Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William JJ (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 9 July 2013 (→Topic ban appeal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO

    Stuck
     – This discussion has lost focus! – S. Rich (talk)

    SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

    As noted elsewhere, User:SPECIFICO explicitly has stated he is an Austrian School economist who thinks those connected to the Ludwig von Mises Institute which he sees as a competing economics faction are "hijackers" and "multi-level marketing" schemers. He has made biased edits and reverts on several related articles and his POV is so strong he fails or refuses per IDIDNTHEARTHAT to understand clear explanations of policy. He now has taken to leaving me eight questionable and even baseless Talk page "Notices" over the last two weeks, including three under one header, that look like attempts to disrupt my comments and editing. He is starting to do this as well to User talk:Id4abel who also has problems with his editing on these articles.

    This was a false accusation of 3rr where I had to explain his own edit warring to him.
    I did launch into a general soapbox discussion of editing issues, but it obviously was not a personal attack on another editor, one who I was quite unfamiliar with. And I did strike it.
    Because I complained about User:SPECIFICO coming to the WP:OR noticeboard to dismiss policy issues and refusing to discuss policy. See the seven section discussion of his WP:OR entries to Huerta de Soto article.
    My first revert of WP:OR discussed at both Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#More_WP:OR_using_Skousen and Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Removal_of_Barry-related_WP:OR.2FSynth.
    My first revert of new POV controversial material. The article had been protected for two days previously because of my June 2 3rr/Edit Warring complaint about User:SPECIFICO trying to denigrate Rothbard. This time SPECIFICO was removing the fact that Rothbard is an economist from the first sentence, despite four solid refs saying so and despite previous talk page rejection of such a suggestion. This is a prime example of his extreme bias against competing Austrian economists which leads to his disruptive editing.
    After taking my advice to start an RfC on Rothbard as an economist, SPECIFICO objected that I wrote "Sources are what counts on Wikipedia, not editors' personal opinions and WP:OR." (This in reply to his criticizing my RfC support for economist.)

    Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note At first glance, there does seem to be some merit as to the unnecessary aggressiveness. I don't have time to dig deep tonight, but hopefully someone will. Bumping because they needs to be addresses and not just archived. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carolmooredc Addition: Thinking about it, realized the last three talk page notices came after I put a talk page message about Wikihounding on his talk page (corrected at this diff) because he followed me in 30 hours to 4 pages he had not edited before and there either reverted me or left a negative comment. So maybe this became his new mode of harassment. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Editor SPECIFICO seems to be in a habit of handing out Warning with citations to WP policies to any user who has reverted his change as seen here or here or here or here(even this editor warned him for wiki hounding) (and might be many more - as edit history for user talk shows a persistent trend of showering warning to a particular editor for a period of time and then moving on to some one else - depending on who he is having an argument with) -as this usually seems to happen to any editor he might be involved in argument over content - Carol Moore just might be his recent favorite.  A m i t  ❤  17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand this should be read through for the history these two editors have had  A m i t  ❤  18:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [Insert]: FYI, I do refer to that ANI in my June 27th entry above. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit history shows a campaign to revise articles that touch upon Austrian Economics to push readers toward viewing that school of economics as a crank theory. Supposedly SPECIFICO is an Austrian economist so this whole thing makes little sense. I live in a mostly free country where people are allowed to support most any view they like, and advocate that view to others, but Wikipedia has different goals. The wikihounding that followed has not yet reached epic proportions, but it has grown well into the realm of unacceptable. Using reasonable sounding edit descriptions that conceal the actual actions taken, making a few useful edits to make finding the dishonest ones harder, citing respected sources and half sticking to what the sources actually said, deleting a claim with a valid cited source and attempting to defend the delete with no source whatsoever, and so on. It is masterful gaming of the system. I applaud the intelligence behind the campaign. There is dedication and craftiness that would be one of the biggest assets ever if applied to improving articles rather than used to push unsupported propaganda against a theory onto an unfamiliar population.

    My first encounter with this editor was at 20:42 on 8 June 2013 where I replaced uncited and badly slanted text with cited text that better follows the neutrality policy within the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article. I think the second encounter is when the wikihounding began. This is were I think this Wikipedia system has a giant flaw in that it is much easier for an editor dedicated to making the article push one point of view rather than easier for the collaborative effort that Wikipiedia is supposed to encourage.

    The first abuse of the edit war warning only resulted in a prolonged argument about how the three revert rule means whatever SPECIFICO says that it means.

    The second abuse of the edit war warning had no response from SPECIFICO at all. Abel (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User Abel's analysis of User:Specifico's modus operandi is excellent, though it would take a huge WP:ANI to document it all with diffs. It's just easier to document the most obviously behavioral manifestations.
    As we all know, such subtle disruptive/tenditious editing can cause a lot of anger, hurts collaboration and can lead to edit warring. I'm quite burned out after a couple months of it with User:Specifico and barely have the energy to finish off several new or improved sections on articles on other topics that were interrupted when I first noticed this destructive editing pattern on a couple articles I've watched for a few years, as well as related BLPs. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 04:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, supported by my inspection of his editions and my encounters in talk pages with him, he doesn't edit articles about austrianism trying to enhance the material, with definitions, perspectives, and critics in a neutral way. Instead, I believe he destroy the articles when he tries to harm the intelectual reputation of austrian thinkers. He doesn't respect Wikipedia policies about consensus and references in the way to achieve the goal of destroy those reputations, and his way to talk to users is totally wrong, it seems he believes he is an battle field with "enemies" that should be exterminate. I don't know if he is concious of the diference of an hostile schoolar debate and what are the porpouses of Wikipedia talks.--Sageo (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • More evidence to support my point about how this system has an enormous design flaw in that it took SPECIFICO seconds to pepper[1] [2] [3] the article with failed verification, not in citation given, and such tags with completely blank edit summaries yet took me I don't know how long to hunt down and type up exact quotes to show how each and every one of those tags was complete and utter nonsense. Abel (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that this one article alone has more of that type of attack. These three were together and so easier to find. Usually the attacks are performed with far more stealth. Also, this is just one article. Given the number of edits made, there are likely hundreds more to track down and correct. Abel (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    June 15th - Notice that you appeared to be edit warring. Edit warring does not require 3rr. You can edit war with less or more reversions. Given that you were repeatedly removing sourced content, this can be considered edit-warring without crossing the 3rr bright line.
    June 21st - Given you had already raised this as various places, it could quite easily be seen as disruptive editing. Close to forum shopping.
    June 26th - More reversion despite no traction on the OR arguments.
    June28th - Given that you have repeatedly tried to get Specifico sanctioned for NPOV, OR, BLP violations at various noticeboards (and failed), your comments could certainly be taken by Specifico as a personal attack on his editing. I read that comment as you accusing him of editing out of his opinion and OR rather than from a source-base.
    In short, specifico should not be templating you so much. You should not be dragging him to every noticeboard under the sun when you are in a content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So those were all responses to CarolMooreDC's original dated comments above?Abel (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To User:Only in death: First, of course, you only are summarizing his/her claims all still at User talk:Carolmooredc, not my responses and corrections. Also, note that two editors were against Specifico's addition of WP:OR content unrelated to the subject of the Biography on the talk page but we didn't want to edit war by reverting User:Specifico again. I went to WP:BLPN with the OR issue and no one responded; who knows why. I asked at Editors assistance (my question) if it would be ok to go to WP:ORN since no response. Two longtime editors said yes. So I did. So that is not "dragging him/her to every noticeboard under the sun when you are in a content dispute." And this WP:ANI is a behavioral issue.
    Not to ignore your mention of NPOVN - This NPOVN was regarding another editor soapboxing; when Specifico demanded evidence, and since s/he often collaborated with that editor in soapboxing, I provided evidence of them both doing it together and/or in his/her biased soapbox. That was Specifico's disruptive behavior of the month of May. I'm sure after this ANI, whatever the outcome, Specifico will find a new disruptive behavior. The only thing that keeps Specifico from totally destroying BLPs of those s/he detests seems to be taking her/him to various noticeboards. And when there are only two or three editors on an article (and s/he ignores the other two even when they explain policy clearly) that is the standard WP:Dispute measure. (I'd try dispute resolution noticeboard but s/he tends to ignore or mock usual Wiki dispute resolution processes.) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Id4abel has been canvassing like-minded users in order to bring them to this noticeboard thread.[4][5][6][7] — goethean 12:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How is notifying people who are already involved but possibly not aware, regardless of their feelings, canvassing? Canvassing is trying to recruit people to jump on your side. I only asked that they share their experiences to make this report more complete. Abel (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Four points:
    1. For CarolMooreDC (and Abel) – just what course of action would you recommend?
    2. I have found SPECIFICO to be extremely reluctant to tone down the various warnings posted. This has been disappointing and frustrating for me because I've pointed out that the warnings were ill-founded.
    3. Advice on Abel's user talkpage was posted about the need to be more neutral with ANI notification's. A positive response was made by Abel.
    4. With this in mind, the concern about votestacking is not a major one. For myself, I consider myself more of a Wikipedian than "like-minded". – S. Rich (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible course of action: I can see from user contributions s/he is laying low right now, so I don't know if a short block would even phase her/him. I think User:SPECIFICO would take seriously something like a short topic ban, say a month from Austrian economics topics and related BLPs (and any related topics, like libertarian BLPs and topics, should s/he disrupt them). Then s/he might show some respect for Wikipedia processes and for other editors who have an interest in these topics.
    Also, Austrian economics/libertarianism/various BLPs involved here are very complicated topics and there are a wide variety of views that different individuals can hold in relation to any of them. Therefore, it should not be assumed that those who are interested in a topic and argue to follow WP policies have some overwhelming bias regarding any topic that is in any way as strong as the explicit negative biases expressed by User:SPECIFICO in user and article talk pages, biases which have led to his/her repeatedly ignoring Wikipedia policies. This false and simplistic allegation has been made by User:SPECIFICO in the past with no real evidence and inferred by one or two others since then. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a topic ban is appropriate. A substantial portion of SPECIFICO's topic edits have been worthwhile. He has more of a problem with editor interaction, which I've seen and described as high-handed at times. Rather, a one-way WP:IBAN would work better, where SPECIFICO could not violate the 4 restrictions described in IBAN. Who would be the beneficiaries of the IBAN? CarolMooreDC and Abel are certainly two candidates. For myself, I would not care to be included (as SPECIFICO may interact with me). If other editors wish to be included as beneficiaries of the IBAN, then (assuming they'd had some difficulties with SPECIFICO), they could say to him "I want your IBAN extended to include me because of ....." – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not dispute that 90% of User:SPECIFICO's edits were more or less within policy guidelines. The problem is the 10% which were very biased and where he refused to follow policy, or listen to other editors in regard to policy, and would ridicule other editors or the subjects of BLPs when he was challenged.
    Moreover, User:SPECIFICO's refusal to interact and reply to policy concerns, including ones raised by you (SRich32977) on several articles, has been part of the problem, so it's not the solution. Only after I left the following in a response to one of his alleged edit warring alerts did he quickly respond to four or five outstanding issues raised on article talk pages. At this diff I wrote: Also note per various edits of yours, quoting WP:BRD, "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block." And I've noted several cases on several articles where you have done problematic edits of materials others have reverted without bothering to respond on the talk page. Any IBAN would be just an excuse for User:SPECIFICO to keep doing biased edits and then ignore others complaints and revert them.
    It would help if noticeboards were more responsive on complicated/abstruse/non-sexy economics-related issues we need to put before them. (And with BLPs it can be hard to figure out sometimes which noticeboard we should go to first, etc.) User:SPECIFICO has been known sometimes to give in to community opinions which go against him. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 13:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Carol makes a good point that an IBAN would likely lead to more of the problematic behavior rather than less. Clearly the recent lack of editing after prolific editing is mostly, if not completely, due to this discussion. Which suggests that some type of sanction is needed, and would likely be followed. Which would be a benefit to the entire project. Of course it also shows how a temporary ban of any kind will likely be followed, but not have any permanent impact on behavior. On the issue of duration, "Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site." That seems to suggest any limited ban should at least be a period of no less than a few months. That agrees with the evidence that a quarter or more might actually be seen as meaningful, and so has a chance of making a lasting impact on behavior. The topic ban looks like the most logical option. Abel (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I was tossing up commenting on this thread but I'm jumping in for a couple of reasons: 1, Carol's very first diff is from a conversation between myself and SPECIFICO - part of a 3-to-4-way discussion about cleaning up the walled garden that is the collection of Ludwig von Mises Institute-related BLPs. (Which brings me to...) 2, Carol's last point, which I think is the most pertinent one here. The community isn't responsive to threads like this because a few minutes of looking at the history suggests this is all one giant content issue, because there is one giant content issue here. Editor behaviour is distinct from that, and should be dealt with, but it is obviously difficult to separate the two when they are so intertwined. Without any prior knowledge or interest in the subject, I was asked by another editor if I could help clean up a couple of related BLPs. I did (a bit) and then organically progressed to a couple of related BLPs (and they are very much "related"). For notability, many rely almost entirely on "significant coverage" from other institute figures, whose articles in turn rely on coverage from other institute figures, whose articles in turn rely on coverage from other institute figures, and so on. Each is published extensively in blogs and journals and periodicals that are related to the institute because those are the publications most interested in their views. Very few of them would be considered "mainstream". That doesn't mean they aren't notable but many of the issues relate to how their work is responded to by institute colleagues. Should the views of institute colleagues count for more or less than external non-institute responders? Should we allow notability to be established only (or even primarily) by institute-related coverage given many are unquestionably reliable sources with regard to libertarian economic theory. Part of the problem is that the walled garden was established long ago and those responsible have had no desire to clean it up (some of those editors being the subjects of the articles themselves). Editors like SPECIFICO have tried to clean it up (that 90% Carol refers to) but being of a different school of thought there is obviously a motivation for doing so. Such a clean up requires some frank discussion, some hard decisions and some ruthless weed-whacking. The issue is where that weed-whacking becomes editor-whacking. If anything, I would suggest a short topic-ban to give SPECIFICO a chance to calm down and re-find that line between weed-whacking and editor-whacking, though it would seem he has self-imposed a short break as a result of this thread anyway. As for the content, there's probably a good opportunity for interested editors to get together and work on a mini-project/editing drive to clean up economics BLPs (and not just institute-related ones). Stalwart111 06:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for Stalwart111's comments. There's no doubt that many of the Mises/Rothbard/Rockwell/etc.-related articles are filled with WP:OR and primary sources by fans (and sometimes detractors). (I watched and tweaked Murray Rothbard for years but never bothered to correct the obvious issues; so many articles, so little time.)
    However, when we actually start to beef up articles, there are lots of secondary credible and even notable sources that can be used. The Murray Rothbard lead and Jesus Huerta de Soto's whole article are perfect examples of improved material since SPECIFICO started complaining. But see the talk pages and they are filled with sections with a couple editors arguing with SPECIFICO about her deleting things that might make the individual or group look credible while adding questionable, biased or WP:OR/synth info. When s/he can't stop us from complaining about or modifying or reverting biased or policy-violating edits, or asking for help from other editors per WP:Dispute, s/he resorts to various serial questionable behaviors from soapboxing, to ignoring to templating. S/he needs to chill. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifico, as he has in all of these NB discussions, has laid low. In this case his behavior is a bit different. Not only is he letting the discussion go along without input, he's not edited anything for the past week. (Unusual for him.) So the "chilling" effect is in force, even without formal action. But what about those additional 90% positive edits that remain for future posting? Would a topic ban (e.g., enforced additional chilling) end up in a permanent retirement from WP? (I hope not.) But a topic ban, of whatever length, would not address the 10% problem, which is his interaction with other editors and POV. So, I will again argue for the IBAN. Specifico would not be able to post 3RR or OR or any other warnings. Specifico would not be able to castigate or admonish or correct or criticize other editors. His talk page comments, which should be focused on article improvement, would be tempered by the requirement to consider and heed IBAN restrictions. Any proposed controversial changes to articles would have to be resolved through other methods. An IBAN would be effective in achieving the goal of article improvement, which a topic ban cannot do. All Specifico has to do at this point is post a notice here that says "I agree to an IBAN with editors X, Y, and Z." Then we can close this and see if the results match my predictions. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand. The 10% is the POV, WP:OR, edits or reverts he does that need discussion. If you want to talk about what percent of his talk page/noticeboard behavior is soapbox, mocking, irrelevant, non-constructive (or just ignoring people and threatening to take to edit warring if they revert him because he's ignored them), etc. you are talking 66% of his edits. So unless this means he cannot complain when we revert his problematic edits (or revert our reverts) - this makes no sense to me. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the 4 restrictions that IBAN entails. He would not be able to make threats, mocking comments, NB postings, etc about you or other specific editors. The fourth restriction addresses your concerns about reverts. IOW, if he did not like an edit that you made, he'd have to post the reason on the article talk page and justify a desired change (without referring to you as an editor.) Then you (or someone else) could make the change to your edit. – S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban: I should have read down to #4. Gave up too soon. Too good to be true! CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to both Carol and SRich, I really don't think an IBAN is the right solution for this particular problem and I'm questioning the wisdom even of a topic ban. These are long-term content issues that can really only be resolved by a group of editors working together. As Carol quite rightly points out, "so many articles, so little time". There is obviously a clean up effort underway, though still among a small group of "expert" editors. Banning one of those editors from interacting with some of the others is counter-productive, I think, especially when his remaining interaction/collaboration options will be limited to only those who agree with his world view. It creates an "us-and-them" mentality. I think he's frustrated by Wikipedia's long-term acceptance of questionable content in this particular area and then frustrated again when some of his enthusiastic efforts to clean it up have been delayed/questioned/opposed. He's taking that frustration out the editors themselves - "you haven't cared about cleaning this up for the 5 years it has been here, why are you opposing my clean up efforts now?" I think there is agreement from other editors that SPECIFICO's behaviour was unacceptable. I think there is tacit agreement even from SPECIFICO himself (given his self-imposed wikibreak). If it continues, I think there would be strong community support for sanctions to prevent further disruption. But I think anything now would be a punishment rather than damage-prevention. I've had positive, collegial interactions with almost everyone involved here so I know each person is capable of moving forward from this in a manner that lets bygones be bygones. I also think there's some value in everyone having a read of WP:DTR. Everyone involved is perfectly capable of crafting a well-written line or two and really nobody here should be using templates to "talk" to each other. New rule: if you add a template to another user's talk page about an economics BLP, it had better be a barnstar! Ha ha. Stalwart111 03:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    S. Rich has won me over to the permanent IBAN idea. Not an ideal solution, but probably the best solution available. Abel (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the "best solution available" is to accept that Carol's well-explained post and your subsequent endorsement of it have together had the desired effect of prompting a wikibreak and a re-think? You'll not likely get community agreement for the implementation of, "not an ideal solution". Sanctions are for stopping disruption. The disruption has stopped. Anything beyond that is punishment, which is not what bans/blocks are about. Stalwart111 10:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One-way interaction bans do not work, and have never worked. They are unfair in that almost always it takes two to cause an issue. Also IBANS are for problematic editor conduct towards other editors. Not for good faith content disputes. An IBAN would impact just as strongly on Abel or CMDC. You have issues over content, deal with it on the talk pages. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason the disruption stopped was the pending ban or block. Choosing no ban or block would put us all right back to disruption, making all this effort a pointless exercise in futility. Abel (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did remain skeptical of IBAN despite my comments. RE:User:Stalwart111, obviously one reason an admin hasn't dealt with it by now is User:SPECIFICO's (probably temporary) disappearance. Hopefully later s/he will not claim that there was "no problem" and it was a "frivolous complaint" and start with some new disruptive pattern. Coming here with a new complaint now hopefully would be taken more seriously.
    I just wish someone would look at and comment constructively Wikipedia:ORN#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, an aggravating dispute in all this. Even Specifico admitted s/he would not like it if I went around to his favorite economists' articles and added WP:OR mentions of Friedrich Hayek's views that contradict some point made by the economist; i.e., material from a source that makes no mention at all of the economist in question. (per WP:OR we only use "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"...) We really have to start beefing up community input with some sexy/exciting new program to get more former, experienced editors back. Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Abel - there was no "pending ban or block". Bringing an editor here is no guarantee that a ban or block will be applied. There was a request for action which was effectively ignored by the wider community (as Carol pointed out above) not because it is without merit but because it is more complicated and there are obvious content issues involved.
    • @Carol - I have little doubt that any subsequent meritorious complaint would result in action. If he feels this complaint was frivolous, he should have said as much and he had the chance to do so. Instead, he took a breather and self-imposed a wiki-break. I don't think he could now come back and claim otherwise and I, for one, would be back here calling for sanctions if he did.
    On content - I'll have a look at your ORN post (for whatever little I could add) but part of the problem is that many of the articles I helped to clean up suffered from the same problem, but the other way around. In many cases BLPs included claims like x supported y and the citation was y's blog or journal article suggesting that the correlation between x's view and y's written work was self-evident, even though y's written work mentioned x not at all. Pure synthetic OR. Given that lax "standard", I think it is difficult for some editors to now accept that the same should not be done when talking about criticism or disagreement - ie. x opposes z, y supports z, therefore x opposes y, all cited to z's written work. Also OR. The other issue is with some of those "former, experienced editors" given many had obvious conflicts of interest. We don't want them back editing their own articles - that's how we ended up with the walled garden in the first place.
    • I'm not out to have the last word on this but I really don't think we're going to get anything productive done by hanging out here for sanctions that aren't going to be imposed or by thinking that ANI can help resolve content issues. Can I suggest we allow an admin to close this and that we all get back to productive editing? Stalwart111 00:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I finally realized there actually is an essay called Wikipedia:Walled garden. Editor's laziness or lack of expertise in finding unrelated and outside sources should not be read as meaning no other solid WP:RS write about the topic. And it's particularly annoying when one brings in a good WP:RS from academic scholars and editor(s) who yell "Walled garden" try to remove them as not notable enough! (Not to mention removing good sources that actually compare Friedman and the economist in question.) Hopefully won't be a future problem... sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A pending ban or block need not be inevitable, hence pending. The final results of this discussion could go any number of ways. You clearly favor doing nothing and hoping that an editor with an identified problem will mysteriously end that problem after experiencing no reprimand whatsoever. While that is certainly one possible outcome, I find it extremely unlikely. An outcome of zero reprimand sends a very strong and clear signal that the disruptive behavior will only bother a few editors that all-in-all no one really cares about, and so the disruptions can freely continue. Why would any rational person worry about a second incident when the first incident resulted in not even a slap on the wrist? They would not worry and should not worry. Sure the disruptive behavior was discussed. Some people mentioned a possible ban or block. With no sanction of any kind resulting from the identified disruptive behavior, the project obviously does not have any real plans to enforce any kind of punishment. Incentives matter. Doing nothing provides a powerful incentive. I prefer some type of action other than nothing. The sanction could be small, like S. Rich's proposed IBAN, but the sanction must exist in some form to avoid condoning the identified disruptive behavior. Abel (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't reprimand, punish, slap on the wrist or ban to make a point, we prevent disruption. What disruption are you seeking to stop that hasn't already stopped? The disruption can't "continue" because it has stopped. It would have to "restart" which would then be considered obviously disruptive. By taking a step back he has acknowledged he has done wrong. Even if he hasn't, we have collectively agreed to interpret his actions that way and he hasn't sought to "correct" that. The idea is that we give him WP:ROPE - if he now chooses to hang himself with it, so be it. Stalwart111 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve taken a look at this thread and I have a few thoughts:

