Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333
334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Edits by 91.60.163.227

Close as moot. IP didn't edit since 22 December and is (highly likely) using a different IP address now. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user repeatedly introduces information without citations and gets upset on the article talk page (see here and here) when it is removed because of WP:RS, WP:V, etc.

User:Josh3580 and I (User:Mononomic) have been reverting some of the damage and are trying to explain it to the IP via the article talk page. We are walking the narrow line of WP:3RR and would like some feedback or action about this. —Mono·nomic 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Mono·nomic said. On the first diff that was listed, the user added the {{cn}} template to facts which were clearly covered by the cited source. The user stated that the cited article was biased, and therefore not valid. He is not receptive at all to discussion, nor referral to policies. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an upate... 3 days after the incident was reported to WP:AN/I, and with no further edits or participation in discussion seen from 91.60.163.227, I have reverted the article to its previous, properly sourced version. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban and further investigation. I suspect that the editors 91.60.163.227 contribs and 91.60.169.118 contribs (who has been editing the Talk page of the article in question) to be socks of a previously disciplined editor, as both new accounts immediately began submitting edits with formatted references (something no truly new editor would have experience with). Given the obsession of both IPs with purported "jewish crimes" and Israel-bashing, I rather doubt any rational discussion will be forthcoming. (IP traces source Oyten and Delmenhorst, two suburbs of Bremen metro area in Germany. Home & work computers?)

Side-note: someone should take a look at Wiedergutmachung, which the 91.60.163.227 IP has been active in, as I would guess revisionist propaganda in being worked in. --Froglich (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RV'd Wiedergutmachung on my own initiative.--Froglich (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that it's been more than a week since this activity, I'm assuming the need for immediate action has passed. It's not really feasible to try to apply a topic ban to a roving IP; if it is indeed the sock of a banned user, or if they reappear and start edit warring again, the article can be semi-protected as needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Destructive editing

Dcelano topic-banned from The Wiggles, widely construed. The topic ban can be appealed if Dcelano can show that he has understood the issues and is willing (and able) to comply with Wikipedia's policies, especially on verifiability and reliable sources. Huon (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A bot archived the following, so in case it was done by mistake, I'm reposting this. Please let me know if I've done anything inappropriately.

For most of this month, User:Dcelano has been violating policy at The Wiggles and its associated pages, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop from myself and from User:AngusWOOF. Here are some diffs: Removal of content without explanation or discussion [4]; addition of unsourced edits [5] [6] [7]. On Talk:The Wiggles, he's used it as a WP:FORUM, despite repeated requests to stop; see everything after December 3, from the section "Anthony's Shirts" onward. [8]. Most egregiously, Dcelano deleted part of the talk page when I warned him that if he continued, I'd see about getting him blocked. [9]. He has also engaged in the same sort of behavior on my talk page [10] and on AngusWOOF's [11] [12] [13]. There are other examples on other Wiggles pages as well. I think that a block is in order, since that seems to be the only thing that will stop him. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) - FYI: Threads are moved to the archives after 36 hours of inactivity. With the report you've presented, I'm kinda' surprised (and kinda' not) that an admin has not responded to this yet. I'll post-date my comment to prevent archiving for you. - ^theWOLFchild 05:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threads are indeed archived when there's no actions required, often because other venues have not be tried yet. As is the case here. Odd that the OP would jump to the "blocks are the only thing to stop him" when we have some very minor "offenses" (ie, we don't block for using an article talkpage as a forum). We do however, have WP:DR ES &L 11:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Removal of content without explanation or discussion" link doesn't seem to show what you intended to show. Do you have a correct link? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at all of User:Dcelano contribuations [14] and on User:Figureskatingfan and User:AngusWOOF Talk Page I Beleave that Dcelano has Ben Anoying Them for a long time and They have had Enough Jena (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read all of Dcelano's contributions. I have read the other diffs provided, but the claim "Removal of content without explanation or discussion" is an important one, and I think the diff provided has a typo in it. I'm just trying to see if anyone can show that particular behavior in a working diff. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deleted comment and warning on talk:the wiggles page [15]
deleting off my page [16]
deleted link on article [17]

-AngusWOOF (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside admin, when I look over the diffs and user contributions, a few things are apparent to me.

