are plenty of ways to get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

and now [61] I am asking for a warning/block on this individual for disruptive editing thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see what the problem is - the edits affect a number of areas in the article, material probably added by a number of editors, not just Ozzie10aaaa. The reason for every edit is given clearly in the edit summary - generally today, I've been clearing up duplicated or inaccurate material. Some material which is irrelevant for the page in question has been removed with a suggestion to put it on a more relevant page. I've opened a section in the talk page to discuss my edits, in case anyone thinks they have not improved the readability and relevance of the article.Robertpedley (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Atifabbasi8 creation of many titles duplicating other articles

Atifabbasi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A review of this user's talk page and contribution history suggests a lack of understanding how Wikipedia works. They keep starting short articles on topics already covered elsewhere. Can they be blocked from creating articles for a time? Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to block someone from creating articles, other than simply by blocking them from editing altogether. Let me look at the edit history and come back with an opinion on whether a block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, I checked Atifabbasi's existing mainspace page creations for the last three months and don't see a reason for sanctions. Unless I'm missing something, the worst thing that this user's done (aside from one copyvio, which by itself isn't reason for sanctions) is creating pages under alternate titles, and that's easily rectified by redirecting them. What's more, much of the deleted content shouldn't have been deleted. ISIL presence in Tripoli doesn't duplicate the main article (as far as I can see, it doesn't mention Tripoli at all), and List of ISIL Wilayahs was deleted under G2 (a test? This was obviously intended to be the list that it was), under A7 (this list definitely wasn't "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event"), and A11 — this is a serious violation of WP:WIAPA "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons", since this criterion could only apply if Atifabbasi is high-up in ISIL. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a broad block or ban, just wanted to flag the activity for a fresh set of eyes. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin and User:John

User:John has removed content critical of Nick Griffin and protected that article because he believes that said content infringes WP:BLPSOURCES. I disagree with his actions. In an attempt to fix this disagreement I started this conversation on the BLP Noticeboard. Practically everyone in that conversation agrees that there is nothing objectionable about the content John removed, but he does not agree and will not unprotect the article or restore the content. He apparently is "waiting" for more comments. Personally, I believe he is delaying the inevitable.

Since I do not have the ability to restore it myself, I ask that someone who can, does. And I also ask that someone with experience writing controversial BLPs remind John that removing content critical of a such figures is not a good way to achieve any kind of neutrality. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John, did you really intend to lock the article indefinitely?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, just while a consensus is reached about whether it is acceptable to state on a BLP: The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected." As the log entry says. --John (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Despite being one of the many to comment at BLPN, I wasn't aware that John is not only strongly advocating his lonely position here, but he's also used his admin powers to lock the article in the middle of a content dispute he's involved in. Didn't we used to have a policy against exactly that? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