    The overriding problem on these articles is the dogged campaign of battleground and ad hominem which carolmooredc has pursued. This is manifest in various behaviors, among them, 1) a persistent strain of hostile personal remarks about other editors in her edit summary, article talk and noticeboard postings where the valid purposes of WP would be fully served by statements confined to WP content and policy. 2) A string of noticeboard postings that appear to be motivated either by personal animosity or her unwillingness to engage with those who disagree with her preferences regarding content. 3) A pattern of unsubstantiated statements and out-of-context or half-truth assertions on talk and noticeboard pages on which she is seeking validation for her views. (I am not saying these are intentional deceptions, but their effect is to confuse and derail the process on talk and noticeboard pages.)

    All in, carolmooredc’s behavior is disruptive. She’s been told that on many, many occasions. Some recent examples:

    • Here, she brought an ANI against me for using allegedly improper wording on various project pages to solicit comment on an RfC. After discussion by numerous editors, it was discovered that carolmooredc had posted wording substantially the same as my own on another project page. The issue boiled down not to what I had written but the fact that it had been I who wrote it.

    [8] [9] [10]

    • Here, with no prior warning, she brought another unfounded ANI against me:

    [11]

    • There are many more instances of her disruptive editing and personal attacks. Any reader who wishes to find them can do so on the noticeboard talk page and edit summary archives. Her messages are full of gratuitous ad hominems and other hostile remarks.

    [12]

    She’s been warned over and over about her disruptive behavior, for example: [13] [14]

    With respect to the talk page templates referenced in this complaint: Each of them was preceded by my clear statement of the content and policy issues on the article pages. In each case, I posted the templates after the editors declined to respond to those statements. That is not apparent from the tone and content of OP’s complaint. Even if carolmooredc feels that 8 talk page templates were “baseless,” how does that stack up against the same number of noticeboards initiated by her, several of which resulted in her being rebuked for having brought them? She does not seem to get the message when others warn her about this behavior but I think it would be constructive for many articles if she would focus much more on content, and much less on editors, in her editing activity.
    SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalwart111, well put, thank you. Now I think I see how this is supposed to work. Doing nothing is not condoning. This is meant to be a notice that the behavior is now identified as disruptive. The editor is free to continue the disruptive behavior and face whatever comes with that, or change the behavior and happily ever after. Abel (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope editors will ignore User:SPECIFICOs exaggerated comments which are not supported by diffs. Regarding the actual diffs:
    • After WP:DRN said cavassing was a behavior issue, I brought an ANI vs. SPECIFICO for doing 10 Wikiproject announcements which I thought at the time was totally out of proportion; as it happens others said that was too many. Live and learn. The closing admin did agree it was a "bit much." (I don't know what happened to the closing box; it's not in the archive.)
    • Yes, I did a 3rr, after a brief notice; but SPECIFICO was busy removing so much generally positive info about Rothbard in a pattern of negative editing I'd see on other articles it seemed necessary; and the article was protected for two days because the admin did see that there was problematic editing going on.
    • Actually the Talk libertarianism diff was a humorous one in the context of a group of disputing "radical" editors who would get the political point. But not relevant to our dispute.
    • Re: the two diffs to User:SRich's comments. SRich comments constantly on other editor's alleged bad behavior, collapsing sections, removing comments, putting notices on user talk pages, etc. Sometimes he's right, other times he's being hypersensitive. But since he's good on editing policy issues, I cut him some slack. I don't see what he was commenting on but I have had to remind him a few times that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors recommends we publiclly comment on biased editing. Since article talk pages are the first place to bring up issues under WP:Dispute, that's where I did so.
    Obviously I have lost patience with User:SPECIFICO's biased editing. However, if I really was edit warring and those notices were legit I should have been taken to the appropriate noticeboard(s) long ago. The text of every notice and my responses are linked above and/or remain on my talk page. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 15:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ll respond to carolmooredc’s concern by giving two more examples, with diffs:

    carolmoore states she opposes user:Steeletrap’s edit due to the fact that it was Steeletrap who made the edit. carolmoore subsequently undid Steeletrap’s edit without further discussion or resolution of the matter on talk or elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=561365157&oldid=561310951 carolmooredc’s derogation of user:Steeletrap and myself as “colleagues” and as “academics” is a persistent refrain.
    There is no relationship between us. Per user pages: I am a businessperson. Steeletrap is a student.

    • From this ANI: carolmooredc supports her condemnation of me writing: “Even Specifico admitted s/he would not like it if I went around to his favorite economists' articles and added WP:OR mentions of Friedrich Hayek's views that contradict some point made by the economist” [15] In fact I did not state or (nice word) “admit” that. She provides no diff and there is no such diff on WP. This kind of misstatement, (again I do not know or assert that it is intentional) is very damaging to the editing and dispute resolution processes here.

    I stopped editing the Hoppe article due to carolmooredc’s harassment there. I also stopped editing Rothbard for an extended period but recently returned, erroneously thinking her behavior might not recur. Meanwhile, editor Steeletrap, who experienced these same behaviors from carolmooredc on a number of articles, appears to have left WP permanently. Any editor who is interested in looking at carolmooredc's tone in talk page, edit summary, and noticeboard comments will note that her statements habitually include gratuitous statements about editors and personalities instead of article text and policy.
    SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, User:SPECIFICO is blame shifting and focusing on me and others, rather than dealing with his/her specific incidents/behaviors listed at the top of this ANI. To reply: Re: this diff I provided ample evidence of the distain User:Steeletrap has for the subject of that BLP at this NPOVN. S/he doesn't try to dispute this in the relevant talk page section, does s/he? As for what I say SPECIFICO admitted, yes, I should have provided a diff. Saying he admitted actually was an overly generous interpretation of SPECIFICO saying "No" as his last entry in this talk page discussion. As you can see, he didn't bother to reply to my more important policy point regarding WP:OR. Thus I later removed the WP:OR in question. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a frank discussion of our difficulties can be a constructive part of the ANI resolution process, per WP:BOOMERANG SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some comments on Abel’s remarks.

    The first paragraph of Abels initial statement does not warrant a reply. It’s unsupported opinion and undefined accusations. Moving on,

    1. Abel cites an edit of hers on the Hoppe article, 20:42 on 8 June 2013 [16]. The text Abel replaced was not written by me. I stopped editing Hoppe on May 24, Two weeks prior to Abel’s first edit of that article. I ask Abel either to explain the connection the inference he expects us to draw from his statement or to strike it through and retract it.
    [Insert: text] Have never had a sex change. Have no plans to do so. Maybe one day I'll change my mind about that, but until I do, calling me a girl is inaccurate and not polite. Think SPECIFICO is right about Hoppe article. That interaction was actually from an anonymous editor who uses the exact same techniques as SPECIFICO, and while SPECIFICO has had plenty to say about that article, the edit that I was thinking was SPECIFICO's work could have been anyone. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [Insert: text] Second time that I was called a girl by SPECIFICO. Seriously, this childish nonsense isn't helping you. Abel (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [Insert: text] So after twice calling me a girl, SPECIFICO is now calling me a sexist. Abel (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Abel says I began WP:HOUND him on June 21 at the Austrian school article. That’s an article I have been working on continuously and frequently for the past 9 months. Abel’s edits on that article are 2 edits in Feb. 2012 and 2 edits in June 2013. Abel, please review the policy statement that describes wikihounding and reconsider your statement that I hounded you at Austrian School. In the talk page comment Abel links at Austrian School, he complains that I reverted some text with a terse edit summary “removing unsourced content.” The text I reverted was in two parts, first an uncited and erroneous statement that the earliest group of Austrian economists included two later figures, Mises and Rothbard. The second part was Abel’s re-write of some text that had long been in the lede after extensive and detailed discussion on the article talk pages. Abel’s version, aside from not being supported by the cited reference, was poorly written and added a weasel reference to econometrics and some other very unclear text. My edit summary was terse but accurate and if Abel had posted a talk inquiry with anything less hostile than this out-of-the-blue personal attack on (me) [17] an editor he’d never previously encountered, the process might have gone perfectly smoothly. Instead, with some encouragement and ad hominem from carolmooredc, he posted an additional personal attack on me: [18] Another editor admonished Abel on his talk page and removed the second personal attack, [19], but Abel undid the removal and reinserted his personal attack on me at the article talk page and posted one more on Srich’s talk page. This is hard for me to understand. We’d never previously crossed paths and she has a detailed conspiracy theory to present.
    [Insert: text] The hounding followed those edits, not a part of those edits. You followed me to another article that you had no interest in until I edited the Austrian School. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Forgive me, I had planned to write about the rest of Abel’s complaint but I think that to do so would needlessly aggravate the discussion at this point. It is disappointing and troubling however that, after Srich had mentored Abel concerning his personal attacks on me, Abel then makes personal attacks in this noticeboard discussion. For the moment I am less optimistic than Srich that Abel has understood Srich’s remarks about good faith and civility. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [Insert: text] So "would needlessly aggravate the discussion" is the same thing as "can't think up any nonsense that would sound plausible to someone who already agrees with me much less anyone else." I do like the cheap shot where you leave out that I discussed the personal attack claim with S. Rich and S. Rich agreed that his personal attack claim did not hold up. The only claim anyone had left against me was not assuming good faith. Ironically, this discussion has shown a complete lack of good faith, hence I did not need assumptions. The evidence that I considered to be obvious now has a plethora of support right here in this report. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As before, I submit that an WP:IBAN is a viable solution for these editors. I suggested a one-way IBAN because SPECIFICO had not commented on this ANI. Now that he has, and reinforced the idea that this dispute is about the interaction between editors, I suggest the IBAN be two-three way. Give it a 30 day test run. Enforce it with blocks if an editor violates it. Editors should consider the wise words of WP:ANI Advice. To be truly courageous, mutually volunteer for the IBAN! Then we can post {{resolved}} at the top of this "discussion" and be done with the drama. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Srich, I'm at a loss to understand why my silence would prompt you to propose a unilateral sanction against me. However, what's relevant at this point is that we should try to reach some common understanding of the problem before we moot various potential solutions. In short, I think you're jumping the gun here and we should let this discussion unfold according to the facts on the ground, so to speak. I would have remained silent were it not for several statements which seemed to indicate that some editors were taking my silence as an acknowledgement of the allegations presented here by carolmooredc and Abel. In fact, as you've noted before I have purposely avoided contentious noticeboard threads in the past and will do so in the future where silence is not seized on as an endorsement of various flawed accusations and misstatements. Anyway, first let's sort out the problem, then figure out the solution. There is some progress being made via the Hoppe, Rothbard, and Soto RfC and ORN threads, so it's all good. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a procedural matter, the ANI was focused on you, so I did not want to (and really could not) suggest a mutual IBAN without evidence – and doing so would have prompted more drama. (Moreover, I was not going to carry your water in this regard.) Consider, if the discussion had reached a conclusion during the week before you spoke up, then whatever sanction decided upon would be effective as to you. At that point, you could have brought up your points, in a new discussion, and argued for a mutual IBAN or relaxation of the uni-IBAN. (All you would have to do is say "I was out on a camping trip and didn't know the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor.") This particular ANI, in comparison to the other NB discussions, has more umpf to it, and I had expected a response from you. My suggestion was more geared towards getting a response. And now that you have responded, it reinforces my contention that this is an editor interaction problem. (Rember, I had suggested the IBAN for everyone in the past.) As you state above, there are a variety of accusations and misstatements. The accusations and misstatements are what have prompted this drama. Terse comments have not helped allay the tension. It is time for everyone to layoff from comments about each other and their particular edits. An IBAN, even if temporary, is the only way to go. – S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SPECIFICO: I think I stated the problem as I perceive it clearly in the first couple sentences of this ANI:
    As noted elsewhere, User:SPECIFICO explicitly has stated he is an Austrian School economist who thinks those connected to the Ludwig von Mises Institute which he sees as a competing economics faction are "hijackers" and "multi-level marketing" schemers. He has made biased edits and reverts on several related articles and his POV is so strong he fails or refuses per IDIDNTHEARTHAT to understand clear explanations of policy.
    You are under the impression other editors' POV is as strong as yours and that their opposition to your edits comes only because they have some "fringy" POV as opposed to your allegedly mainstream one. (Not that you can quote much evidence of that from Wikipedia postings in the case of the editors who have commented here.) You don't understand that long-term editors, no matter what their POV, develop a dedication to policy for more reasons than I can detail here. Hang around a few more years and maybe you will get that. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽
    carolmooredc, your statement above this is entirely ad hominem and includes several of your personal speculations and inferences as to my beliefs and motivations. Please consider. Could you state your concern in a way that refers solely and specifically to editor behavior, which is the subject of the current ANI? I think it will be help focus and advance this discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors recommends bringing POV concerns to noticeboards as part of behavior, as I did earlier in greater detail at this NPOVN. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The harassment continues even now

    At this point, it is all just sad attempts to avoid responsibility. Which leads me to, even more, see the value in Stalwart111's argument for largely doing nothing now, and just wait an see if the behavior continues or stops. Also, thank you to Carol for telling me about the [Insert] format, didn't know that was even a thing until you mentioned it. Abel (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Dismissal as WP:Battleground. This ANI is a straightforward case of WP:Battleground. As SPECIFICO's numerous diffs posted above indicate, and I (or the talk page of any article where SPECIFICO and Carol are both aactive) can attest to, Carol's criticisms of SPECIFICO's edits are centered around personal attacks. The only references to content issues she makes in these criticisms are vague, unspecified charges rather than substantive citations of policy. For instance, on the talk page of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Carol repeatedly asserts the term "BLP" but virtually never details specific BLP policies that are violated, instead focusing on how SPECIFICO or myself are out to defame people when she disapproves of edits we make to Hoppe's entries). This ANI is about a personal grudge, and therefore should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That WP:Battleground claim, which might be totally accurate for the interaction between Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO, completely ignores every diff I cited showing disruptive editing. There are many. Abel (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Well lets see, you linked to his edit-history, not exactly useful as no one is going to trawl through it to find out what you think its showing. You accused him of wikihounding without providing any evidence/supporting diffs. Interacting with an editor who has been editing in that topic area needs more than mere accusations. For wikihounding you need to present clear evidence that the editor has followed your editing and has been making edits to be disruptive. Bear in mind, if an editor notices a problem with another editors editing, it is good practice to check they have not been making similar mistakes elsewhere. This is why its very difficult to proove wiki-hounding. Most of the rest of your links to revisions show SPECIFICO editing articles. You have not said *why* his editing is disruptive. Only that it is. Which is pretty much the same for both you and CarolMooreDC, lots of links and vague hand-wavy accusations but very little on outright evidence or explanations. This is why none of the previous noticeboards took much notice. Absent actual clear evidence and supporting diffs of policy-violating editing, nothing will be done. If you want something to be done, the clearest and best way is to say 'Here is the policy they are violating' 'here is a diff supporting it' 'this is why this edit violates it'. Merely being in a content dispute with another editor is not 'disruptive editing'. (EC) See below. Lots of accusations and soapboxing but no actual evidence Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given this comment elsewhere by User:Stalwart111:

    "The Mises/Austrian stuff has been going on for years but has been particularly nasty over the last 6 months or so. You are witness to the latest battle in a long-running war (I'm not sure whether you've experienced any of the history). Editors have been topic banned, indef'd, etc. and the POV has proven to go both ways. The benefit of the "walled garden" I've mentioned is that most of the conflict has happened behind those walls. But bringing it to ANI means more attention. Maybe that's a good thing for WP as a whole, but I don't think it would be pleasant for those involved."