Dcelano is really into the Wiggles, and he seems to honestly want to contribute to Wiggles-related articles. However he does not cite his sources (nor does he use edit summaries effectively), and he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish reliable information from unreliable information. His edits are usually reverted.
He seems to use talkpages as if they were a fansite message board. His comments are not abusive or disruptive, but they are rarely useful or welcome.
In the view of the most prolific content contributors to these generally high-quality articles, Dcelano does not improve the articles or contribute meaningfully on talk pages, but simply creates more work for other editors who have to undo his changes. (Please correct me if I'm wrong in this summary of your views, AngusWOOF and Christine.)
Since The Wiggles is a Featured article, this problem is most pronounced there. Several editors work hard to maintain the quality of that article (along with related articles), and they resent having to revert one user's changes over and over again.
Over the last month he's made about 5 edits a day, which is hardly overwhelming, but it is a consistent issue. The same sort of behavior has been ongoing for at least a year, and he doesn't seemed to have improved the quality of his contributions in that time. It is very unlikely he will become a valued contributor to Wiggles-related articles in the future.

Since he hasn't figured out how to effectively improve these articles over the last year, and since we run the risk of driving away the sort of editors who do meaningfully improve these articles, I'd be inclined to support a topic ban. What do others think? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a pretty good assessment from what I can see, Quadell. What I'm seeing is a lot of time-sink for the involved editors; they constantly need to check his every edit and very little of it stays within the articles/talk pages. I think a topic ban of some kind or some other restriction is not a bad idea. only (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban (and possible block - this user should commit to contributing meaningfully, and using talk pages, edit summaries and sources properly. We have a regular contributor here, let's see if we can turn him into an effective one) - ^theWOLFchild 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I agree that a topic ban would be the best option, for the reasons Quadell states above. It's true that Dcelano's behavior isn't overwhelming, but it is, as Q says, long-standing and annoying. The Wiggles can be heavily vandalized, so it's just one more thing to have to deal with to ensure its continuing quality. I don't have much faith that his behavior will change, though, since he has been known to do the same kinds of things on other Wiggles sites, even with bans and repeated requests to change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes a Topic Ban and Maby a Block Jena (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems like everyone finds this solution appropriate. How do we implement a topic ban? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Topic Bans normally handled by someone giving him/her a formal notification of the matter and someone watches his/her edits? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 23:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I've never initiated or enforced one before. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ummm I thought an Admin would know what they are doing? Maby we should just ask somoneelse to block him? Jena (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just interpreting the evidence and gathering consensus. Like I said, I haven't been involved in a topic ban before, and I'm not willing to use my admin tools unless I can be reasonably sure I'm doing so according to policy. Getting other admins involved is a great idea, which is why we're here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then can an admin act on this, please? This has drug out for a long time, and Dcelano continues his inappropriate editing. For example, his latest, just this morning (unsourced addition): [18] I could cite other recent instances of his continuing behavior, but I think I've made my point. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal for interaction ban or 1RR restriction between Pass a Method and StAnselm