References

• Comment - Yeah, that's about as inflammatory of an editorial comment as its gets. As long as there is "follow through", this seems like a logical action by John. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• John, what did you mean to do, if not to lock it indefinitely? "Until a consensus is reached" is indefinite, since we can't assume that consensus will be reached at a certain date. If you're ready to unprotect it when that happens, or if you don't mind someone else unprotecting as soon as that happens, there's nothing wrong with indefinite protection. Indefinite \= infinite. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, the more important issue is whether John should be the sole arbiter of what's acceptable per policy. John's distaste of certain tabloids is fairly well documented, and although I understand that technically he has a right to insist and rely on WP:BLP policy, there's the obvious question of John's interpretation of that policy. Frankly, much as I respect John, this has a distinct odor of WP:INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the printing format relevant in the least? According to the links in the intro of its article, The Sun is a tabloid in the Tabloid (newspaper format) sense, not in the supermarket tabloid sense. I'm not familiar with John or with the subject of this article (I've heard of BNP before, but not Griffin), so I can't comment on the details. All I can say is that there's nothing per se wrong with including the statement in question; nobody, even Griffin and his strongest supporters, will disagree with the idea that the Sun columnist said this. We need to decide based on whether it's relevant and on whether it creates a generally non-neutral section and/or article, but "Person X said Y", sourced to something where X indeed says Y, isn't inherently problematic. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I never use the word "tabloid" in the format sense. My understanding is that both papers at issue here are tabloids in the gossipy, garbagy sense, and I believe that's the way John is interpreting them. Did you look at the image in The Sun-Herald? Really.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been raised in the BLP thread, "tabloid" is hardly a complimentary term in the UK but it's still a long way from a US tabloid. Are you aware that this is the UK paper, not the Australian? Why would you post such a link here otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• My error, you're right, it's The Sun (United Kingdom). However, they look fungible to me. I realize that UK tabloids are not as bad as, for example, The Enquirer, but that simply means that instead of being complete crap, they're just moderate crap, and they don't tend to go into things like UFOs and the like, which, as everyone well knows, we have only in the U.S. anyway. In any event, I'm not necessarily agreeing with John. Just trying to characterize the sources properly, although, admittedly, one could argue about how bad they are. If I recall, most editors take a more nuanced approach and say they're reliable for some things but not for others. But I don't think that reliability is the issue here, anyway; it's whether we should quote their columnists, no matter what they say, as long as we attribute it to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well I hate to throw this in but I don't see the consistency here. The Question Time British National Party controversy article including the Guardian saying Griffin "looked just plain shifty" which isn't too much better than the Hastings piece. I believe there's a daily mail cite there too but not to the op-ed sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's an argument over whether a tabloid (and often unreliable) source is nonetheless a valid reference for the statement that a columnist in that source wrote certain words. Also whether including those columnists views gives them undue weight. But that's an argument for BLPN - this board is more about the appropriateness of John protecting the page while also vigorously participating in the BLPN debate. And the answer, reasonably, is no.

However, it seems overly bureaucratic to remove the protection and then restore it via RFPP. There is also no hurry re these comments being included or removed from the article. Suggest we leave the protection in place until the BLPN discussion concludes, and act on any consensus there. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please define "conclude" in a practical, straightforward way? The on-going WP:CONSENSUS -- not unanimity, but consensus -- has been to cite briefly the columnists in the article. However, John -- who is acting as an admin and an involved contributor simultaneously -- insists on dragging this out. I strongly suspect the reason is because he's hoping the WP:CONSENSUS will change in his favor at some distant point. His behavior doesn't strike me as reasonable. A ruling on John's conflict of interest and a time-frame to implement WP:CONSENSUS seems warranted, I would think. Oddexit (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi

User:Winkelvi — who follows me around Wikipedia, has cursed at me, has made repeated harassing posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop, and has made numerous snide comments to me at at BLP Noticeaboard discussion — has now written a long personal attack on me on his user page. [62]. Not mentioning my username is not a defense when numerous editors who have been involved in the discussion can identify that he's referring to me. And in any case, what is the purpose of that screed, other than to personally attack another editor? His comment "continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position" — basic housekeeping; why should that bother him? — shows he goes to check out contributions and keeps and eye on where and what I edit!

I've edited on Wikipedia for 9 1/2 years with a virtually impeccable record and much goodwill. I've mentored many editors and could call on a dozen fellow editors, including a couple of admins, to vouch for my good works. As can happen in 9 1/2 years, I was involved in a dispute in June in which the other user repeatedly cursed me with the f-word [63] after my very polite posts on his talk page [64], [65]. He did so again and again [66], [67], and was verbally abusive even when Wikipedia rules required my notifying him of things like 3RR warnings and ANI [68].

The whole incident left me so frustrated I remained away from Wikipedia until November. Within days of my returning Winkelvi was back on my talk page to bait me. [69] When I responded on his talk page he first bragged about how he told me "fuck off" in June, and then began cursing me again freshly: [70]. And then even after being asked to stay off my talk page, he came at me again, with more false charges [71].

Within an hour of my posting on a noticeboard, he's there [72]. Fine: Even if it's not advisable to comment on a noticeboard to an editor you've antagonized and cursed at, it's not disallowed. But then he follows me around to other editors' pages where I do not mention him [73]. And I'm not even listing all the diffs on the noticeboard where he makes uncivil comments and tells me has every right to curse me out since "Wikipedia is not censored and cursing is allowed," [74], even though that guideline refers to quotes within articles — it's not blanket permission to curse out other editors. The "chew on that awhile" comment he added to that edit was gratuitous, not to mention needlessly mean-spirited.