    It seems to me that I can no longer waste my time on any contentious articles - especially BLPs where I get most annoyed - since blatant POV pushing is dismissed even when several editors complain. I much better spend my time on personal writings and political activism than on trying to make Wikipedia editors abide by NPOV regarding people/views they despise, be it Palestinians/Critics of Israel/Austrian economists of one narrow school/libertarianism/libertarianism that's too capitalist or too socialist/Sexually abused women falsely accused of murder(Casey Anthony - IMHO)/Uppity Women, etc. So feel free to trash away, I won't be watching those pages any more. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "elsewhere" you mean on my talk page in the context of a day-long conversation with the person who supported your complaint here, then yes. I made that comment and I stand by it. Even you have recognised and noted this thread is not the first "salvo" in this conflict. But I honestly have no idea what the connection is between that comment and "sexually abused women falsely accused of murder". You've lost me there. Stalwart111 15:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [Insert: Just to clarify, I was moving from your good insight at your talk page to a generalization that was not about you, in case there's any confusion. Just ranting about too many articles I've wasted time on for 7 years where the bias and hatred were all pervasive and disruptive and appeals to the community were time consuming and effective only sometimes, and often then only for a short time. I'm taking the advice of editors who have said they just stay away from those types of articles to ensure a more pleasant experience. I've been waiting a while for the straw to break the sexagenarians back and blessed be!, it has finally floated down from the heavens! User:Carolmooredc 18:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be a jerk now. Arkon (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing jerk-like about giving up on a horribly flawed system. Above Only in death does duty end said I had no support for my claims when that would only be valid if we were talking about SPECIFICO, yet I am not SPECIFICO. I can see how enough of that would drive anyone up a wall and giving up would become the only rational course. Abel (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries

    Dear Administrators,

    When Wikipedia changed its rules to allow an individual to edit content about him or herself, I finally allowed a friend, a professional technical writer, Robyn42, to contribute content to Wikipedia based on my career as a gallerist, an author, and a member of New York's professional theater community. Recently another contributor, Chicago57th, has also contributed content about me with my approval.

    Suddenly a man identified as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz embarked on a strange (the kindest adjective I can use) campaign against me and my gallery, unilaterally deleting wholesale from Wikipedia content that mentions my name or my gallery. Further, of his many deletions Mr. Wolfowitz did not present even one for discussion within the Wikipedia community. Instead, Mr. Wolfowitz sought to justify his behavior not by offering good reasons that stand up to scrutiny but, instead, resorting to spurious attacks on my character and conduct.

    In the article on Joel-Peter Witkin, Mr. Wolfowitz deleted my gallery’s exhibition for Witkin, saying that the text was “unsourced” and “promotional.”[20] As anyone can see, the "Chronology" section of Joel-Peter Witkin's article contains more than 100 similar listings for exhibitions of Witkin’s work. [21] Fewer than 10 of those exhibitions are sourced. Surely, each listing is equally “promotional” in mentioning the venue for the exhibition cited. What is the rationale for deleting only one, the exhibition at my gallery? If Mr. Wolfowitz were to delete each of the similarly unsourced exhibitions from this section, Joel-Peter Witkin would be left with fewer than 10 exhibitions, not the 100 exhibitions that remain in "Chronology" now.

    In the article on Raphael Soyer, Mr. Wolfowitz again deleted my gallery from a list of galleries and museums where Soyer exhibited. [22] Mr. Wolfowitz also deleted my gallery’s highly-regarded, scholarly catalogue, “Raphael Soyer: Looking Over the Artist’s Shoulder.” [23] My gallery’s Soyer catalogue is in the collections of museums, libraries, and galleries all over the world. Yet Mr. Wolfowitz deleted it, saying (amazingly) that it was “off-topic.”

    In the article on Kurt Vonnegut, Mr. Wolfowitz deleted Vonnegut’s exhibition at my gallery in the section “Art Career.” Our first contribution was a single sentence: “He exhibited at the Margo Feiden Galleries Ltd. in New York." Mr. Wolfowitz deleted this material, saying it was “unsourced” and “promotional." [24] We put it back, sourcing it with two university library archives that include the material. Mr. Wolfowitz again deleted our contribution saying that it was “spammery” and objecting to the library archives as sources. [25] We again posted our contribution, this time with additional material sourced with three newspapers. Mr. Wolfowitz deleted that as well. [26] Had all this behavior been a good-faith effort on Mr. Wolfowitz’s part, he could have used the Talk page to ask for even more than our five sources. The fact is that Vonnegut was represented by my gallery, which curated his art and gave him a one-man exhibition in 1980. Mr. Wolfowitz’s repeated deletion of this well-sourced exhibition makes it clear that his concerns are not as he states them to be. It is also clear that he is not concerned with the opinions of the Wikipedia community but is determined to delete my name and any reference to my gallery for reasons best known to himself.

    In the article on the film The Misfits, Mr. Wolfowitz deleted the depiction of the film’s actors discussing the script with playwright Arthur Miller. [27] This "backstage moment" was drawn by the artist Al Hirschfeld. The production aspect of this film is a significant topic in American film history, and this image serves the article by being the unique visual documentation of it.

    In another article, Mr. Wolfowitiz again deleted an Al Hirschfeld image and the accompanying text—this time for the celebrated canine actor Skippy. Mr. Wolfowitz described our content as “particularly outlandish promotional editing.” [28] However, this is a case where the subject’s portrayal by Al Hirschfeld, the chronicler of twentieth-century performing arts, truly contributes something substantial about the fame achieved by the article's subject, a dog. If Skippy, a dog, deserves his own article, should not that article include Skippy's rare distinction among animal actors of being portrayed by Al Hirschfeld? Doesn’t such a rare distinction at the very least merit discussion before the content is deleted?

    Mr. Wolfowitz applied the same heavy hand in his deletion of Hirschfeld images, this time from the article on actress Dolly Haas. [29] Dolly Haas was married to Al Hirschfeld for 50 years. Two of the drawings Mr. Wolfowitz deleted served the article by documenting Haas’ American stage career, a topic that had been completely absent before we made our contribution.

    Now to Valerie Solanas, where Mr. Wolfowitz has displayed a particular animus against me in his edits and comments. To begin with, he deleted the widely-published accounts of my meeting with Valerie Solanas on the day she shot Andy Warhol. [30] Once more, Mr. Wolfowitz made these deletions without any discussion on the matter. In point of fact, when another editor attempted to revert Mr. Wolfowitz’s edit and initiate a discussion within the Wikipedia community, Mr. Wolfowitz went into the article and deleted our contribution again, before the discussion had run its course. [31] What Mr. Wolfowitz called a “self-sourced account” was in fact sourced with three major articles and interviews: The New York Times, Interview Magazine, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The controversy is there for you to read in all its detail on the Talk Page Talk:Valerie Solanas.

    In summation, one test of Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior is this: what if every editor behaved as he did—deleting contributions without discussion, removing important exhibitions and catalogues of artists’ work, again without discussion, and removing objectively sourced and documented accounts with the claim that they are “self-sourced?” In short, if everybody behaved as Mr. Wolfowitz did, Wikipedia could not function at all. I will also add that Mr. Wolfowitz used inappropriate language throughout.

    These are but a few examples of Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior, by which he has gone through Wikipedia deleting my name and that of my gallery over and over and over again, almost everywhere that they appeared. In light of this pattern of behavior by which Mr. Wolfowitz is attempting to erase me, I am requesting that he be blocked from editing material relating to me or to my work.

    Respectfully, Margo Feiden Factor-ies (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and notified Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) regarding this discussion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Factor-ies (talk · contribs) followed shortly after: [32]. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not reviewed any of the content, and so I am making no comment on it. My general opinion: this is one example of why no one should edit articles about themselves or their corporations, or add/delete material about their activities or their corporations' activities in any articles (Snowden and the Booz Allen editors are a recent example). If a person's information is notable enough to be included, a third party will likely add it, and that's the way it should be. Taroaldo ✉ 07:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, I have not looked thoroughly into Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits mentioned here, but so far, I am not seeing any problem with HW's edits. Unsourced edits are being added to these articles and HW is merely removing them. I suggest to the OP that if they want to add content to these articles, they should source these edits to third-party reliable sources. The fact that there is other content that is not properly sourced is not a reason to add more unsourced content. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please extend every courtesy to another scion of the Wolfowitz clan. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure Wikipedia ever specifically "allowed" someone to edit articles about themselves - even Jimbo's phrase was that they should only ever propose changes on the article talkpage. I usually go so far as to say that they can remove WP:BLP-infringing content if it's not properly sourced. Major changes should, ethically, never be done by the subject - period. No comment on HW's specific actions here, yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot to digest here, but after a broad overview I'd say Wolfowitz acted appropriately and even commendably. Our policies relating to conflict-of-interest editing are, to be fair, somewhat complex. The reason it isn't utterly prohibited is because article subjects need the right to remove false information about themselves from articles. Also, some very broad types of COI are almost impossible to avoid: if neither believers or non-believers could edite articles on religion, there wouldn't be many editors left. Beyond that though, most other COI editing, and in particular spam and self-promotion, IS prohibited. To quote WP:COI, "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, WP does allow people to edit articles about themselves and their interests, whether avocational or commercial. It very strongly and rightly recommends otherwise in the case of a strong commercial connection, but there has never been consensus to prohibit; although Jimbo is indeed one of those who advocates prohibition, he is not dictator, and his opinion should not be quoted as policy. I have looked at some of the edits. I'm pretty drastic myself at removing promotional links & mentions , but at least some of the items mentioned seem to at least need explanation: (1) For the Witkin show, I do not see the basis of rejecting this particular one, and I do not think it would have been removed had another editor added it. (2) The Vonnegut material was indeed documented from the first. The published Lily Library and University of Delaware archives descriptions are appropriate sources for plain description. In the past, many such descriptions were unpublished and cryptic, but the availability on the web has made these widely available (and used in WP), However (3) For the Soyer catalog, I do not see it in WorldCat. (4)For the Hirschfeld drawings, they were added as NFCC,and the criteria for their relevance is rather strict (in my opinion, stricter than it should be but that's another matter) Hirschfeld made a great many drawings, and illustrated large parts of the cultural world of his period in ways that add a justly famous degree of understanding, so the decision of which ones to add is exactly the sort of thing that is most subject to COI and is best done by a uninvolved editor. I note that the captions for them included, unnecessarily, the name of the gallery--including that is a very clear indication of promotional use, and would certainly lead any unbiased person to be exceedingly skeptical about their insertion. This illustrates the problem: a promotional editor may make good judgement, or not,and must be judged by the results. Had MF used better judgement in writing the captions, and judging what images to include, the effort would have been more successful.

    DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see where the reporting party tried to work this out with HW before coming here. I would also note that COI editing is not against policy, no matter how unwise it is. Each edit is supposed to be based on its own merits. I suggest closing and taking any concerns to the actual editor on the article talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is strongly discouraged for very good reasons. The number of reasonable COI editors I've encountered I can probably count on one hand. Most are blatant COIs and end up getting blocked, or everything they do is reverted because it does not fit within the scope of the project. Taroaldo ✉ 20:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. There is such a thing as a COI editor who makes positive contributions, but far more often they try to sell something, push an agenda, or just "get their name out there". The current case appears to be a mixture of all three. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear A Quest For Knowledge: Thank you for your comments on this, and your even-handed approach. Speaking to the subject of sourcing, of course it is very important. However, Mr. Wolfowitz was not consistent in his treatment of what he terms “unsourced” material. If being unsourced is sufficient grounds for immediate deletion, why did Mr. Wolfowitz not delete all the other unsourced material in the same article? Mr. Wolfowitz specifically targeted material about me, using a rationale that he did not apply to any other equivalent material. However, Mr. Wolfowitz removed material that he termed “unsourced” when solid sourcing was clearly there for all to see. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear DGG: Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. The Soyer catalogue we published can be sourced, for example [34] [35] If unsourced material was Mr. Wolfowitz’s objection, I would have been happy to add a source. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and was guided by the other material on that page. As to the Hirschfeld drawings, which included the gallery’s name in captioning, it is commonplace in the art world, in fact the industry standard, that when art is reproduced its location is noted. Would you not, in captioning a photograph of the Statue of Libery, say that it stands in New York Harbor? It is important to know where the original art is located, and examples of this practice can be found within Wikipedia on the pages for Mark Rothko, Isamu Noguchi, Henri Matisse, and Paul Klee, and many others. If including my name in the caption was what bothered Mr. Wolfowitz, he could have, and should have, notified me. We could then have opened that discussion to the Wikipedia community. Thank you again for your discussion here. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethically, you should have known not to add your name, period. No discussion needed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Dennis Brown: Thank you for joining in on this discussion. You are correct that I did not try to work these problems out with Mr. Wolfowitz before reporting them here. After reading your comments, I think that perhaps I should have done so. I did know that it was an option, but Mr. Wolfowitz himself never engaged with me, although he clearly had reason to. He could have, and should have, asked for sourcing--although sourcing was already provided for content that he deleted as uncourced. Such was his demeanor that I felt I needed to go to the Wikipedia community. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing directly with the other edit is not just an option, it's a requirement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Taraoldo: Thank you for your interest in these issues. I contributed content that I felt would stand on its own merit in an encyclopedic reference. Your experience with other COI editors is clearly unfortunate, but I feel certain that you would agree that my contributions should be judged on their own merits. Interested parties can help build Wikipedia and indeed, very often, interested parties have more knowlege and more accurate information than anyone else. On the other hand, third parties knowledgeable enough to write on a specific subject will almost never be purely unbiased. Let me ask you this: if Madame Curie suddenly came back to life, would you prohibit her from including her own biographical details in Wikipedia, or adding to articles on radioactivity? Of course not. The point is, if I am not able to add my gallery’s exhibition for Joel-Peter Witkin, and Joel-Peter Witkin cannot add it himself, would I have to rely on somebody that saw the exhibition in the Spring of 1970, remembered it, and cared enough to add it to Wikipedia? That scenario seems unlikely, and yet many people born after that exhibition should have the right to find that information on Wikipedia. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If nobody "cared enough to add it", then it likely was not at all worthy to be added by anybody (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If such an event happened, I would respectfully discourage her, or any other historical figure, from adding to their own articles. Of course no one has greater insights into an individual's life than the person in question, but this project is an encyclopedia, not a collection of autobiographies and personal anecdotes. This means someone else should be capable of finding and adding the information if it is truly pertinent. If someone else doesn't add it, that should never green-light a COI edit. Taroaldo ✉ 04:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I for one am totally supportive of Margo's position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is an extremely disruptive editor. One small glance at his "contribution" history shows that his edits are almost exclusively deleting huge chunks from every article he stumbles upon. This is, in my opinion, the complete opposite of Wikipedia's philosophy. In fact his talk page is simply littered with messages from puzzled editors complaining about his behavior or even asking that he stop threaten them! I myself have been recently dealing with Mr. Wolfowitz on several articles and even reported him due to edit warring on his part. I was unfortunately distracted by my personal life and the complaint was filed away, but he seems to be at it again and I may have to report him again as he refuses to engage in conversation and seems to simply believe his opinion to be fact. Wikipedia is collaborative. Wikipedia editors should strive to make each article better to the best of their abilities, reworking passages they find are awkward, finding sources when there are none, etc..., not deleting half an article simply because you do not agree with its content. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has in fact been proposed, and rejected, that illustrations as used in WP carry credit lines. The consensus view is that this belongs on the image description page , which is linked, and satisfy attribution requirements. This applies even to artists and other creators and would apply even more to the mere owner or supplier of the image. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The real problem here is that Factor-ies had not received much guidance on what is acceptable editing. (She has 56 edits. Five-six!) I note that the particular edits and reversions (above) were done 6 months ago. I've posted a welcome message & further advice on her talk page. Perhaps when she reviews WP policies, guidelines, 5P, etc. she'll understand what's going on. Let's be careful not to WP:BITE. – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Factor-ies may be a new account, Feiden is likely not a new editor,and there is strong evidence of sockpuppetry. See my original ANI report here [36]. There is at least one Feiden edit as old as 2008. What underlies all this seems to be a long-running dispute over control of Hirschfeld's work, which at one point led to Hirschfeld suing Feiden, [37], and it's one facet of this that uploads of images by Feiden and related accounts pretty consistently failed to credit the origimal publication but listed the commercial gallery which sells them instead. Editors here should give Feiden's claims a more skeptical look. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever Margo's experience (or alter-ego) is doesn't matter as far as this discussion goes. Her complaint is not well founded and I recommend that it be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of her complaint is not well founded, but at some much earlier point the underlying issues should have been discussed. The paragraph HW just contributed sheds more light on the matter for me than any previous discussion., and I wish they had said it a good deal earlier. The earlier AfD discussion HW mentions above is very relevant, and should have been followed up further. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator observation) (like others in this thread): Why does a Google search for news about "Margo Feiden" result in just one hit? Shouldn't a notable business have at least a few more non-industry-specific "newspaper" mentions? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, you need to do a Google News Archive search. Google News searches default to showing only results from the last month/30 days. Google's "Any Time" button is rather misleading. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. Date range yields some (but not all) results, too. Weird. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear All,

    In the five sentences Hullaballoo Wolfowitz writes above, he manages to have at least an equal number of factual errors as well as disingenuous conclusions. When he deleted my contribution to the Valerie Solanas article, Mr. Wolfowitz ferreted out an assistant editor’s offhand response to an online comment. And, yet, Mr. Wolfowitz seems to have missed both the correction that is noted at the top of the May 17, 2000 New York Times article he links to, and, further, Al Hirschfeld’s statement, published in the NY Times on October 14, 2000 in which Hirschfeld lauds my integrity. [38]

    The New York Times ran a sensational headline, “Al Hirschfeld Sues Gallery, Asserting it Cheated Him," and then retracted it, writing “[Hirschfeld] did not accuse Ms. Feiden of cheating him in the buying and selling of his work.” The Times article sensationalized the text just as they sensationalized the headline. The article was filled with errors of fact (even in the retraction), just as their headline was an error.

    First, the dispute began not over the “control of Hirschfeld’s work,” but on the single issue of the appropriateness of a curator picked for a Hirschfeld museum exhibition. A part-time worker in my gallery, who was thrown out for stealing and serial lying, got himself hired by a museum to curate a Hirschfeld exhibition, using his experience at my gallery as his credentials to curate.

    For now, the subject of this letter is the behavior of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Starting out with his own conclusion, Mr. Wolfowitz used blinders to extract only what he wanted--mixing and matching whatever supports that conclusion, and leaving unsaid all material that is exculpatory.