An interaction ban would probably make things worse. Since they both edit in the same area, that would be equivalent to saying that the first of them to make an edit to an article can't be reverted, or indeed that the other editor couldn't ever edit that article. Some sort of 1RR restriction would probably be better. Or alternatively blocking them both for a while wouldn't be unreasonable - they're both gaming 3RR on all of those articles (I think StAnselm has even broken it on Tree of Life). Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I had, but I think that's because I was assuming move reversions didn't count. Anyway, I made two reverts[19][20], and one edit seeking a compromise solution[21]. Obviously, I realise that edit-warring is not necessarily breaking 3RR, but I just wanted to clarify this. St Anselm (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Black Kite and also because my own observation is that StAnselm does yeoman's work in Biblical areas while Pass a Method's involvement is generally disruptive and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protect articles Curiously enough, I find that StAnselm's efforts are POVish and he's prone to edit-warring (as shown above). This calls for protecting the articles from non-admin edits to force them to discuss rather than revert. MilesMoney (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR restriction. I prefer a 1 revert-rule restriction between myself and StAnselm, but alternatively would be fine with a interaction ban. It is frustrating when you've spent two to three hours gathering sources and then somebody reverts you with a vague or non-applicable edit summary. It would also be helpful when i'm in the midst of work-in-progress; my edits usually take between an hour or so in between them, but stanselm sometimes judges me by my first incomplete edit. If i was allowed time to include my unfinished draft which included Baha'i scripture and the Book of Mormon, the setence would make sense. Pass a Method talk 22:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a preview function that can prevent this, as well as using a sandox. -- John Reaves 00:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is more going on between the two of us than just the resurrection of these old edit wars, of course. Pass a Method and I have had a lot of interaction lately. I thought things were improving after this exchange on my talk page, but since then Pass a Method has accused me of Eurocentric editing and then started a thread on Jimbo Wales' talk page, which to all appearances was accusing me of racism. St Anselm (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had another editor in mind, not you. Pass a Method talk 22:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my "to all appearances". But you talk page post came immediately after this edit on my talk page and after a string of edits to Tree of life (biblical), Garden of Eden, and their respective talk pages. That certainly makes it look suspicious. St Anselm (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have interacted with dozens of editors over the past two weeks. Pass a Method talk 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1RR interaction restriction per Pass a Method, I've not seen Pass a Method doing POV questionable edits but they certainly may have. I cannot say the same for the other editor, and across a variety of subjects that all seem to lie in contentious areas related to conservatism. That they are both overall improving things is of course debatable, but minimizing the back and forth on articles is probably best. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interaction ban / Support 1RR restriction - I requested page protection for Garden of Eden and saw some edit warring on a couple of other articles on my watchlist. These two editors approach religious/spiritual topics from completely different points of view. I think an interaction ban would unfairly penalize one party in favor of the other, but a 1RR restriction on articles that they both edit would force discussion sooner and avoid edit wars.- Mr X 23:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefinite blocks of both with no TP/email access and indefinite full protection of ALL affected articles: I don't even think a mutual 1RR restriction goes far enough in this case. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out"...? That's a little over the top. I'm sure 1RR, plus 24hr. block for any over-3RR's will suffice. - ^theWOLFchild 02:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))[reply]

Nukes for Xmas, huh? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes.... I MEAN NO... - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support fresh trout for Bigpoliticsfan for dramatizing things further. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose trouting In ictu oculi for failing to understand irony. ;) Iselilja (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not, I searched the ANI archive box to see Bigpoliticsfan's previous appearances at ANI for context, confirmed that it isn't irony below. Rather odd comments for a new editor. Anyway, User:Iselilja the issue is whether repeatedly reposting additions like this should be reverted or not. St Anselm is reverting repeated additions of an editor who refuses to listen or stop - making reversions that you or I or any other responsible WP Religion editor should have been making with St Anselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time or inclination to investigate this, but my canned suggestion is as follows: if this is a dispute about the same topic spread across multiple articles, then a RfC should be started on one page and pointers left on the others. If these two are edit warring about different topics, then blocks of both are probably justified, unless there is (going to be) consensus here that one's edits were way outside policies, in which case a single-sided block would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone not using his real name (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose interaction ban - the WikiProject Religion / WikiProject Christianity editor pool has been decimated over the last 5 years to the point where there are barely enough competent editors to keep out the tidal wave of internet fringe. History2007 quitting and John Carter having admin tools removed for (in my view) opposing fringe and then retiring. This inevitably means that the small number of editors capable of keeping the large article stock free of fringe is going to be more prone to 3RRs. I'm referring positively to StAnselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On closer look User:Dougweller, from what I can see User:Pass a Method has (a) been attempting to add Islamic weight to leads of Bible articles which are generally weighted as Jewish/Christian in English sources. That may or may not be justifiable but before radical changes discussion should at WP Judaism, WP Christianity, WP Islam noticeboards. (b) Pass a Method has been making undiscussed moves of Bible figures from (biblical person) to (Abrahamic person) which again may or may not be justifiable but before radical changes discussion should at WP Judaism, WP Christianity, WP Islam noticeboards. I haven't looked in great detail beyond the immediate edits but in every case where St Anselm has reverted these edits if History2007 John Carter were still around I think it would be 3 editors reverting not 3RR. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wide variety of transliterations of the word "quran" means that google search returns are not always sufficiently indicative of weight, i.e. quran, koran, qur'an, alkoran, coran, alquran, qoran, Qur'ân, Qur'ān, Qurʾān, Ḳurʾān etc. Pass a Method talk 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response - 1RR on Pass a Method only - it's evident from that reply that Pass a Method doesn't understand that his edits are at the very least controversial, if not disruptive.