Is he going to be allowed to keep the personal attack on me on his user page? And is there any way to stop this cursing, uncivil editor from following me around, going to my talk page and harassing me? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to note how Winkilevel has treated @Lithistman: I recall an exchange from October where Lihistman removed a non-constructive comment from his page [75] to have Wink slap an automated message on the talk page [76]. This was after he two users had been engaged in a contentious discussion at BLPN.
• More recently, he engaged in a pretty petty edit war on Breaking Bad (see history) and showed nothing but hostility on the article's talk page (see thread).
• Given this and evidence above, I think this may be a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to your first bullet, it was an automated but personalized message, and I believe he was referring to the edit summary (trolling). As for your second bullet, you were involved in the edit war and in the discussion (I'm not going to read all of it). From this report and these two "incidents", you conclude that WV is WP:NOTHERE? That's a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever else is going on (perhaps an IBAN is indicated here?), I disagree on your NOTHERE assessment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think an IBAN between Winkelvi and Tenebrae should be made official before things get further out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I support a two-way interaction ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While may not be entirely NOTHERE, this is a pretty serious bullying case that looks like it has been way beyond this specific instance. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of full-disclosure, Bbb23 is not an uninvolved editor/admin. He hid some of my and Winkelvi comments from a current discussion [77] yet allowed Winkelvi to retain his taunt that I was "getting [my] panties in a wad." [78]. There is no excuse for that kind of favoritism or for an admin to even countenance that kind of consciously vulgar, deliberately uncivil language from one editor to another. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As has unfortunately often been the case in this back-and-forth between Tenebrae and WV, Tenebrae is wrong on many points. Although there was obviously baggage between the two users before I got sucked into it, it started for me because I reverted Tenebrae over WP:DOB. After we went round and round on my talk page, I suggested he take it to BLPN. He did, and last I checked (not lately), not a single editor agreed with Tenebrae. I stayed out of the policy discussion and hatted two times when WV and Tenebrae were bickering about each other as opposed to about the policy. Admittedly, WV's language is blunt, forceful, colorful, abrasive, and, as Tenebrae rightly says, often uncivil, but Tenebrae wasn't helping. He can't seem to accept that Wikipedia is, for better or for worse, full of editors like WV, and you either ignore them or put up with it. The second hatting is the one he complained about, and I explained to him on my talk page (where he complained some more) why I left the "panties in a wad" comment unhatted, but Tenebrae was having none of it. In any event, even without knowing all the history of the two users, I could see that the best result would be an interaction ban. But apparently Tenebrae wants more. He wants everything he deems objectionable to be cleaned up or removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a very similar opinion to Winkelvi's about this slavish addition of celebrity minutiae that has absolutely no encyclopedic value. I mean seriously, what significance does say Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child have in, well, anything? As for a personal attack, how is it exactly a personal attack? Is Winkelvi's opinion, indirectly or directly, on how you spend your time really relevant to you personally? It shouldn't be. Should you take so grievously? Only if you're a bit too sensitive to other people's opinion. I could see that, from WV's perspective, your posts were not polite so much as patronising. Whether they should be taken them as such is debatable, similar to whether you should consider their "screed" as a personal attack. There's obviously a lot of ruffled feathers now, so a two way interaction ban is the only obvious course. Blackmane (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My intention for the moment is to respond only in part as I am quite busy in real life away from Wikipedia and probably won't have time to get evidence, diffs, and the like together in short order. I don't want anyone to get the impression I am uninterested in this filing and have nothing to say in the way of a "defense" of myself and answering these accusations as well as addressing concerns of others commenting.

I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised Tenebrae brought things here. Surprised, because his accusations of harassment, following him, and uncivil behavior are all pretty hollow claims when you look at his history and participation in this "baggage" (as Bbb23 rightly called it).