    Referring back to his comment above, Mr. Wolfowitz writes that the artist and I had a “long-running dispute.” In fact Hirschfeld dropped the suit very quickly. And during this disagreement there was never a disruption in our working relationship. The fact is that Hirschfeld and I continued to work together, accomplishing commissioned drawings, limited-edition prints, reproductions of his art in books and magazines, etc. etc. etc.

    Mr. Wolfowitz, talking as if he were an expert, accuses me, saying that I “failed to credit the original publication[s]” when contributing Hirschfeld images to Wikipedia. Instead, Mr. Wolfowitz should have asked me this properly on a Talk page. Had he done so, he would have learned that if I did not list a publication it was because the work was commissioned by me or by my gallery and did not run in a newspaper or a periodical. In some cases, the work was commissioned by clients, and when that is the case, I said so in the caption and/or in the text.

    In an earlier letter, I said that I was fairly new to Wikipedia. In his five sentences above, Mr. Wolfowitz attacked that statement, saying that “there is at least one Feiden edit as old as 2008.“ Because Mr. Wolfowitz does not provide the user name that made the edit he credits me with, nor does he provide the subject matter or the article that the edit concerned, I cannot speak to this accusation. I am now aware only of a few contributions made at the end of 2011, followed by contributions made in October 2012. Compared with other editors, I am still green when it comes to Wikipedia (although I’m ripening very fast!).

    Within his five sentences, Mr. Wolfowitz accuses me of sockpuppetry--essentially of the “use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts...to deceive or mislead other editors”. But I never made any attempt to disguise the fact that I and the two people contributing on my behalf have their own user names. They have their own user names because they have their own user names. It is that simple.

    I have been in business from the time I was 16 years old. That was 50 years ago, and my record remains spotless.

    As I said in my AN/I report, it seems that Mr. Wolfowitz’s actions--that is, unilaterally deleting wholesale from Wikipedia content that mentions my name or my gallery--was embarked upon for his own personal reasons. Mr. Wolfowitz constantly impugns my integrity, but gave no basis for doing so. Now I see that Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior was retributory for a perceived harm that he believed was done by me to Al Hirschfeld. I was Hirschfeld’s gallerist and agent when Hirschfeld was in his 60's, his 70's, his 80's, and his 90's. This dispute occurred when Hirschfeld was almost 100 years old.As the world knows, Al Hirschfeld and I had a relationship that lasted for all those decades and, in almost 40 years working together we had one single fight. What marriage can boast a comparable record?

    Respectfully, Margo Feiden Factor-ies (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough is enough. Ms Feiden's last post is extraordinarily abusive, and contains grossly defamatory material concerning an identifiable living person of some prominence. Ms Feiden's comments make clear she is still carrying on the same external dispute that underlies the Hirschfeld lawsuit and other matters. It is clearly not appropriate for Ms Feiden and her associates/employees/friends/multiple accounts/or whatever to edit Wikipedia to promote their position. It is one thing to rail against the sins (sometimes real, I suppose, but mostly imagined) of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but quite another to accuse an identifiable living person of criminal behavior - especially since the person involved is the "official archivist" of the Al Hirschfeld Foundation (Hirschfeld's widow is its President) and is prominently involved in its work, curating, for example, a Hirschfeld exhibit for the Library of Congress. As for the nature of the underlying dispute, Al Hirschfeld himself said, after the settlement, that his lawsuit was brought "in order to regain what I considered to be proper control over my artworks", and rejected some rather self-serving comments by Feiden in the Times piece she cites above [39]. We can bore the Wikipedia community to tears with the ground-level details of these arguments (and probably have to some degree); Ms. Feiden should be wary of the Streisand effect if this continues. Ms Feiden clearly dislikes me (I suspect more because I debunked a cherished myth in her (auto)biography at AFC [40] than for this particular dispute). Ms Feiden's campaign runs afoul of the principles set out by the Arbitration Committee in the recent Sexology case, although perhaps more subtly than the conduct involved there, and her gratuitous allegations of criminality against an identifiable person are wholly unacceptable. It is time for an uninvolved admin to close and hat this discussion with a suitable admonishment for Ms Feiden. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Mr. Wolfowitz,
    I made the choice to be careful in not identifying the person about whom I wrote in my last post. I identified the person merely as a “worker.” In 44 years at the gallery, I have had a hundred workers. On the other hand, you have made it abundantly clear whom you think I am talking about. I will not confirm whether your identification of that person is correct or not, but I point out that while I behaved with discretion, you clearly did not. Although why you would get involved at all in this is very strange being that your knowledge of the situation is not firsthand.
    I do not want to carry this argument any further on Wikipedia, as clearly this is a personal issue for you and is not Wikipedia-driven. You know how to reach me, and if you wish to further engage you may do so.
    Now I am going to take the advice that members of the Wikipedia community have offered me: I shall propose my desired contributions on the appropriate Talk pages and wait for the community to respond before I add them to their respective articles. I shall be guided thus.
    Sincerely,
    Margo Feiden
    Factor-ies (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is plainly not an honest response. Ms Feiden pretends she did not identify the person she, without any substantiation, accused of criminal behavior. However, anyone who reads the first New York Times article I cited (before she posted her accusation) will know exactly who she has accused. This is squalid and uncivilized behavior. Ms Feiden's ongoing string of innuendo, whether directed at me or others, is clearly not consistent with good faith editing or, for that matter, with simple human decency. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I note the instructions for this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Perhaps newbie Factor-ies did not look carefully before starting the discussion above. But it seems that Hullaballoo is initiating/pursuing a new/different topic. E.g., Hullaballo has a complaint about the fact that this ANI was opened and the various statement that were made by Factor-ies. If so, then {{NOTHERE}} should be posted above to allow discussion on Factor-ies UP. In other words, why can't this thread be closed? I agree with Hullaballoo -- enough is enough. – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For whatever it's worth, I believe Ms Feiden's gross and scurrilous violation of WP:BLP in her July 7 post here deserves a strong response before this thread is closed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Feiden (or whoever is behind the Factor-ies account) is aware their conduct has been less than exemplary and that their original complaint is largely baseless and has been told so by several people. But I don't see any cause to further twist the knife. If Factor-ies and friends / other accounts agree to not insert mentions of Feiden and her gallery and instead bring it up on talk pages if there are any absolutely vital related edits to be made, then there's no need for further action. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    DIREKTOR and Anon7mous

    In 2007, User:Anon7mous was edited by User:DIREKTOR - [41] and [42] to point visitors from the former to the latter. In 2010, at User talk:Anon7mous the two accounts had this discussion. The other day, another three years later, Anon7mous goes on to resurrect DIREKTOR's proposal on WT:YU#Scope_.233. If this is an actual case of sock/meatpuppetry, it's got to be the silliest ever. I doubt DIREKTOR would do such a thing, I think it's actually more likely that that they made this series of silly mistakes involving the account of a real-life friend of his. The end result is confusing at best. Would it be inappropriate if I insisted that Anon7mous makes a clean start under a new name? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this should make everything clear [[43]]. I must also say that Joy and I are currently opposed in a debate on the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia and this looks like some kind of "revenge". I am saddened to be so treated having only been editing for a few days. DIRECTOR and I do know each other and he is the user who invited me to join this amazing project. I did edit somewhat as an IP and I am eager now to contribute as much as I can about economics for example with my current account, because I use this nickname everwhere. Thank you Anon7mous (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer: yes it would be inappropriate for you to insist Anon7mous make a clean start under a new name. It seems clear they have stated that they know each other outside of the project, and as long as they're not making inappropriate edits on each others behalf there's not a thing wrong here. Being friends with someone off-wiki isn't against the rules, and frankly asking Anon7mous to change his user name would only result in the same person making the same edits using a different user name. I'm not sure what the point of insisting on a name change/new account is, other than to make things more difficult for someone who has opposing views from yours. AniMate 02:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed one factoid: DIREKTOR edited Anon7mous's page to point to his own. As if it's his alter ego. This stood there for three years. Then they had this discussion explaining that they are friends. Yet the user page pointer remained in place until three days ago. The two of them have, explicitly or implicitly, been telling the world that they are the same person for six years on that page.
    The accusation that I'm doing this out of a "revenge" for a content dispute is ludicrous. If I were doing that, I would have just applied my administrative powers, not asked other admins for advice.
    --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is weird. Years ago I asked DIRECTOR why my username is red on wikipedia and asked him to fix it if he can, then he created my userpage and added the box that he had on his userpage at the time [44], copy-pasting he probably forgot to fix the link so it leads to my talk page.
    Nobody "misused" this account, DIRECTOR certainly did not use it ("shared account"?), in fact this account was practically inactive from the moment it was created six years ago. I counted that I only did 4 edits (while logged in) before I seriously started editing a couple of days ago. I don't see why I would need to change my username, I already have some contributions linked to this account and I don't see why I should lose them? Considering Joy and I right now disagree about something, I can't help but see this as malicius somehow. Anon7mous (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked into this a bit more in the course of the discussion at WT:YU#Scope_.233, and I think I should explicitly write it here, too: Anon7mous' first edits in 2010 were reverts on topics well-known to be DIREKTOR's favorites ([45][46]), and their first edits this year included an antagonistic discussion - saying someone else's edits made the article look "childish and pathetic" at Talk:Croats - and a salvo of talk page edits to add articles to this project twelve hours before DIREKTOR even added his proposed change: Talk:Croatia at 00:42 etc vs. WP:YU at 13:23. Even if the two of them aren't in collusion (violating e.g. WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK), this is hardly proper. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On talk:Croats all I sad was that our infobox would look silly if we crammed in 28 people[47], and I still stand by that. As I already explained, concerning two 2010 reverts, DIRECTOR and I did know each other (we obviously share some interests). If I remember all he did was mention some articles on wikipedia and I had look when I came home. I did not know that people who know each other can not edit wikipedia together? Having explained that, I honestly don't see why I need to answer for two reverts three years ago? Anon7mous (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I joined this project to contribute to WikiProject Yugoslavia. Reading through the archives of past WikiProject discussions I noticed that the scope had been expanded by agreement and that DIRECTORs restriction seemed to have been lifted. Accordingly I added some of my favorite articles that I wanted to expand to the project. I did not realize that the scope had not been amended and that there was still some disagreement on this. I don't see what would be the point of me starting a different account? Anon7mous (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to accuse them of sockpuppetry, the best venue to do that would be WP:SPI. Asking Anon7mous to register a new account is probably without a doubt the stupidest thing you could ask for in this situation. Right now Anon7mous and DIREKTOR have clearly and unambiguously stated that they know each other outside of Wikipedia. If the two of them collude to violate 3rr or edit war, it is much easier to prove sock or meat puppetry with the connection already having been stated.
    However, two people knowing each other and disagreeing with you isn't against the rules. They haven't violated 3rr and don't appear to edit war. Trying to get one or both of them blocked for disagreeing with you on talk pages and in a WikiProject is a pretty bad (and obvious) attempt to gain an advantage. Let this go and move on. AniMate 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been terribly dismissive of my questions for reasons that aren't really apparent to me. I do not want to accuse them of sockpuppetry; I'm saying their own actions made them look unnecessarily suspicious, to the point where the benefits of a clean start may well outweigh its downsides. I also don't want to get them blocked, and I certainly am not raising this problem here just because they disagree with me. Your repeated assertion that I'm just doing this out of spite is in itself a gross violation of WP:AGF - you should know better and you should know that I know better. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Problem"? What problem? How am I supposed to assume good faith (as you seem to like to repeat) when you are reporting me here on the noticeboard for no apparent reason? Then you ignore me and my questions (that also seem to puzzle others) with regard to why I should supposedly start a new account. How would that benefit me or Wikipedia? I assumed there is something I don't know but others also don't seem to get it. I also thought you "knew better", but now I'm starting to think you're just trying to intimidate me with this (because we don't agree at WikiProject). You say you're an administrator? Anon7mous (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly read what I already wrote above twice. For six years, the two accounts were made largely indistinguishable through edits made by one to another. If it even needs saying, the discussion three years ago doesn't have to mean much because it was not confirmed to be true by a third party, and even after it happened, the earlier edits were not undone until this year. And, again, if I actually wanted to intimidate you, I could have simply done something to that effect, which I didn't. Sheesh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that you would not in fact, have been able to "do something to that effect" for no reason whatsoever? Otherwise Wikipedia has some problems. I ask again, what benefit would I or Wikipedia have from me abandoning my account. And what have I violated? When you deceptively say "associated for six years" you fail to mention that in those six years I have posted only 3 contributions while logged-in. Anon7mous (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-creation of Han-Nom

    The merge discussion on the above was closed, after a long time, as merge. Since then, User:Kauffner has been edit-warring to re-create it. I just discussed it with him on his talk page, and he said "Go take it to AfD already". Is that necessary or correct? Could someone try and engage with Kauffner. I'm afraid I lose my patience with him rather easily. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For background, the merge discussion is here; all participants but Kauffner were in favour of a merge to Chữ nôm, which was done after further discussion here. (disclosure: Itsmejudith and I both participated in that discussion, and I performed the merge.) Kauffner asked about AFD here and was reminded of the difference between deletion and merging. Kanguole 23:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that there is no contradiction in copying my writing while condemning me for writing it. Anyway, if Team Harassment wasn't busy with this one, I'm sure it would be some other article I wrote, or something else. I have a dream in which certain editors put less effort into stalking me and trying to destroy my articles, and more effort into writing their own articles. Kauffner (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - while one can sympathize with an editor with only a few article creations to see an article merged, the fact is that as Kanguole says above the article creation was largely duplicate of the existing Chữ nôm article.
    (1) this issue has already been at ANI once to caution Kauffner for repeatedly removing User:BabelStone's original merge tag (a User who has no history with Kauffner and whose User page identifies himself a published academic authority on early Chinese), although it is difficult to find the specific ANI among all the other Kauffner ANIs.
    (2) the root problem is partly WP:COMPETENCE in that Kauffner believes (to put into a parallel presented to Kauffner by vi.wp/en.wp editor User:Mxn) that "Graeco-Roman" refers to one subject with a script "Graeco-Roman" or a language "Greek-Latin". But this isn't the case; Vietnamese written with Vietnamese demotic characters (Nôm), and Chinese written with Chinese characters are two different languages with two different scripts.
    (3) related to this root problem has been (i) creation of the Han-Nom article above, (ii) editing [within articles] of Template talk:Infobox Chinese to create [activate on articles] a category "Han-Nom" - ignoring the problem that many Vietnamese books, gods and places have both Vietnamese and Chinese names. (iii) creation of additional templates and insertion across the WikiProject Vietnam article corpus example (iv) moving and locking (as sockpuppet User:TenMuses for which Kauffner was just un-blocked) the article Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies (equivalent to a Department of Greek and Latin at western universities).
    (4) And all this accompanied by the form of Talk page communication illustrated by the reply to Kanguole and Itsmejudith above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ACTION: the problem is not just the duplicate article, but looking at this is assigning Kauffner a 1RR limit an option on all these "Han-Nom infobox" additions across the WikiProject Vietnamese article corpus? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was reasoning to use in the merge discussion, not here after Kanguole's closing of that discussion. Admins, if Kanguole was correct in closing with a decision to merge, the article shouldn't be re-created, am I correct? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good thing that people here get to see the kind of lies I've had to put up with. No, nothing was ever closed. The discussion is at Talk:Chữ_nôm#Proposed_merge. Kauffner (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The (rather lengthy) merge discussion was actually here; your link is to a follow-up discussion about implementation. There was no formal close, but as I mentioned above, all participants in that discussion except you were in favour of a merge to Chữ nôm, and it was on that basis that Gaijin42 redirected the article and I performed the merge. Kanguole 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could a completely uninvolved admin have a look at what has been going on? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-created again. What happens next? If the merge wasn't correctly closed - and it was open for months - what now? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 08:07, 8 July 2013‎ Kauffner (31,546 bytes) (+31,522)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) to last revision by Kauffner. (TW)) (undo | thank)
    • 07:37, 8 July 2013‎ Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (-31,522)‎ . . (Undid revision 563341741 by Kauffner (talk). Clearly against consensus.)
    • 07:14, 8 July 2013‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,546 bytes) (+31,522)‎ . . (Undid revision 563317428 by Gaijin42 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    • 02:28, 8 July 2013‎ Gaijin42 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (-31,522)‎ . . (redirecting per strong consensus.) (undo | thank)
    • 16:40, 7 July 2013‎ Kauffner (31,546 bytes) (+31,294)‎ . . (revert blanking) (undo | thank)
    • 23:32, 5 July 2013‎ User:Dominus Vobisdu (-31,294)‎ . . (Undid revision 563014358 by Kauffner (talk). Clearly against consensus.) (undo | thank)
    • 19:39, 5 July 2013‎ Kauffner (31,546 bytes) (+31,294)‎ . . (Undid revision 562985382 by Cuchullain (talk)) (undo | thank)
    • 15:18, 5 July 2013‎ User:Cuchullain (-31,294)‎ . . (Revert edit warring against clear consensus.) (undo | thank)
    • 12:17, 5 July 2013‎ Kauffner (+31,294)‎ . . (revert blanking) (undo | thank)
    • 02:20, 1 July 2013‎ User:Gaijin42 (-31,344)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 562326669 by In ictu oculi: afd not needed when consensus clear. . (TW)) (undo | thank)
    • 01:57, 1 July 2013‎ Kauffner (+31,344)‎ . . (Undid revision 562326669 by In ictu oculi (talk) take it to AFD already) (undo | thank)
    • 01:18, 1 July 2013‎ In ictu oculi (-31,344)‎ . . (Undid revision 562324043 by Kauffner there was a 6-1 support for this merge) (undo)
    • 00:52, 1 July 2013‎ Kauffner (+31,344)‎ . . (Reverting vandalism) (undo | thank)
    • 14:12, 19 June 2013‎ Gaijin42 (-31,340)‎ . . (redirecting to chu nom per merge discussion.) (undo | thank)
    • merge performed by Kanguole

    Note: User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:Cuchullain were not involved in the discussion to merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody man up and take this to AFD already. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MERGE "mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions" - this was a merge discussion. No one denies the subject is notable, which is why there was already a large longstanding article. But can an uninvolved admin please look at the merge discussion and per Judith's question "If the merge wasn't correctly closed - and it was open for months - what now?" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the merger discussion, you argued that the idea of Han-Nom was original research. That's certainly a basis to go to AFD. Han-Nom is all my writing, with a lot of it based on Vietnamese-language sources. So the content at the time of the discussion was quite different than that of chu Nom or any other article. Stuff gets copy-and-pasted on Wiki all the time. I can't stop people from copying material I write, copying being the sincerest form of flattery and all. Kauffner (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kauffner is now in violation of 3RR on this topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was incorrect, however, he has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring and calling other editors vandals. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, it was basically just the edit warring that the block was for; the vandalism accusations, while not helping his case, aren't really part of the blocking grounds. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing/Original research on Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823) & Ottoman–Persian Wars

    I started adding references to Ottoman Persian Wars & Ottoman Persian War (1821-1823)[48], making the result of Ottoman Persian War(1821-1823) war Treaty of Erzurum and "status quo antebellum" per ("A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East", Vol.III, ed. Spencer C. Tucker, (ABC-CLIO, 2010), 1140), when User:Someguy1122 starts adding "Tactical Persian victory".

    I posted on the talk page asking for source(s) for this "Tactical Persian victory".[49] User:Someguy1122 responded with a link to the Battle of Erzurum stating, "As i wrote in the edit box, please read the article itself. The major battle of that war was the battle of Erzurum, which Persia won outnumbered. The treaty itself was based on that battle, hence the name treaty of Erzurum. Read the article itself for the sources:". Someguy1122 posted no published sources for his opinion.

    After waiting a week and with no published sources to support his opinion, I removed "Tactical Persian victory". Someguy1122 returned to edit war his opinion back into the article. After I tagged both articles and added citations to his opinion, Someguy1122 is now using a reference(quoted;"The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo.") to force his POV.[50]

    So now Someguy1122 is falsely using a source to push his original research. What can be done about this disruptive editor? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep talking and follow other steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Looks like a classic content dispute, only KB has the advantage of marginally more solid sources. SG1122 needs to find better sources, or should stop trying to re-add. Both editors seem to be using relatively weak google-searched sources; I imagine better ones exist but could require some effort to excavate. A strategic (not tactical) Persian victory seems a credible result to the entire conflict, as the sources I can find suggest Persia succeeded in winning concessions with few or no substantial losses. But without WP:RS which actually make that synthesis, its of no use to this article. --R.S. Peale (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is perfectly acceptable for this editor to misrepresent a reference to support his OR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor misrepresents references, and add improperly cited OR, the appropriate remedy would be to proceed through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also invite him to this discussion. If you're expecting immediate, draconian sanctions to be applied, it's really a bit too soon for that. --R.S. Peale (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someguy1122 has been notified of this. I wanted more input from the community at large, no draconian measures. If an editor can simply write "whatever" and use any source to support it, then why was Wikipedia:Original research even implemented as a policy? What is wrong with my sources?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tucker's Chronology isn't a a bad source, but on the subject it's thin. The entire conflict gets two paragraphs, which only cover a few brief highlights. Not enough meat to inspire much confidence. However, it is a valid citation, cited properly, with no reason not to consider it a RS. If another editor were to dispute it, they would need to provide better sources with different conclusions. Someguy1122 attempted, but failed. (your diffs should stand, his should go) --R.S. Peale (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes in case my post wasn't clear, it's way too soon for administrative action and there's rarely much point bringing a content dispute to ANI if that isn"t needed. Note that if you have concerns with an editors behaviour but don't have very good reason to think they are not acting in good faith, you should nearly always speak to them first. And no posting at ANI and inviting them as required doesn't count as talking to them. Even an RFC/U can't be opened without having talked to the person first. (And do remember to WP:AGF, saying someone misrepresented a reference is can be quite a serious allegation as it can carry the implication it's intentional and this would generally need more evidence then a single incidence. Remember that there are many possible reasons why a source may be added to support something when it doesn't seem to actually support it, such as differing interpretations of a source, misremembering what the source said, misremembering which source or accidently citing the wrong source, in some cases although obviously not here the source may have changed, etc. All of which while not good, are not quite the same thing as using a source fully aware it doesn't support what you claim it supports hoping no one will notice.)
    And if you need further input to resolve a dispute, there are plenty of ways to ask for that but ANI is rarely one of them (mostly only cases when it involves administrative actions).
    All this and more is described in the dispute resolution and associated pages.
    Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess you haven't taken the time to view the talk page then.[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Kansas Bear is simply lying about the source. The source I put was not provided by me, it was provided by Kansas Bear himself in the Battle of Erzurum (1821) entry [57]. The article on the Battle of Erzurum, the major battle of that war, was previously sourced before Kansas put another. The article states that the battle of Erzurum 1821 was clearly won by the Persians. The only major battle won in a war is a tactical victory for the victor is it not? Thus I added the source which Kansas Bear had put in the battle of Erzurum entry, in the entries on the Ottoman-Persian conflicts. Furthermore I suggested twice in the talk page to Kansas bear that we should get an arbiter to settle it. He instead made a provocative and baiting post in talk page and reported me. He lied here about the source, he never mentioned that it's his own source and claimed it was something I made up, as visible in his post above. Moreover, he is still reverting sourced information in the very same article but made by other users: [58] SomeGuy1122 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems user R.S. Peale talk which is clearly on the side of Kansas bear here has also gone to the user and said this about me [59]. "Not too awful"? "history of aggressive POV pushing"? What do you base that on? Instead of concentrating on the problem, this user has called me names and judged me based on his POV. I still await your response on the post I made above, regarding the lies KB told to push his agenda. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to retract that accusation of lying, preferably in the very next edit you make on this project, or you'll be blocked for personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio issues from Vlad4

    Today, I found that Vlad4 (talk · contribs) had copied and pasted some episode summaries onto List of The Venture Bros. episodes. I know this for certain because one of the summaries he pasted has a misspelling of one of the characters' names. I then perused some of his edits to find that this is fairly common for him. His talk page is full of bot notices that have gone unheeded, showing that his problematic editing practices have gone unnoticed for quite some time. And he's made all of 3 edits to any of the talk spaces in his 5 years on the project. His tendency to plagiarize and WP:COPYVIO is something that needs to be addressed immediately.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be hundreds of missed copyvios in this guy's contributions, why has no one taken note of it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Time Music Fan

    I ran across Old Time Music Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via the Recent Deaths page, where he had created a stub article for a recently deceased 12-year-old climber with no sourceable notability I could locate. Having perused OTMF's user talk and contribs page, he has a pattern of creating articles on the same day as the obit entries, and often with only one source (and one line). I can supply diffs, but it is readily apparent on brief perusal of either page.

    For that reason, many of his articles are AfDed and speedied. Some of his choices are likely future articles, many of them are not, and as the choice seems arbitrary and not dependent on OTMF knowing anything about the topic, I do not believe that his pattern of behavior is contributory to the encyclopedia, as we are not here to simply generate pages, but to create informative work. We have had issues with poor stub articles in the past (even to the level of a part of an ArbCom case), and therefore I am not sure if this is a mentoring issue or an enforcement issue. Could somebody clarify this as needed and take the appropriate action? MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's as MSJapan says. I've rescued one or two of his articles, and deleted one or two. He seems to be creating them on the basis of brief news articles, often articles recording someone's death. Sometimes the person is notable, sometimes not; however, except by accident, the information he includes does not go far enough to show it. I support viable stubs, but a viable stub is one that indicates there is likely to be enough material to show notability, even if the stub itself does not fully demonstrate it. Some of his article subjects have articles in other WPs, and he makes the links (or they're made automatically), but he does not use the material, there, even to the extent of copying over the references. I have the impression than some of the article subjects are in fields he isn't knowledgable about,; this can be done, if one realises it is still necessary to at least find substantial references; I have the impression he doesn't really know what are standards are. Keeping track of news reports is not a bad way to build WP, but he needs to show some degree of selectivity, and do more work himself and leave it so much of the work for others. I'll try to explain to him. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No apparent effect, given Solomon Oboh. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated reverting at Asiana Airlines Flight 214

    I know I'm supposed to go to WP:AN3, but things move at a glacial pace over there and conversation over there tends to begin and end with whether a particular party should be blocked.

    The issue is in regards to Kennvido (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly been removing passenger and crew numbers from Asiana Airlines Flight 214, insisting that they cannot or should not be put into the article until the FAA confirms the numbers. It has been pointed out that several reliable news sources, citing Asiana Airlines, have reported the number of passengers and crew members on the flight. On the talk page, there appears to be a consensus that their inclusion is fine; at Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214#Passenger and crew numbers, I count at least five editors, including myself, acceding to including these numbers, with Kennvido being the lone dissenter.

    Still, Kennvido has repeatedly, violating the three-revert rule (both in spirit and intent letter and spirit [-- tariqabjotu 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)]), reverted this information (often provided with in-line sources) out of the article, insisting that only FAA sources are acceptable (23:02, 22:59, 22:54, 22:14, 22:04, 21:44, 21:44, 21:36, 21:30, 21:13). Can I get some more input or perhaps action on this? -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am done on the article. I thought Wikipedia members would want 'correct' and 'official' info on the numbers, but evidently not. Let them go with 'unofficial' info. News conference 'officially' stated numbers still fluid and NOTHING EXACT. So, do what you want with the article. I certainly hope you note the others as well as myself taking down unofficial info from the article and tell those who insisted of putting unofficial info in, that Wikipedia wants true numbers and not guessed numbers, even if four or more sources are just guessing. Look at ALL TALK regarding this article as well please. Initially, I was WITH the putting in of the 'unofficial' info, due the media sources, but thought a tragic event like this should not be guessed with as far human lives when readers could know someone on this flight. This article should have been locked for ALL. Kennvido (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think this requires immediate intervention anymore, since it's calmed down as sources get updated on this issue. However, it would be nice to get an uninvolved admin to weigh in on the handling of the dispute by Kennvido. This issue was being discussed on the Talk page otherwise in a civil debate, which he probably should have engaged in when people brought it to his attention, rather than continue to revert. Frankly, he's been around long enough to know better. Steven Walling • talk 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've pointed out before, with 'breaking news' stories like these, WP:3RR has to be rapidly ditched if we are to avoid handing over articles to the mob who seem to fail to understand the need for even the basics of sourcing, and who insist on filling articles with trivia, disinformation and copyright violations. I'm sure I've broken WP:3RR there - probably WP:10RR - but I'll stand by what I did in the article, on the basis that if I hadn't, the article would have been a whole lot worse. I think that all things considered, we managed between us to keep the article in a reasonable state, and if tempers got frayed, it is unsurprising. I suggest we put it down to experience, and all try to remember that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia - where adding something an hour late shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but getting it right does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't think immediate action is necessary anymore either. Indeed, this is what I was talking about with AN3; at AN3, this would have ended with a "No action" and we'd be done.
    Anyway, yes, I realize that 3RR becomes fluid on breaking news articles (I wouldn't be surprised if I reverted more than three times on that article). But that's just a violation of the letter of the law. As I said, I believe(d) his actions violated the rule not just in letter, but also in spirit. It was obvious he was reverting the same content repeatedly, despite and even after the remarks on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between reverting more than three times to combat random IPs or brand new accounts adding misinformation, and revert wars between established community members with thousands of edits. When you know that, even if you disagree, there is a consensus developing on the Talk page, it's your duty to quit reverting for a bit and discuss the matter of contention. Otherwise it's just going to stay at an impasse and we get nowhere. So it's not about obeying the letter of 3RR and sacrificing WP:V, but rather about abiding by basic principles of collaboration. For the record: I don't think a block for violating 3RR is merited here, because it would clearly be punitive and not preventative. Steven Walling • talk 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a problem here either. I was trying, among other members, to not publish erroneous info or info that was 'thought' to be correct. I have a radio and television background for over 40 years... I know it's difficult not to try to put something out immediately to make sure everything is up to date. I realize that at times during this event, multiple sources were saying the same thing, but it is still not official. In the future, I will do better in the area of deleted unofficial info when dealing with a current event. During past current event articles, I have never run into this. Maybe a rule should be added regarding an event like this, when info changes minute to minute. Something like when three separate sources are reporting the same info, but nothing has been given out officially, the author is required to put all three sources. Just trying to make things easier for everyone here, because we that are serious here are all striving to reach the same goal. Kennvido (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I support Kennvido's reverts, but only before we had Reuters (and others) saying that they got the numbers straight from the airline. We didn't have to wait for an FAA or NTSB or I-don't-know-whose press release. Anyway, I think this is very minor. — Lfdder (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This comes up over and over, and we need to institutionalize the speedy incubate for breaking-news articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hyacinth

    Hello all. I'm not sure what else I can do... so I am bringing this here. Hyacinth (talk · contribs), an administrator here on the English Wikipedia, added a new field to Template:Infobox single. I asked him, polietely, what was up with the addition, as the template is "permanently protected from editing since it is a heavily used and/or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, if the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus." and I saw none of the sort on the template's talk. I made a mistake in my comment, stating that the edit was done to Template:Infobox album, instead of Template:Infobox single, but I believe I was pretty specific to make this comment unnecessary. I corrected myself, and got an unsatisfactory response. I expressed my feelings of confusion over a conversation with an admin that I thought would be pretty clean; his responses came off rather cold and angry sounding to me.