Above, Tenebrae talked quite a bit about how terrific he is and how long he's been here, about how he was wronged in June, how he stayed away until November out of fear and discouragement, etc., etc. In so doing, however, he has painted a very skewed and one-sided picture that leaves out his uncivil behavior and language when communicating with me, his uncivil behavior and language when referring to me in discussions where I'm not present and completely uninvolved, repeated visits to noticeboards and administrator talk pages to complain about me and practically beg for some kind of sanction to be placed on me. He leaves out how he has followed me to articles and talk pages. He left out how -- after I had told him I wanted him to stay off my talk page six months ago -- he still posted there just recently. He has made situations about what happened between us six months ago when what happened six months ago didn't even need to be mentioned or didn't apply at all. He has manipulated the truth, he has outright lied about me, he has tried to turn other editors and administrators against me. He even accused me of making a legal threat (which I did not, and he was told by an administrator that I did not). He has been working very hard to see me punished because of what happened six months ago. He has been told to drop that stick, but he insists on continually picking it up. Only he knows why.

I do agree with Bbb23 that Tenebrae will not be happy no matter what is decided here because what he wants is beyond what is reasonable or even truly actionable.

Do I think myself blameless? No. I am certain there are things I can do better and differently. I learned from this "baggage" and from this report that I should re-evaluate some of the ways I do things in Wikipedia. I understand that from looking at what Tenebrae has presented here that I probably look like a complete jerk. But I know I'm not a complete jerk. I am a good content and copy editor and have a history of doing good here just as Tenebrae does. Further, I come nowhere near WP:NOTHERE as another editor has weirdly suggested. More importantly, I know I've not been the person/editor Tenebrae has painted me to be and I also know that I can avoid interacting with Tenebrae without a formal/official interaction ban. I don't know if he can do the same, I would hope the adult he poses himself to be (a professional biographer with education and academic credentials) would have that kind of self-restraint.

That's all I have time for right now. I will be back either within a few hours or sometime tomorrow to produce diffs and the like to support the things I stated above that are likely to be challenged. I ask for the community's patience in giving me some time to do that. My schedule in real life is quite packed right now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's a fine bunch of namecalling all around, and it's amusing (for ANI regulars) to see HiLo and LHM thrown into the mix, in an early response to this thread (shout out!). I agree that Winkelvi has a tendency to come out way too strong (and I don't say that just because they told me to fuck off too, a while ago), but NOTHERE is a silly overreaction. Maybe a two-way interaction ban is helpful; at any rate, I thank Bbb23 for their hatting on that BLPN discussion (it's still open! any takers?), and I hope that admins will more frequently nip such unhelpful conversations in the bud, not just by hatting but also by deleting.

  Anyway, Tenebrae also is colorful enough; referencing the BLPN discussion, they refer to those who want to get rid of the celeb's children's DOBs as "extremists", who "hide" information--I don't want to make too much of it, but that's a serious lack of AGF. If "getting your panties in a wad" is a blockable or bannable choice of words we're going to run out of editors real soon. In short, Winkelvi is a decent editor who, I believe, is working on their general interaction skills and I see no reason for any official, formal action. If anything, though I admit Winkelvi's tone probably doesn't invite it, I urge other editors/admins to point out to them when they're going too far--informally, with a note on their talk page. I'm sure that's all that's necessary. The AGF I extend to Winkelvi extends to Tenebrae as well, with whom I remember good interactions, but I can't help but sense a bit of frustration here. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can we at least agree that Winkelvi's latest addition to his userpage, which reads in part "there are those who view it (Wikipedia) as a repository for information on celebrities - including every bit of ridiculous and unencyclopedic fan-garbage and trivia that can be found and replicated here. There are editors who have made Wikipedia their reason for being, continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position while racking up tens-of-thousands of edits that in reality mean nothing because...(wait for it)...someone will come along and change what you just added or deleted. I think this qualifies for the pop-culture definition for insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again while, each time, expecting a different result," is problematic as a violation of WP:POLEMIC? -- Calidum 05:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• Two-way indefinite interaction ban between Winkelvi and Tenebrae. Additionally, neither user should edit a page right after the other does. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Blackmane (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