    I then decided to take this discussion to the template's talk page, to which another user, Adabow (talk · contribs), agreed with me. Throughout this, Hyacinth continued to add the new field he created to hundreds of articles, ignoring the two users on the talk page expressing dismay to its addition with consensus, as required. After Hyacinth broke the template, Kww (talk · contribs) reverts to the previous revision. Prior to this, Two editors noticed these issues and let Hyacinth know about them. Hyacinth declares that "If there is no opposition, hasn't consensus been reached?" and adds the field again. And continues adding the field to more articles.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, "After breaking the template, Kww ..." seems to imply that I broke the template. In fact, Hyacinth broke the template twice today (both here and here), damaging every article that uses {{infobox single}}. That's a lot of articles. There's no sign in his edit history that he tests his changes at all.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected my statement.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of this mess could have been avoided if Status would have written what he intended and so shown respect for Hyacinth's time, the way Hyacinth shows respect for the intelligence and time of others (by writing precisely and concisely).
    There are other places to receive and offer "I feel" messages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The other issue here is that he refused to stop adding unsourced director information to articles after multiple demands to stop and an explicit block warning, as well as refusing to discuss the fact that he was making untested changes to widely used templates. I've blocked him for that. Since he's an admin, that needs to be discussed here as well.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It does? I hereby Support admins being blocked if their actions are detrimental to the encyclopedia or to the improvement of the encyclopedia.
    Oh, also the length of such blocks should be doubled, pour encourager les autres. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww, I've had a similar experience, though Hyacinth did eventually back off - but dinner's calling, I'll look in a bit. --Rschen7754 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Horrific block by an involved administrator who had no business leaving a "block warning" in the first place. Hyacinth explained that he incorporated information in the infobox that was already present in the category information of the articles. Thus, in the cases discussed on the talk page, Hyacinth did not add information to the article. The indefinite length of the block and the false charge are additional reasons that Kww should be desyssopped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Real life intrudes, and I will be away for about two hours. Other admins, please watch and be liberal: if Hyacinth shows any signs of actually being willing to discuss things as opposed to plowing ahead, unblock him and let him discuss them.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Found it, where he made a controversial edit to Template:Did you know, and gave a less-than-satisfactory response: User talk:Hyacinth/February 5 2012 - January 6 2013#DYK. --Rschen7754 02:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyacinth appears to have accepted Kww's conditions, and I have unblocked.-gadfium 02:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another bad block by Kww. He was involved in a content dispute and misused his block button.
    Kww was also bullshitting Hyacinth, raising BLP concerns about a video director being credited. Such a credit is hardly contentious or liable to be considered liable or slanderous. Kww's block threat was improper.
    But threats, bs, and bad blocks from Kww are nothing new. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If User:Kww simply failed to realized the information was already in the article, and then wasn't removed by User:Kww, then the conflict is explained as a misunderstanding on that user's part (and my inability to inform the user). Hyacinth (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What about where you used your sysop tools to make controversial edits to protected pages? --Rschen7754 02:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Or where you made changes without testing them? Or continued to add unsourced information to the articles? You keep acting like the fact that someone had already invalidly categorized the articles in question gave you the right to continue to build on that unsourced foundation.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You could check Breathe (Blu Cantrell song) and Satisfy You and see if I am willing to collaborate with you. Perhaps you didn't notice that I asked you what to do about those pages and similar pages, since I have received no answer. Hyacinth (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What I primarily noticed was that you continued to make the same change over and over to multiple articles that had the same problem. Why didn't you stop? When are you going to address the question of why you made changes to the template when you knew other editors objected、and why you continued to make changes to the template without testing them?—Kww(talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww makes ultimatums, and when the sense in his ultimatums is addressed, Kww changes the subject (refusing to respond to Hyacinth's discussion) and makes new demands. Hyacinth is right to stop wasting his time with further bad faith discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the outcome or goal desired by the users commenting above? Do you wish me to defend myself or not? Do you wish to punish me somehow or not? Do you simply wish for me to say sorry or not? Hyacinth (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't care whether you are sorry. I want you to understand that you cannot continue to edit widely-used templates without testing those changes first. I want you to understand that you cannot add fields to the infobox template when other editors have objected before you get a consensus to do so. I want you to understand that if an article makes an unsourced claim about a living person, you can't simply keep repeating and expanding that unsourced claim without a source. I want you to understand that all of those things are a form of misbehaviour that will likely result in you being blocked again.—Kww(talk) 03:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Or more likely, get sent to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think that the goal is for you to realize that you changed a template without having consensus on your side, and that you reinstated the changes against consensus even when another admin reverted you. So, the problem is 1) You need to better listen when somebody objects, 2) Don't use your tools to gain advantage (the users objecting were unable to edit the protected page), 3) be more careful in the future when editing highly-visible pages. I think that if you aknowledge those things, nothing else would be needed. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 03:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "why is the sky blue" is not the same as asking "can we make the sky yellow again?". To expect a user to understand that you meant the later while saying the former is unreasonable. Hyacinth (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The template was full protected; you edited that template without discussion. That you see no problem doing so is concerning. That you did not stop and discuss your controversial editing when approached is concerning. That you demonstrate surprise at the result of your action is not concerning, it's the path to ArbCom. Tiderolls 04:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the same with the DYK edits you made earlier. Administrators are accountable to the community; it's not like 2004 where you can do whatever the heck you want. The community needs to be reassured that you will not misuse the tools. --Rschen7754 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think that people have been specific enough, here are the questions, numbered. Please answer each one.
    1. After you broke every instance of {{infobox single}} twice in one day and two separate editors had complained about it on your talk page, why did you make another change without testing it?
    2. When you were aware that other editors objected to you adding the parameter, why did you continue to add it?
    3. Do you understand that you aren't allowed to edit protected articles and templates without consensus?
    4. After I had objected multiple times to your expanding unsourced information without providing a source, why did you continue to do so?
    —Kww(talk) 04:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second. Two things:
    1. You keep saying he "broke" the template. That sounds as if he introduced some technical error that made it appear messed up or something. If that was the case, I must have missed where somebody pointed that out. So far, I'm only seeing that he added support to a parameter that some people think shouldn't be there. That's a different thing.
    2. There are different situations about editing protected pages. Templates that are long-term protected as a matter of routine merely as a security measure against vandalism are quite different from, for instance, pages that are temporarily protected against edit-wars. With edit-war protections, it is indeed true that nobody, including administrators, ought to be making substantial edits without prior consensus. With routine-protected templates, my understanding of policy is that there is no such limitation in principle. Just as the fact that a page is semiprotected against vandalism doesn't prevent an autoconfirmed user to apply WP:BOLD editing it, the fact that a page is routine-protected should not prevent those who technically have that ability from applying WP:BOLD editing it. As long as a user does so responsibly (i.e. has taken due care to avoid technical mistakes that would break pages, and has no reason to expect his edit will be against consensus), I see no problem with such edits. The only caveat is that if such a bold edit meets with opposition afterwards, the admin who has made the edit ought to be prepared to reverse it pending discussion and consensus, to avoid the effect of imbalance of power. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he "broke" the template. It was broken both here and here. What drew my attention in the first place was that the article I was looking at had an infobox that was displaying as a mutilated pile of wikicode and I couldn't see any error in the syntax. The those two diffs are at ANI and the topic of my very first message to Hyacinth. I'll agree that there are three or four issues here. The only reason why the sourcing issue (admittedly the weakest) keeps rising is because that is the only one he will talk about. He has not addressed his template editing anywhere.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As Hyacinth has continued editing elsewhere without responding here, I've requested that they clarify the situation. I'm seeking consensus for reblock if their reponse is not timely and direct. Tiderolls 05:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My concern is that they break more templates or edit BLPs without sufficient regard for that policy. I've seen the term "emergency desysoping" before; is there a mechanism in place for that possibility? Tiderolls 05:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh* I haven't thought through all the ramifications yet... Well, ArbCom can always vote on a motion once the case is brought to them, or initiate L1 or L2 desysopping. Now if consensus at ANI was to block him, I don't know what ArbCom would do, if they would just go ahead and desysop him, or whatever. If he did unblock himself, that would qualify for L1, and may qualify for emergency desysopping by a steward. --Rschen7754 05:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Page is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures. --Rschen7754 05:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Emergency desysopping by a steward would be very controversial, and I doubt any stewie would be willing to do that. This is not that urgent to warrant an emergency desysop. Also, a desysop would not solve all of the issue. Desysop would only mean that 1) He won't be able to edit the protected template again; and 2) He could not unblock himself, although I doubt he'd do that. Also, this may not warrant a case unless we can prove that this behaviour has been sighted in the past. What we can do is contact an arb ASAP. — ΛΧΣ21 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I do support a reblock only as a stopgap measure. --Rschen7754 05:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins can be blocked just like anyone else. I've both done it and had it done to me. Unblocking yourself is grounds for an emergency desysop. I'm having a very hard time persuading myself that Hyacinth understands the limitations upon himself either as an admin or an editor. Given his refusal to answer direct questions at all, much less answer them in a way that reassures me that he is no danger to templates, I'd favor a reblock followed by an Arbcom case. As long as he didn't unblock himself, there's no emergency need to desysop him.—Kww(talk) 05:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a reblock of Hyacinth. He clearly does not understand his actions and refuses to respond to them not just here, but on other talk pages as well. He was unblocked to discuss his actions here, which he has not done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might I add that I realize it could be late for him and he could have gone to bed, but even if that's the case, he didn't say so, so either way, it is avoiding the discussion.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've e-mailed Newyorkbrad requesting input. It's late and he may not see the e-mail until tomorrow but another Arb may happen along. Tiderolls 05:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (sigh) Note that editing a protected template is essentially 1RR, because both Hyacinth and Kww violated WP:WHEEL on the redo and re-revert respectively. If past history is any guide, Arbcom will do nothing with this, but realize that you both may be desysop'ed for that. Best wishes on a sensible outcome for all involved. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WHEEL? I will point out that this version wasn't reverted because of any dispute over consensus or methodology. It was reverted because every article in Wikipedia that used {{infobox single}} was broken. Hyancinth had inserted syntax error in the template. Note my initial comment, made before I was aware of any dispute regarding the template contents.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WHEEL references administrative actions; every administrator editing through protection makes one each time they save the work. There's no exception built in for breaking Wiki-code, but IAR might well apply, although ArbCom could always decide it did not. If I had been in your shoes, I would have fired up IRC (I don't stay logged in much anymore), and gotten a hold of another admin to do the second revert, just to avoid putting myself at risk. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting on my arbitrator hat (something I generally avoid doing on noticeboards) I suggest that the community consider two courses of action: whether to initiate a discussion specifically about Hyacinth being restricted from editing any protected templates or starting a request for arbitration/desysop at the appropriate page. Editing of protected pages without discussion and testing, and/or against consensus, particularly when it causes widespread damage to many articles, is usually considered a serious lapse on the part of any administrator. Hyacinth, on your part, I suggest that you consider formally undertaking to *always* initiate discussion before editing protected templates (or any other protected pages, for that matter), and to thoroughly test any proposed edits to protected templates. Risker (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Four hours ago I would've accepted such a commitment from Hyacinth. Based on their less than forthcoming responses above, and edits elsewhere during this period, I have no confidence that they have sufficient grasp of the circumstances to make such a commitment. Tiderolls 06:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much ditto. He's engaged in discussion on the addition of the parameter he was adding, and he's been willing to at least talk about why he thinks expanding unsourced information is OK, but he has not once responded to a single question about the lack of testing his changes to an extremely widely used template.—Kww(talk) 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I initially felt Kww's block was a bit WP:INVOLVED, but after reading his explanation above I am satisfied by his rationale. If indeed hundreds of thousands of articles were broken, then a block, imposed ASAP, would be necessary to prevent disruption. As for Hyacinth: 1) If a page is fully protection, it must be for a good reason. Don't change it unless you have consensus. 2) For widely used templates, always test first before deploying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Your falsehood "hundreds of thousands of articles were broken" does not change Kww's involvement and consequent misuse of the block button. Kww should have asked for a competent uninvolved administrator to help resolve the dispute rather than misusing his tools to gain advantage in a content dispute.
    I am curious when your "block first" policy will be applied to the administrators responsible for the latest WMF debacle, visual editor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will politely ask you to back off, Kiefer. If you have any grievances with the users above and below, I'll understand, but the mater at hand is very delicate and using a battleground behaviour is not going to solve it. We are not following (or at least I'm not) any punishments against Hyacinth; we just want him to aknowledge the situation, learn from it and move on. Otherwise, he will be at ArbCom's door sooner than later, which under my perspective is highly undesirable. — ΛΧΣ21 16:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm discussing the matter at hand, which is closed. Hyacinth made a mistake, acknowledged it, and
    Hyacinth needs to explain himself to neither you (particularly given how your RfA failed), nor Status ("how do you have the nerve?"), nor Kww. Your triumverate is not the victorious Roman Army, to the best of my knowledge, and in any event you don't have a yoke erected on the battleground under which you can force your victims to march. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to be nice, but seems like your cluelesness is between my efforts to actually be nice and a productive discussion between the two of us. Whatever, I prefer to have a failed RfA than a block log like yours. — ΛΧΣ21 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Motion to close. Hyacinth has already addressed the substantive issues and apologized for his mistake on the talk page of the template. The hysteria here, the bad-faith escalations of demands, the emotive posturing of Status ("the nerve", etc.), and the aggression on Hyacinth's talk page are grossly inappropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyacinth has made no statement demonstrating understanding the inappropriate nature of their actions nor the consequences of their actions. As a matter of fact, they have avoided making any such startement after many requests. Tiderolls 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyacinth is a he, not a they.
    Hyacinth has responded several times. The problem is that the hysteria and cluelessnes make it unlikely that Hyacinth will waste further time.
    Hyacinth has epilepsy and has requested time to sleep, repeatedly. So back off.
    Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz is referring here to lack of sleep being a trigger for seizures, and thus sleep being a requirement. Hyacinth (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll employ the personal pronouns I choose. Hyacinth has responded several times without addressing the concerns that prompted the original report. As for hysteria, I'll present this post responding to a post of mine where I inquired if Hyacinth required more time to craft a response. Perhaps you should consider backing off. Tiderolls 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not see anything particular in blocking of an edit warrior if it were not an indefinite block. But Kww specified a condition of unblocking, and in any case the block is removed now, hence there is no point to argue about Kww’s actions. On the other hand, if Hyacinth appears to understand poorly WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus, then certainly there should be a motion to strip his sysop privilege, but I can’t evaluate this matter from one isolated case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block - sometimes admins do have to be prevented from breaking things when they're doing so carelessly or intentionally. Removing their own block would likely have been clear grounds for desysop. Time for a little re-training it seems. Yes, we could take this to ArbComm, but it would probably be dealt with by a slap-on-the-wrist motion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A clarification to something that people seem confused about. Yes, he broke the template. It was broken both here and here. When those two versions of the template were active, every invocation of {{infobox single}} displayed as a block of broken wikicode. I did not become aware of the issue regarding consensus for a parameter until researching Hyacinth's contributions: what brought me to his talk page was seeing that the article I was looking at had a pile of broken wikicode instead of an infobox.—Kww(talk) 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, thanks for the clarification; this had not been entirely clear from the initial posting of this thread. So, what it boils down to, for me, is not that Hyacinth edited the template "without prior consensus" (that, I would say, has been a bit of a red herring in this thread). The issue is also not about "verifiability" – modifying a template so that it can support a new parameter is one thing; filling that parameter with unverified values in articles is quite another. The real issue appears to be that he showed a lack of due care, in fiddling live with a high-use template when he evidently lacked some of the technical experience in coding these kinds of conditional parameters and ought to have done it in a sandbox first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if people only made one mistake at a time so that we could keep better sorted discussions. I agree that the biggest problem is that he makes untested changes to high-volume templates and refuses to discuss that, which would normally indicate that he doesn't see it as a problem. As for "without prior consensus", it's a little stronger than that: he made the changes after he had received objections from multiple editors and support from none. The sourcing issue is minor in comparison to those two.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to discuss his changes. He made an error, which has been fixed. (Compare the policy on deleting others messages on your talk page, which implies that you have read the message.) Hyacinth doesn't need to waste his time addressing Status's questions "why Hyacinth has the nerve..." or your false accusations that he's adding unsourced content by adding a field in an infobox. The indefinite block may be your worst block so far.
    In the future, you could just use the coding in my regular tunings infobox, which allows optional sections and items. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You neglect to discuss that after he broke the template twice in one day, he made another substantial change to the template, apparently without testing. It appears to be recklessness and willful disregard, not a mistake. He's been asked multiple times where he tested that change, and has made no reply to that issue whatsoever. He is required to answer questions about his use of tools.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for my actions. I should have tested my edits to the template, even the last one which fixed it. I should have started a discussion before adding the parameter to the template, as it was protected. Hyacinth (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I'm satisfied with this, personally, and see no need to bring it to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Because I follow the page of one of the admins involved (we work on the same wiki projects often) I found myself reading over this bit of wikidrama and just wanted to make an observation that I find a bit troubling. I don't edit music articles pretty much ever but I get why you guys were so concerned about Hyacinth's originally disputed edits given how it seems you set up that template to function. I totally understand all of that. My concern is that when Hyacinth backed off the edits and started to try to propose his rationale for why he thought they were good edits, things got downright hostile on the template page real quick. It wasn't all of the involved editors but there was a definite gang up on the guy feeling to it with a slew of ad hominen attacks (and some use of words that aren't actually words that make me want to mock people, but that's not the issue here). I get that folks wanted to make sure Hyacinth recognized why his original round of edits were problematic; that's totally cool. It's just that... well for us non-admin types it was a little disheartening to see people going ballistic in quite that way. I won't be following the rest of this conversation as I have no actual stake in it. I just wanted to let you know that meeting problem edits with incivility looked, frankly, really piss poor and it made it hard to sort out what was going on. I hope you guys get it all worked out. Millahnna (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Risker has pointed out that one option here is to restrict Hyacinth from editing protected pages for a period of time.  My other comment is that the indefinite block seems excessive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment over Sri Chinmoy article

    The users Richard Reinhardt (talk · contribs) and Bipula Langosh (talk · contribs) have both been removing the Controversy section, or large portions of it, from the Sri Chinmoy article without reason. Another user reverted Richard Reinhardt's edits, and I reverted Bipula Langosh's edits. After doing this, Bipula Langosh created my user page (since deleted) with a paragraph berating me for restoring the removed content. Richard Reinhardt then posted a borderline personal attack to my talk page (diff) also regarding the same content. Also, given the similarities of the edits and the newness of the account, it wouldn't surprise me if Bipula Langosh were a sock of Richard Reinhardt. Can this be looked into? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Bipula Langosh has posted a message to his talk page (diff) about this issue. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So atleast now you could take it to her talk page and resolve the issue? Nothing left for admins to resolve here I guess.  A m i t  ❤  21:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple promotional accounts

    Both accounts are being used for promotional purposes by same user or group of users, as admitted here [60]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this seems to very obviously be the case. However, it is more pertinent to note that the account is being used by someone being paid to edit on behalf of two individuals to produce Wikipedia articles, and this firm may have done the same in the past. I've created a sockpuppet case to dig deeper. I am also trying to inform the individual of the problems their edits have caused.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well noted--thank you. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact reporter1 has written Yes I work for the individuals in order to create blogs, web pages and wiki page upkeep. They are television celebrities and have hired my group to oversee all. [61]. Additionally, they are persistently accusing those cleaning up after them of vandalism. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for clarity, these are the claimed vandal IPs:

    --Auric talk 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Only the second, fourth, and fifth of those are actually valid IPv4 addresses, and those have no contributions. The first and third, if punctuated differently, might be interpreted as 204.60.203.227, which is a valid address, but which also has no contributions. The sixth and seventh addresses have only three octets and are thus not valid. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the IPs claimed to be vandals by the accused party in this case, which I've already dismissed for the reasons JanetteDoe points out. And I had somehow inserted a period into one of the IPs when trying to figure out what this guy was talking about so I've modified it in Auric's comment above, showing that this person we're working with is full of malarkey.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User will not understand original research

    Could we have some OR-experienced eyes over at Talk:Manor of Molland, please? Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have reached a clear impasse there, and one of us must be completely in the wrong. Either he has been adding original research to many articles for a year or more, or I am obsessing about nothing at all. I'm asking here, rather than taking the dispute resolution route, because if I'm right he ought to be stopped quickly before he can damage WP any further. That he does not understand the significance of OR is indicated by this statement he made on 3 July: "I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations."[62]

    The discussion that led up to the impasse is on CaroleHenson's talk page here, though that was just the latest round of discussions that have taken place on several talk pages from earlier in June. Other relevant messages were posted on his talk page, from this one of 21 June onwards.

    Other problems include incivility (some of which I summarised in para 2 here), and less importantly his failure to provide clear references (see 2nd collapsed list here, for example) and non-compliance with WP:MOS. I can provide more examples etc., if requested. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some diffs of removal or flagging of OR that was added by Lobsterthermidor: [63], [64], [65], [66] (see under Tardrew), [67] (removal by Lobsterthermidor), [68] (see bottom), [69], [70] (interpretation of primary source), [71].  —SMALLJIM  23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations" the purpose of which was so that I could add proper in-line citations to provide sources for text tagged OR! The context of that comment was during a very recent whirlwind series of edits to an article created by me (Annery, Monkleigh) by a third editor (auto-confirmed user) who changed all my citation styles to one preferred by her and gave me the impression that I had to follow that style. That I was determined to do, relying on her experience and authority, hence I decided to make no more edits, including supplying sources to OR tags, until I had learned the new style. (See my talk page 29 June 2013: "Thanks Carole, I think you'll like my citations better in future. It was a bit of a rough lesson, but if that's how it's got to be done, I'm willing to do it"). During that self re-education process, I learned to my surprise that I was perfectly OK to use my existing cite style (which doesn't use cite templates) per WP:CITEVAR.
    There is no question as to my great goodwill to every aspect of the WP project or of my total good faith. To read that I am accused of "damaging WP" is a great surprise to me and wholly inaccurate. I think the good quality of any article I have created will support that. I don't claim any is perfect or error free, but I'm proud of all my work contributed and believe it improves Wikipedia.
    I would estimate that over 95% of all my challenges in 3 years editing have come from this one editor above, (as my archived talk page will evidence) whose demands for sources are becoming in my opinion increasingly unreasonable, obsessive and hysterical. My article contributed on Manor of Molland already had over 100 line-refs provided and is well sourced, albeit not perfect. I'm trying to improve it and my other articles all the time. Why is no one else demanding sources from me all the time? Where are the OR and cn tags on all my other articles contributed which this editor hasn't critically reviewed? I draw the conclusion from lack of cn tags elsewhere that the community and readers are generally happy with my work.
    See the latest exchanges on Talk:Manor of Molland between this editor and myself. Even when I have supplied a clear-cut source, most recently for example the simple and totally non-controversial fact stated by me in Manor of Molland "that the estate of Wonwell was in the parish of Kingston, Devon", (I replied: "My source given was Risdon, p. 182, which under the paragraph heading "KINGSTON" (in capitals), states 8 lines below "In this parish is Wonwell") he continues to challenge this simple point to an absurd quasi-forensic level. I have expressed my opinion to him on that article's talk page - in the most civil terms - that his behaviour has become unreasonable and is in my opinion bordering on the obsessive and that I will not be drawn into endless argument about a challenge I have sourced to the standard required by a reasonable person. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Staying on topic of original research: I have yet to see sources provided where there are questions of original research or uncited information.
    There seems to be a new tactic to cover up original research / uncited information of Prust family members by putting in notes instead of true citations, which makes it look on the surface that there's a citation: fifth paragraph of the Coffin section. I had researched Hugh Prust for the Annery, Monkleigh article to address the original research tag and not found sources for Hugh Prust at [72]--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confident that the matter can be resolved by reference to the will of Hugh Prust, which should qualify as a source under publicly available archival material in WP:Verify (in footnote 6). This is a source I am aware of, thus not OR, but which is difficult to obtain. I will order it by credit card and share the results with you. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Will now consulted [73] and does not support my text. I was in error to mention Hugh Prust (d.1651) as "of Annery", I should have mentioned instead his brother Joseph Prust (d.1677) of Annery, where this fact is clearly stated on a verifiable source, namely his ledger stone in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church, which I have myself transcribed as follows: "Here lieth interred Joseph Prust of Annerie gent...obiit (he died) Oct 1677...". I am able and willing to supply a photograph of this ledger-stone with inscription in evidence if required. This was careless with regard to proper sourcing, and would thus qualify as OR. I regret this error of mine and any similar I might have made in not following with adequate care WP guidelines in this area. I undertake to continue my editing activity with much greater regard to meeting this OR guideline. I trust this matter may now be adjudicated. Many thanks, and my apologies to the wider Wikipedia community for any breaches I have made. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    At this late stage let me try a different tack, Lobsterthermidor, because I still can't see that you understand. I hope you'll listen to me in this venue, because if I'm wrong I will be quickly corrected.

    As the OR policy (not guideline) states in its nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

    So the error you mention above regarding Hugh Prust is indeed technically OR, because there was no reliable, published source for it; but is of the very simplest sort – a mere mistake. OR goes far beyond this. It covers matters such as:

    • making comments on sources: [74] (in reference), [75]
    • personal observation: [76] (at bottom), [77]
    • drawing inferences that the source does not state: example 4 on Talk:Manor of Molland and here under Tardrew
    • interpretation of primary sources: [78]
    • the expansion of text in an inscription: [79]
    • and the addition of content that looks as if it's part of the source, but which is not: [80] (I've seen more examples of this, but can't locate at present).

    This last example is potentially the worst because it also misrepresents the source and can mislead readers who don't (or can't) check.

    Even if all of these additions are valid and correct, we cannot include them because WP does not publish material for which there is no reliable source.

    Does that make it any clearer?  —SMALLJIM  13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have studied all your comments and the links given above and I fully understand the points you have made concerning OR. It does indeed make it very clear. I would like to confirm again that I regret these errors of mine I have made in not following with adequate care and attention the WP policy on OR. I undertake to continue my editing activity with very great regard to ensuring my full compliance with the OR policy. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    A quick comment. From what I've seen of Lobster's editing, I think he's making good faith edits. He clearly researches deeply into the topics concerned, cares passionately about the topics he edits and I'm strongly inclined to assume good faith in terms of any mistakes. I would urge him, though, to pay very close attention to the policies on OR, whether in terms of interpretation, speculation and use of primary sources; I can well understand the frustrations of others who are faced with checking the details of his edits! It would be a real shame to lose a committed and well-informed editor, but I can see that happening unless more care is taken on the OR front. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be great progress - and I've seen a bit of good work on resolving a couple of uncited sentences for Talk:Manor of Monkleigh. Since there's acknowledgement that WP is not a forum for original research, and the need for reliable published sources, does it make sense to identify a couple issues to start with to tackle open issues from the Talk:Manor of Molland#There are still problems page/section?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's necessary, Carole. As I've pointed out, they are individually not very significant issues. I'll amend them and trust that Lt will agree with the (minor) changes.  —SMALLJIM  19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)

    Thanks for that, Lobsterthermidor. On the basis of what you say, and in agreement with Hchc2009's remarks, I'm happy to leave this section to be archived now, even though we've had no true third party input. After archiving, I'll tag the pages with {{Original research}} (per this), add a brief talk page message pointing here (as it provides a good summary) and for ease of reference, will keep a temporary list of the pages so tagged at User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR. I'm sure that when we bump into one another again (as we doubtless will do somewhere in Devon-space) we'll both have benefited from what we've learned here. By the way, I sat in the sun this afternoon with a printout of the latest version of Manor of Molland and can definitely say that it reads better on paper.  —SMALLJIM  19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's an interest, LT:
    • there's just a couple of minor things for Manor of Monkleigh - I've researched the best I could and there's just a little bit more information needed to create citations. See Talk:Manor of Monkleigh.
    • citation needed tags for Joseph Watson, 1st Baron Manton‎. I couldn't find good info for Joseph Watson, so I did all I could there, too.
    • Original research? tags and citation needed tags for Siston. This a work in progress.

    There are other articles, too, but these are the ones needing the most work - or in one case, just needs a bit of info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, should I just assume that content is original research - and remove it - if I'm unable to find sources for it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, yes. If there's no source in the article and you can't find one either, WP:OR is a good assumption. Don't get in over your head, though: if someone is looking at an article on particle physics and doesn't know a lot about particle physics, a lot of things can appear to be WP:OR when it's actually just a comprehension problem.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Renamed account

    Someone explain, please: why would User:Juanpa Grondona redirect to what appears to be their old account, User:Jpgfuru, talk page and all? Thank you. (Not an "incident" per se, but something that someone might shed light on. Will notify.) Mindy Dirt (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's weird. However, I see no reason for sanctions/warnings/other intervention, except for the redirecting of the user talk page; see what I said to the user, plus the fact that this can result in people editing the other talk page without Juanpa noticing. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nyttend. I wasn't even sure on which page to notify them. Mindy Dirt (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for immediate desysopping user:Tariqabjotu for failure to abide by civility, assuming good faith, making paranoid accusations, abrogating discussion, removing pertinent evidence, and behaving in a way incongruent with being an administrator

    Please note that Tariqabjotu has summarily foreclosed the discussion and repeatedly removed the evidence from his talk page. This is after he misunderstood and entirely failed to address the content of my initial message to him.

    -- Mareklug talk 03:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tariq is allowed to remove your edits from his talk page without providing any explanation at all and you are likely to be blocked for edit warring and harassment if you continue to return them to his talk page. --Jayron32 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You all right, Marek? You of all people should know that even if all of what you said were true, you can't just take someone to ANI and expect them to get desysopped. —Soap— 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just two people annoyed at each other. Time to kiss and make up. — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Case

    I was surprised with Daniel Case (talk · contribs) would not act on a blatant username policy violation reported to UAA but really surprised when he chose to taunt on my talk page here when I questioned the decision. Is this the kind of behavior that other admins expected when he was granted admin privileges? This is not something expected of such an experienced editor. Some additional admin perspective on both the UAA decision and Case's comments on my talk page would be appreciated here.--RadioFan (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll leave it to others to comment on that, but one thing most people expect whether you're an admin or not is that you will notify people when you start AN/I threads on them and not leave it up to the notifications system. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, which is why I did precisely that on your talk page here. You must have missed it since you posted the above 5 minutes after I added the ANI notice to your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UAA decision was sound. Blocks are not enacted on editors that are not actively editing, period. If someone isn't editing Wikipedia, there's no need for any blocks. --Jayron32 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My perspective is that the username was editing AFC pages for the same name (as its username) as seen by the history, this is promotional and should be blocked under WP:SPAMNAME, (Though this is admin discretion most times if they notice other aspects around it). This other than violating username policies is also a promotion only account dealing with edits with a promotional intent. As for the conversation issue brought here, WP is an area with a wide variety of admins and editors, from different regions and age groups. The kind of language some editors regard as cool or hip is sometimes termed as rude by others, I do see some issues with rudeness here but nothing to bring it to an ANI.  A m i t  ❤  05:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I concur with Jayron32. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly was snarky, and you know it. You know, User:Orangemike was brought to this very page a couple of weeks ago for instantly blocking usernames ... and WP:CONSENSUS has been to give the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance to change their username once they have been advised of their error. This is an editor who has not edited in exactly a week ... and you want them blocked? If they make a single additional edit that is promotional without changing the username, I'll block them myself ... but chastizing an admin for following consensus seems a bit odd. A block right now is most certainly not preventing anything ... except for perhaps your own aneurysm (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think it's beyond snarky to say " I've reported many of these over the years as I new page patrol and I've never had something so blatant rejected." That is, to me, insulting. As if it's my job to just bow down, genuflect and execute what His Majesty pleases. It is deficient in good faith and in every way contrary to how Wikipedians are supposed to interact.

    Further problematic is the fact that, after I explained briefly why I didn't make the block, he came right back with the same exact arguments as before. He also made sure to repeat them at UAA.

    Sorry, I should just let him drop the stick but I felt the discussion was a little better with my perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline

    The user name warning that RF put on IC's talk page seems strange. In part it reads "I noticed that your username, "IntelCapital", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because blatant violation of wikipedia's username policy." "Blatant" seems weird. The nearest likeness I could find was Template:Uw-username but it doesn't contain "blatant". Is it usual for patrollers to amp up the rhetoric on template warnings? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would still let someone edit under those circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "the page is reliable you (censored)!"

    No need for elaboration. Spacecowboi is throwing out stuff like this left and right. I'm surprised nobody actually came here - I posit that this requires immediate administrative action per the edit summaries alone on Then Jerico:

    This guy was already blocked for two weeks after this sockpuppet investigation. This, however, is totally different. I really don't think it requires any elaboration. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm guessing you just chose the most eye catching title possible to get more eyes on this report. —Soap— 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had reported earlier, it's a certain block for both edit warring and incivility. However, it's been over a day since they last edited and I'm not sure how much of a block would actually be WP:PREVENTATIVE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent was simply to get swift attention, not necessarily a lot of attention. I apologize if it was a bit too much, though, and have deleted the bad words. If the guy has already been previously blocked for sockpuppetry though, and this is the sort of behavior he displays when challenged, then what else is there to do? His edits are still the last on the article and it's possible that involved editors could decide to revert given the content disagreement. Is it really acceptable behavior that a person is allowed to behave this way on the encyclopedia? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, tried to post this earlier and my computer decided to act up on me; not having seen your message, I went ahead and blocked. Until Spacecowboi can explain what the hell was going through his mind when he wrote those edit summaries, he doesn't need to be editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Graham87

    OH, WHATEVER
    This is not worht arguing about. Malke2010, out of compliment to you, and to prevent this from generating any more lightless heat, I've deleted the page and selectively restored the edit history; if my tests were correct, that should make the article appear on your list. However, Graham87 did absolutely nothing wrong here, and for the record, this is an extremely silly thing to start an ANI thread about. Let's all go find something better to do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sorry for the bother, but I've tried to work this out to no avail. I created a new article Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) and Graham87 (talk · contribs) moved the page to Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and then undeleted redirects and wiped out my credit for having created the page. In the first place, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome is known by the title I gave it in the article. He claims it's not allowed per Wiki policy. There are several pulmonary syndromes, in the medical literature it is referred to as Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) which is why I gave it that title.

    He did not attempt any talk page discussion or come to my talk page to ask me about it. Instead, he simply moved the page. When I mentioned the bit about losing the credit for creating the article, he said he doesn't care about that. I care, in the same way I'm sure other volunteer editors would care. His comments:[81]. My comments on his talk page: [82].

    WP:COMMONNAME

    I'd like my credit restored for having created the article and I'd like to be able to title the article as it should be. In addition, I'd like to restore the taxbox. It is important for it to be there as HPS is caused by several strains of Hantavirus and the taxbox sorts that quite well. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Most articles in Wikipedia are linked to from some other article and therefore the article title that is most natural to use in ordinary writing is the preferred title. In a medical report it's good to introduce an unfamiliar term by using an acronym or alternate name in the beginning, as you've done with Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), but you wouldn't keep on using the double name throughout the entire article, would you? —Soap— 04:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wouldn't. I would refer to it as HPS. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding credit, I've checked the edit history, and all your edits are there. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But in the list of articles I've created, it's no longer there. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding article titles, it would be highly unusual to include an abbreviation in the title as a parenthetical. For example, the article is titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)". The use of a parenthetical after the name of something is used frequently in texts to indicate that further referrals to the concept will be by the abbreviation. So, when you see "Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS)" written somewhere, that just means the author is saying "Look, I'm going to use this abbreviation from now on, so I want you to know up front what that abbreviation means". The title is correct as it is now, we don't need to include the abbreviation in parentheticals in the title. It's fine to do so in the article text, just to alert the reader of what the abbreviation means later. But that's not something we do in the title. --Jayron32 04:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He also undeleted the redirects and wiped out my article creation credit. He says, The only thing I did that was slightly irregular was undeleting the redirects – but that sort of thing is also generally uncontroversial. (A couple of articles of mine are in a similar situation). I think you should sleep on this issue and contact me again tomorrow your time. Graham87 03:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He could easily fix the situation he's made. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's broken? --Jayron32 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said above, I'd like my credit for creating the article to be restored. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Malke, So basically you are saying because the actual content you created has been moved to a page (which was initially a redirect page created by azhyd, this did not count as your new article and is being counted under azhyd's created articles? atleast as per the history here. This is a very unlucky scenario at-least as per me, That's how the move works. And also the page doesn't seem to be having severe issues that need to be resolved. As for the credit - I don't think that you could get back the article created count anymore. Is that article count really such a serious thing to worry about to bring it to ANI? Other than the page creation count - is there any other issue?  A m i t  ❤  04:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Amit, if that's what this is all about, I'm not sure we have anything to do here. Every edit you made is properly attributed insofar as they contain your name next to the edit in the article history. The fact that some utility isn't incrementing some counter the way you want it to doesn't seem like a problem that needs fixing, really. --Jayron32 05:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here because the admin is taking advantage with the tools. He didn't engage in any discussion. He could have simply given me a notice that the title needed changing. There was no need to undelete the redirects. He had to know what that would do, or if he didn't then perhaps he shouldn't have the tools. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I note he doesn't respect the process enough to even comment here. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please lets not show haste, its been just an hour or two since you logged the ANI, it is usually good to wait a day or even two in most circumstances due to timezone differences.  A m i t  ❤  05:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was listening to a radio program when you brought forward the ANI; I've only just noticed it. I knew what undeleting the redirects would do, but I didn't think there would be a problem with it. I believe it's important to preserve the history of redirects (there was a redirect at that title in *2004*, and there's no reason for that fact to be only verifiable by admins). We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to inflate people's egos. Graham87 05:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks are inappropriate. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malke, you still get credit for creating the article. It is clear from the edit history that you created the article from a redirect. Graham edited the article exactly the way I would have edited it.
    @Graham, we are not here to inflate people's egos, and equally we are not here to deflate them. Writing an article can be hard work, not really valued by many other editors on Wikipedia. Editors who do write articles should not be marginalised and put down to the extent that they all too often are. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently he makes a lot of page moves. Does he routinely undelete all the redirects for those pages? Malke 2010 (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty blatant bit of ABF. The move was uncontroversial. Graham summed it up when he said The fact that it deprives you of credit for creating the article according to tools like the "Articles created" program is unfortunate, but not a big deal as far as I'm concerned;Wikipedia is far bigger than you and me, and I very strongly believe that all edits should be visible to everyone where possible (my emphasis). Your edits are preserved in the history so demanding to be "able to title the article as it should be" smacks of ownership. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes zero sense to keep a redirect from the original title in this case ... someone would find the actual article before they got to the misguided "(HPS)". Feel free to create a redirect from HPS (or at least add it to a disambig list if one exists there). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bwilkins et al here. While the OP should get credit for their contributions, they already do by the attribution history. If anyone ever disputes the OP's contributions the OP is welcome to show the attribution history to them. If the OP has a complaint about some tool not acknowledging their work, they should speak to the author of the tool or make a suggestion somewhere appropriate like WP:VPT or WP:VPP to change the tool, either way it's not an ANI issue nor does it concern Graham87. I don't even understand why the OP cares so much about the older redirect creation. No one is going to think someone creating a redirect was the major contribution to the article. It's far better for the OP that they get the attribution for the work they actually did in writing the article, not for creating the older redirect. In the event someone writes an article over an existing redirect which likely happens a resonable amount, people are going to acknowledge the person who did this made the bigger contribution in regards to the article then the person who created the redirect. (And of course even though this didn't happen here remember it's inappropriate to use a different name instead of a redirect if that's the best location just to be the one who 'created' the article. Similarly we're not going to delete a redirect just so someone can create a new article and be said to be the one who 'created' it. Amongst other things, creating useful redirects is still part of creating the encyclopaedia we call wikiedia even if a single redirect is not generally a big achievement, so we should not destroy that attribution history either.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is placing far too much emphasis on receiving "credit" as opposed to appropriate attribution in the article history, and is assuming bad faith about Graham87, who's probably done more than anybody else on Wikipedia to ensure that the full histories of articles extending back to 2001 are visible and attributed. Wikipedia isn't about receiving credit. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't really understand BWilkin's comment. It makes zero sense to keep a redirect from the original title in this case. What does that mean exactly? I created an article because there wasn't one. I titled it as I believed it should be titled. Graham87 came along, and without any discussion copied the content, deleted the title I'd given, and put the content to a 9 year old redirect. He could have simply moved the article to the title he says is the more appropriate one per wikipedia rules. His insistence that the history of the redirect must be preserved seems disingenuous, as he even admits it was "irregular." It's a 9 year old redirect that nobody, including the creator of the redirect, turned into an article. It could easily have gone back to being a red link. And sorry, but this admin has behaved badly. He's shown no consideration, has been dismissive, and violated WP:PA. He's abused the tools and his position. And I don't see him here addressing his behaviours, instead, I see his only comment being an abuse of the editor. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Go up to the Wikipedia seach bar ... start typing the name of the article ... the first one you'll see is the current title. Just because you named it something wayyyy off of the manual of style does not mean we should keep it - the new title is identical except 5 characters shorter. If you're saying we need some kind of history merge, then say so. Right now you're simply arguing the original title needed to stay, which it didn't and shouldn't, and you've been around long enough to know that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BWilkins, I'm not arguing to keep the title I gave it. Sorry for any confusion. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Malke, Lets not try to Make a mountain out of a molehill. The count could probably not be reverted back, now whats next? It is better to let it go and sleep on it, than try to vent your frustration through this venue. - Being an experienced knowledgeable editor there would be hundreds of more articles for you to count ahead in future and these are really small unfortunate one time incident. Almost everyone in this forum has had some incident or other such as this due to the technical limitations of tools and issues with the system itself. If this repeats and you find yourself being targeted to such issues you are welcome to this board again and I am sure admins here would try to make it full. But for this instance, lets take a deep breath spend the time writing a new article than here :-)  A m i t  ❤  14:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Malke, this is the second time I am aware of you coming to a dispute resolution forum with an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and statements that do not appear to engage WP:AGF. As I reminded you last time (here responding to your allegations here), please take time to familiarize yourself with WP:MEDMOS and other Wikipedia editing guidelines, and please take care to assume good faith when viewing the actions of other editors. Perhaps you are unaware of the quality of Graham87's work here, or the knowledge that he brings to every edit he donates here; you might also be unaware that he reads Wikipedia with a screenreader and the time you have taken with this unnecessary complaint takes away his (indeed all of our) valuable editing time. I encourage you to better understand Wikipedia and its editing guidelines before coming to dispute resolution fora. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia, this is the second time you've come to a dispute resolution forum with an incorrect understanding of what has transpired and misunderstood the evidence being presented. Do you believe that referring to an ArbCom case I did not bring, but contributed evidence to, will invalidate my complaint here? And I as recall at that forum, you parsed my comment to make it appear that it was not at all what it really was. You argued something that wasn't true at all. As for Graham87's use of a screenreader, I note that has not stopped him contributing to Wikipedia. Therefore, it shouldn't stop him answering for his behaviours now. And as I see it, his failing to discuss first, to point things out, has wasted my valuable time as well. Please remember, this is a dispute resolution forum, not a venue to attack editors. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: your concern about "parsing" of your comments-- the full comments are plainly linked. The request to please adjust your AGF-o-meter, and to understand MEDMOS, stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) From what I can tell, the OP wants the article to show in X!'s page creation tool. However, since the OP is no longer listed as the first person in the edit history due to a history merge (I can't tell for sure since I don't have the admin tools to see what exactly the history merge did), this causes the page to NOT show in the external tool. Is this correct? If that is the problem, then can the 1st 4 edits in the edit history be deleted since they are of zero content (only redirecting and fixing dbl rdr)? Is that a workable solution per our attribution licensing? I believe that will satisfy the OP's request. Rgrds. --64.85.214.103 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, IP, exactly. That would work all around. The only content came from me. I could see it if there had previously been content, of course that history must be preserved, but a 9 year old redirect and nothing else? And as I said before, I came here because the admin is taking advantage with the tools. He didn't engage in any discussion. He could have simply given me a notice that the title needed changing. I could have moved the page myself. There was no need to take the measures he did, as even he admits they were 'irregular.' Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I have the timeline correct: You wanted to create an article but saw it already existed as a redirect. So instead you created it at a similar title. Then an admin moved it to the proper title but did a histmerge.
    In a perfect world, here's what would have happened: You wanted to create an article but saw it already existed as a redirect. You instead create it as a user subpage and tag the desired article with {{db-move}}. An admin deletes the article and moves your user subpage to that correct article title, attribution intact.
    So, it follows, (assuming my timeline is correct) that if the redirect would have been deleted per {{db-move}}, then the histmerge was improper. Can an admin check this out? Rgrds. --64.85.214.103 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a possible scenario, but it is equally possible for an editor to directly edit the redirect and replace it with an article. As with so many others here, I think the OP is far too concerned about getting credit in some obscure counting tool. I tend to agree with Graham that it is generally preferable for the complete edit history at a page (including redirections) to be readily apparent to anyone and not only to those with admin tools. older ≠ wiser 16:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tony1

    Tony1 (talk · contribs) to gain the advantage of a favored position, with any objections to the way he went about matters, which included email canvassing, for a proposal at WT:FAC, has three times moved edits which were properly put where they are, to a place where editors' eyes will not see the objections readily. In other words, he is edit warring. I would ask an admin to revert and to render a preventative sanction to Tony1 which is justified by his past record, which is not small. The reverts are here and here and [88]. The canvassing included this. Notice to him--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that his initial statement there is far longer than fifty words. Why should he be entitled to set rules which he is not prepared to abide by?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it relatively commonplace to do this in RfCs? The initial proposal would obviously be longer than fifty words; I'm baffled as to why you think that's an issue, or why you're starting a storm in a teacup over this point... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think one person can fairly be both an advocate and a judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure this is WP:EDITWARRING?? Has the editor continued to move other editors comments after you said to him to not touch the comments. If not then this is a non-issue. If he is continuing to mess up other peoples contributions to the talk page then I feel he needs to be explained about what talk page vandalism means and in this case this is not the users talk page to set rules or own it in any manner.  A m i t  ❤  17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wehwalt, your first and third diffs are in fact two consecutive edits by Tony1, and thus would generally be considered a single revert (as a long-term admin, I'm sure you're aware of that). Your second diff precedes the first and third diffs chronologically, and appears to represent an initial move and not a revert. The way you've presented this edit-warring complaint makes it very difficult to parse. It appears that Tony moved the comments, you reverted, then Tony reverted you - that is, technically you're both at 1 revert. If I'm wrong, please correct me by providing a clearer chronology, as one would expect from a formal report on edit-warring.