EChastain SPI and ad hominems

Not much to report, no rush on this needed, but could another sysop please look at this SPI. I, and a few others, have listed some evidence that EChastain is the return of another user. Whether they have done that within policy or not is up for discussion but there is some evidence of a failed clean start, from my perspective. EChastain has taken to making some personal attacks such as that I am incivil or WP:Involved. The remarks have continued on the SPI where I am accused of having an agenda. When I pressed a reason why EChastain would think I am involved or have an agenda, and that they supply diffs, they replied that they have no idea how their allegations are true, but they made them nontheless. Despite that, they are unwilling to strike the accusations. Would appreciate if someone could ask EChastain to either substantiate the accusations against me, or to quit bothering me and focus on disputing the diffs and evidence I have presented against them.--v/r - TP 01:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they misunderstand what is being attempted. I think it would be best for the evidence to be evaluated as soon as possible as it has lasted longer then it should. I think the striking accusations part is something that User:TParis should ignore. Two things are here, 1 Tparis is right in which case it's WP:RBI or TParis is wrong and this is normal anxiety of an innocent editor. Either problem is solved with a positive or negative finding. I think a discussion would be a good thing though, I have encouraged it from the start of the conversation on this SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally care either way, but they keep blasting up my talk page.--v/r - TP 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to this (for those who may be interested) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell. Multiple editors have told EChastain to just drop it but based on her edit history: [79] she has done nothing but post there recently. I do not think it is Sue but TParis is right with his returning editor comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also say that Echastain has, like many editors, a fundamental misunderstanding as to the use of WP:INVOLVED in the wiki-context. They should definitely strike the allegations unless diffs are forthcoming, saying something along the lines of "You've got it in for me, I don't know how to prove it so you need to show me the evidence of this" is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a clear personal attack by EChastain on that SPI. TParis, you've kept your cool--please continue to do so. There's a slight aroma of humanity in your "thank you for clarifying" comment: an admin should not betray frustration. EChastain, I am not going to post a template on your talk page since this ping should suffice: no more personal attacks, please, since you're in blockable territory. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Satyananda Saraswati

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

---

Full protection might be a good idea for Satyananda Saraswati. There's an intensive eidt-war going on. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Alexander Prokhanov article: tagging/untagging

Please check the last 7 edits here. The 'neutrality' tag is being removed by the contributors who on the talk page try to accuse me of things I have nothing to do with. The reasons why I find the article biased are all there too. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Neer87 and Qnet

User:Neer87 is attempting to remove unflattering material from the article Qnet.--KTo288 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man again violating IBan

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Someone will need to notify TRM because I don't know that I'm allowed to do that myself.

You know, I am now really sorry that I extended a goodwill gesture of asking for an early lift of his recent 48-hour block. Not only did it not change his behavior, it's actually made it worse.

There's a lengthy discussion on the ref desk talk page, focused on TRM's belligerent attitude. He continues to justify his behavior on the same grounds as a year ago, which led to the IBAN and (briefly) a ban from the ref desk also.

None of that matters, except that he continues to violate the IBAN by referring to Medeis and me. How do I know, when he never mentions us by name? Here's how: Please note this diff,[80] in which he says "As I have said before, I am limited in what I can express, but am constantly dismayed by the 'quality' of responses."

Now, as far as I know, he is only IBANned with Medeis and me, not with anyone else on the ref desk. So there is nothing otherwise limiting what he wants to say there about other editors. The obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face conclusion is that he is referring ONLY to me and/or Medeis.

Despite his frequent claims, I DO NOT want him indef'd or necessarily banned from the ref desk. I just want him to stop talking about us.

So I must ask the good admins here, What will it take to get him to stop??? He treated the 48-hour block with scorn, so I don't know where you go from here.

Thank you for your kind attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspected SPAs and/or Sock Accounts

On the film article Difret, three new editors have begun contributing to it over recent days:

• Alllz12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aeterno94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mmandefro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All three users have no other edits on any other page on WP and seem to focus on the "Controversy" section, which I think is fast becoming a BLP issue too. I'd appreciate any help/thoughts on this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)