      I'm not condoning any of the reverting; right now, I see two (well, actually more than two) editors who should know better arguing about incidentals like comment placement and length, and I see a discussion filled with so much personalized venom that it's impossible to make sense of the actual issue under discussion. I think all of you can do better. MastCell Talk 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    MastCell, please don't imply that any venom is coming from me. Tony (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin Qwyrxian

    Baseless report and a lot of subsequent failure to listen by OP. The thread is now descending into a content dispute that belongs elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin User:Qwyrxian declined my this edit request to fully protected article 2002 Gujarat violence. He made edit to the article as per another user's request and tagged article as 'disputed'. He acknowledge dispute and now he claim that he is commenting as uninvolved non-admin user in the dispute. Then he removed my Rfc tag in this thread claiming non-neutral drafting and he threatned me with something like topic ban in his admin capacity. I request you to tell admin Qwyrxian to stay away from the dispute. neo (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your links seem to show that he was indeed acting as a thoughtful admin. What is the incident that you are bringing to everyone's attention? What's your point? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have let the very naughty admin know that you have dragged him here, can you take the time to it it yourself in future. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He is switching between admin and 'uninvolved user'. Here he claims he is commenting as non-admin. Then he showed me this admin power. Is he commenting as admin or non-admin user? neo (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not an admin action. Any editor could (and should) point you to that page to make you aware of it. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about this language? Pretending to be uninvolved non-admin and then showing reason/policy how admin can ban me is unacceptable. neo (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see an issue with anything said there. You were told (by an editor) to behave, or else he'd have to strap on the guns and act like an admin. The smart person listens to the editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Agreed. This also doesn't mean that Qwyrxian is threatening any admin action against you. However, since you're being referred to that page, it's probably a good idea to read it and start following it so that another admin doesn't need to, either. Jauersockdude?/dude. 15:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the problem either. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bwilkins and all - WTH? "I am telling you as editor to accept what I say, otherwise as a admin I will punish you". How can a editor discuss some issue under threat? I am being forced out of that discussion on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence under threat. This is admin abuse. BTW, one admin had made edits like this to force editor to accept what he says and it became evidence on judgment day. neo (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Neo, you're completely misreading what Qwyrxian wrote you. Try to assume that Qwyrxian is not an admin and is just a regular editor, then go reread what was written. You can't seem to get the "admin" part out of your head when you're reading that comment. Any editor could have made that comment and any editor should inform you of that link, which is exactly what Qwyrxian did. If you continue your behavior, any editor could ask for admin intervention. This doesn't mean that Qwyrxian is threatening any admin action. They've already recused themselves from that and therefore would request assistance from other admins as any other editor (including yourself) could - like you're doing here. The difference here is that there is no admin action necessary here... yet. Jauersockdude?/dude. 16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neo, Ryulong is not an admin. What exactly do you want here?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Neo I don't think it is right that you can have a RfC that says to the effect: I fear this is going to happen; please comment.[90] Having said that would Qwxryian kindly explain his remarks about Neo: However, your actions throughout this page are very rapidly beginning to cross the bounds of acceptable behavior, especially since this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions, meaning that standards are held extra high. If you are unable to politely and civilly work with others, including dealing with the possibility that the version you like may not actually be the final consensus version, then you need to find a new topic to edit under. Where is evidence of Neo's lack of civility, why bring up the issue of sanctions that have a chilling effect, a look at the talk page indicates that it is one editor who is being considered wp:TENDENTIOUS, in that his edits are raising trouble as perceived by other editors. It is one against a consensus and Qwxryian's comments asking an editor (Neo) who is forming the consensus to walk out need explanation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean Dharmadhyaksha for posting this little rant? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just removed that, it's clearly out of line on an article talkpage (or, indeed, anywhere). Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As admin Qwyrxian has jumped in that discussion with threats, balance is heavily tilted in his side. His comment like article had (2 lines of) BLP, hence entire article deserve replacement with totally different version is stupid. On previous occasion he had supported speedy deletion of 18 old articles because copyvio was found and had indirectly threatned me with block[91]. He keep citing some problem (which can be fixed) to justify deletion or replacement of whole article and use indirect threats. I won't participate in that discussion on '2002 Gujarat violence' until he is there. If article is replaced with Darkness Shines' version, I will write my own version of article to replace it. Thanks. neo (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying that you won't participate in dispute resolution process if it is ever opened or discuss the changes which User:Darkness Shines was trying to make? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Comment: I see no evidence presented of threats or improper action by Qwyrxian either as an editor or admin. I think this ANI should be closed in the absence of evidence of bad actions. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one applaud Neo. for his willingness to rewrite this highly contentious article, I am curious as to how well balanced it will be given his views on the sources I used which he says are "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident" That the academics are "conspiracy theorists" That sources such as Princeton University Press, Oxford & The Johns Hopkins are "biased academic crap" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Darkness Shines: And you called article which uses sources like CNN and BBC as shite. That admin Qwyrxian is jumped in with gun to take your side otherwise I would have shown your POV. You can include your contents but why remove existing contents? Why tilt balance totally in one side instead of trying to balance it? Hindus killed muslims and then went on killing each other in hindu-hindu riot, police killed hindus, muslims almost killed nobody blah blah blah. Who will believe this crap? But all is not over. If article is replaced, I will include either my version or prev version and you will have to show what is wrong. neo (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked you a question on the article talk page some time ago, how about responding to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's court judgment that it was conspiracy and media all over the world has covered it, like BBC, New York Times. Are these sources reliable? neo (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edits by AldezD on Judith Barsi

    The user AldezD has been making some unnessecary removals of the article Judith Barsi. While he (or she) saids that all the info he's removing "violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL", though I do agree on a few things he removing that might be trivial, my concern is that the removals prevent this from being a very comprehensive and broad article, and would be going downhill into a start-class article. I don't see how his edits are trying to make the article more organized, as it look organized finely before, and I've been trying to have this article equal the quality of Heather O'Rourke and the good article Brian Epstein (out of terms of length). EditorE (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made multiple edits to the article's talk page explaining why the content EditorE re-adding to the article is not appropriate. The user's contributions on the talk page are nothing more than "I don't agree", after which he/she engages in edit war activity. I have not reverted EditorE's last edit to the article, but again re-stated why this information is not appropriate on the talk page. The user does not contribute to the discussion, does not explain why this information should be included, and again re-adds information that is not appropriate. AldezD (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the content the only issue between you two? Why not use WP:DRN  A m i t  ❤  18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a content dispute rather than a conduct issue, so it's essentially out of scope for ANI. That said, at a glance the bulk of the exicised material relates to detailed accounts of her family members' personal lives, including the names and ages of her half-siblings, accounts of things that happened long before she was born, and even a sentence about her mom's bad housekeeping habits. Most of this stuff is trivial and only tangentally related to the article subject and should probably not be re-inserted into the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The post on DRN was closed and the post was removed from 3O, but no additional commentary has taken place on the article's talk page. Would you recommend waiting for additional activity to take place on the talk page from other editors and/or EditorE, or is it appropriate to now move forward with removing the details above listed by Starblind as not appropriate, without myself violating WP:EDITWAR? AldezD (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now provided a Third Opinion at the article page, sorry for being slow. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mike Searson adding promotional material to multiple articles and creating purely promotional articles

    Mike Searson has created two articles (Vortex Flash Hider and Wind Talker sound suppressor) that I see as purely promotional and have nominated for deletion (through AfD), and has also added what I see as promotional material, with links to the two aforementioned articles, on a number of weapons related articles. Material that I have removed from the articles ([92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]) as being promotion but that is repeatedly re-added to the articles by Mike Searson, with edit summaries such as "revert vandalism and removal of sourced material". I don't want to be drawn into multiple edit wars with him, and risk crossing the magic 3RR-threshold, and at the same time I don't want to template him for adding promotional material since he seems to be an active and productive editor with good standing. So I would appreciate if one or more admins would take a look at the material to see if you share my opinion about it being promotional, and if that is the case give him a stern warning to stop adding promotional material and stop edit warring over it. Because I have a feeling that he would listen more to an admin telling him than me, a simple foot soldier, doing it. Thomas.W talk to me 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a certain editor needs to assume good faith. These are well-sourced articles of interest to people interested in firearms and inventions developed to make them more effective. I created the Vortex article and when there was a particularly notable firearm that used it, i linked to it. There are Vortex flash suppressors made for at least 20 firearms, but I only linked to the notable versions used by various militaries. That is called growing the encyclopedia.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this qualifies as promotional, but many of the edits are inappropriate. These products are not the only sound supressor or flash hiders on the market, and generic terms should not be replaced with specific brands, unless it is in fact the only product that is used in that context. I believe the two articles should be redirected per WP:PRODUCT, but do not believe that any administrative action needs to be taken against Mike, except to point him to the relevant policies/guidelines to improve his editing going forward. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well eventually the plan is to create more articles about specific sound suppressors. I just started where the most literature was available and the topics were inter-related. Specific examples were used where those examples were used specifically. The Windtalker was made to attach to the Vortex for use on the M21A5 (Crazy Horse), etc. The Canadian version of the Vortex is made for the Ops Inc. Suppressor. SureFire's Suppressors use their attachments. They started in the SEI article, but I felt they were big enough to stand on their own without making the article unwieldy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like this is a mistaken in terms of the allegation. I would ask something specific of Mike though: Don't you write on the topic outside of Wikipedia? Has there been any sort of relationship with Vortex, such as free products being provided for testing etc? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I write on a lot of topics such as these outside of wikipedia. I write at least 20 articles a week about knives, guns, MMA, sound suppressors, fighting, self defense, firearms history, how-to guides, etc. I own a few Vortexs that I purchased with my own money back in 2005 before I even thought of becoming a full time writer. I evaluated a newer one for use with a sound suppressor for a publication a few months ago. Basically when you are given something to evaluate you have x number of days to return it or you have to buy it. If it is good I write an article about it, take photos and send it back. If it sucks, I send it back and tell the manufacturer I have no use for it. With some companies, you get a chance to buy it at a reduced rate. I think the only things I have ever kept as a writer were a few Metalform magazines for 1911s that the company told me to keep. Were I to write a review about a sound suppresor I would have to buy it and pay a $200 tax and wait 6-9 months for a tax stamp before I can so much as photograph it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I just felt I'd clarify for those that did not. Some people mistakenly seem to think that we get piles of free guns and gear, etc for writing about them. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked some of the diffs linked above and do not understand why some of the sourced material was removed as "promotional". Describing a product per third-party, independent reliable sources isn't "promotional" per se-- if using non-third-party sources, it often is. If there is concern that the sources are not neutral (third-party, independent), I would understand-- is that the case? As background, I have had Mike's talk page watchlisted since he helped write a dispatch after we noticed these types of allegations claiming that Featured Articles about products were "promotional", when they were in fact quite well sourced, neutral, and had been vetted at FAC: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches. Also, a question: would it not be appropriate to see if these two articles survive AfD before bringing this to ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is the Administrator's Noticeboard and I came here for administrator advice, and in the hope that one or more administrators would look at the articles and edits and judge them according to the rules, but as far as I can see not a single one of the people who have so far commented on this matter is an administrator. So the comments don't really help. Thomas.W talk to me 06:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User: ThinkingYouth - Behavior

    As you can see from the edit summary for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThinkingYouth&oldid=563401275 ThinkingYouth's behavior has not improved.

    I may be totally biased, but although there is a problem there, it doesn't seem something in need of a block. TY, I'd prefer if you would pick his words a little more carefully, as edit summaries like that are generally unhelpful and don't tend to diffuse conflict or help disputes find consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the last edit summaries the real concern here? He is just pissed off and taking off from wiki or at-least showing signs of doing so. Is it bothering you? Those were his own talk pages and user pages. This is not a "major" concern until the user is disrupting anything else in article space. (read again - though it might be concerning it is not so major enough to bring it to ANI).  A m i t  ❤  20:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I referred to when I say a problem, just not a very big problem, or a problem in need of a block, yes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summaries etc are not a problem. That they are frustrated is unfortunate and perhaps someone can spare the time to talk them round (their contributions were far from all being bad - they did some good work). - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Article Page Ban for Binksternet for Consistent Inappropriate Edits on the Mitsuo Fuchida Page

    Since March of 2012, Binksternet has been reverting and altering the Historical Controversy section of the page on Mitsuo Fuchida, contantly shaping it to produce as unfavorable a picture of Fuchida as possible without regard to historical accuracy, references, or qualifications. I, TheLeopard or T Martin Bennett, have spent eight years researching the life of Fuchida, have the endorsement of the highest qualified experts on both Fuchida and Pearl Harbor, and am a full-time researcher/writer and cannot maintain the integrity of this page no matter what I do. I am not as skilled as Binksternet on Wikipedia as I cannot devote much time to it.

    After an edit war with Binksternet in late November 2012, I requested a page block to at least protect the page from damage during the week of December 7, when it receives the most visits. A block was put in place for about 6 months, for which I am grateful. As soon as the block was removed, the "Controversy" section was highly altered, leaving Parshall's full paragraph of anti-Fuchida comments, while deleting my information and replacing it with a single sentence falsely presenting a view as being mine. This is the very reason people do not trust Wikipedia.

    Most recently, I added four references to articles appearing in the Naval War College Review showing Parshall's full arguments and my own. It is very, very difficult to get published in this Review, even in the "Letters" section. I also updated my counterpoint to Parshall's charges against Fuchida. You can see these two edits here: [98]

    Within a day, Binksternet reverted my counterpoint section and replaced it with the opionion of someone else falsely speaking on my behalf, and completely deleted the entire four references to the Fuchda dispute article series in the Naval War College Review.[99]

    Understand that these articles are highly academic, highly researched, highly vetted, present both sides, and are extremely germane to the "Controversy" section of this page. The Review allowed two articles on the subject from each author - point and counterpoint, and two letters - point and counterpoint. There is no good reason to simply wipe them off the page when at the same time, Parshall's book, entitled "Shattered Sword" is listed in the Bibliography section when his 640 page book has only a few mentions of Fuchida's name and has virtually nothing to do with the Fuchida article.

    Binksternet has implied that I have a Conflict Of Interest because I have written on Fuchida, which is absurd. I will be the first to show that Fuchida was a corrupt person and I have altered my own writings based on criticism giving others the benefit of every doubt, as my only interest is in the truth. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on Mitsuo Fuchida. I have indeed written about Fuchida, (good things and bad things) which in no way disqualifies me from commenting on his page. In fact, it is quite the opposite. On the other hand, Binksternet has yet to demonstrate the least qualifications to edit this page.

    I am requesting a permanent article page ban of Binksternet from the Mitsuo Fuchida page based on the fact that he consistently bends the page against Fuchida, violating WP:NPOV while demonstrating no personal qualifications or documentation to add to the content of the article. There is no way I or anyone can keep up with the constant erosion of the integrity of the page if he continues to edit it.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Dispute resolution before coming here? Do you have extensive input from people not previously involved in this dispute? --Jayron32 02:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user Wiwoinc spamming talk page

    Wiwoinc (talk · contribs) was blocked for spamming earlier. Following the block, he replaced his talk page with a spam link. Can his talk page access be revoked and the spam deleted? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've noticed Vsupply (talk · contribs) has done the same thing. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revoked Wiwoinc's talk page access. Someone else already deleted his spam. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And Vsupply as well. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual vandalism, quick action needed

    76.0.29.118 is vandalizing furiously and apparently removing entries at AIV. For hopefully obvious reasons I'm not going to give any notice. Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I support your reason not to give notice per the Streisand effect. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coasterlover1994 undermined my gayness by posting to Wikipedia:UAA

    In general "gay" is OK if it's clear that the word is being used to describe the owner of the account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Coasterlover1994 posted this and stated my stupidity:

    Violation of the username policy as an offensive username. Unless user identifies as such, "gay" is a modifier that links stupidity to homosexuality. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He did not withdraw his complaint. I believe undermined my gayness and further added insult. --Gay airline editor (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sockblock requested

    174.226.192.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI is thataway and it would be a good idea if you provide evidence of what editor or IP you think this is a sock of. MarnetteD | Talk 05:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know where it is, thanks. Or, you could just look at the history of the RfA they're bitching about and see those recent IPs that forced Dennis Brown to protect it for two days. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor, which after two weeks is still waiting on closure. Or you could just block them for quacking, of course. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Quacking is a very serious offense on Wikipedia and taken very seriously. Such an ugly and annoying sound to make, really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps someone who's also active on Commons, preferably as an admin, can have a look at the contributions of BLACKBOY135 (talk · contribs), who's been uploading images there like crazy and adding them to our articles here. A spot check of two of their images suggests that they've copied them from the internet before uploading them as their own. Or Blackboy is going through their archives, collected while they got a front row seat at major sports events all over South America. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for reporting; warned and reported on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban appeal

    I wish to appeal a 3-month topic ban imposed on me by user Bbb23. [100]

    I don't know if one is expected to provide lots of detail with such an appeal. Both sides are pretty much summarized on my talk page.[101] If more summary here is desired, I am happy to provide it. I will say that I take particular issue with Bbb23's implication that there was a consensus in favor of describing unspecified sectors of the Men's Rights Movement as "misogynist". The talk page for that article does not suggest that any such consensus exists.William Jockusch (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=563486283"