Sportsfan and others, has anyone actually looked at the sort of edits StAnselm is reverting and Pass a Method is pushing back? The Garden of Eden is the Biblical "garden of God", described most notably in the Quran and the Book of Genesis. Isn't this WP:OR as well as WP:POV? Is the Garden of Eden is described most notably in the Quran before the Book of Genesis? Is there anybody on this section who wouldn't revert this edit?

If you read it that way, yes, but if you rememeber that other scriptures mention the Garden of Eden such as Some Answered Questions [22] or Sahih Muslim [23], or Sahih Bukhari [24], or Book of Mormon then no. Out of those 6 books, it is most notable in genesis and the Quran and i stand by that. Pass a Method talk 04:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take long to see that StAnselm apparently disapproves of a variety of "blue state" ideals, and edits to remove things they don't like, even if true and referenced, in any way possible. On Wikipedia this is rather easy and unless someone actually stops them they simply continue on degrading content and articles based on their ideology. I don't see that pattern with Pass a Method, instead I see a more broadening of subject matter to encompass more viewpoints, at least widely respected ones. Often backed up with sourcing. Then StAnselm counteracts to remove more content. This is exactly opposite their trajectory on subjects for which they approve. I suppose the same could be said of many editors but that is what I see. In summary I trust Pass A Method's editing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like out point out a couple of things that I have posted on my user page. The first is that I live in Australia. So while I am familiar with the term "blue state", I do not belong on the U.S. political spectrum. (I mention this also because Pass a Method apparently accused me of Anglo-American bias. I am not "Anglo-" either.) The second thing about me that I have posted on my user page is that, yes - I am a Christian. Now, obviously I understand the issues of neutrality and systemic bias as they pertain to Wikipedia. I try as much as possible to be neutral and objective in my edits. Interestingly, though, most of the articles under dispute are particularly Hebrew Bible topics. From my perspective, this edit from Pass a Method is somewhat akin to me editing the article so that the lead sentence says "The tree of life... is a term used in Revelation 22:1–2 and the Book of Genesis..." That, indeed, would be a POV edit. St Anselm (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

：：：：：：：：Sportsfan5000, I have no idea what "blue state" means, nor does it help me to identify any good edits in Pass a Method's contrib history. To get a benchmark, do you consider this a good/keepable or bad/revertable edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oculi, who said that edit was complete? I was reverted within 10 minutes of making that edit. I was planning to put it into context by adding Book of Mormon, Some Answered Questions mentions too. If you had read my first post you would have known that. Pass a Method talk 06:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this makes me wonder - why didn't you say that on the talk page? Why didn't you start a discussion? Surely this doesn't count as discussing. So why didn't you follow WP:BRD? You have all these great facts about the Quran - why didn't you post them on the article talk page(s) instead of re-reverting? St Anselm (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps they were in process of improving the article and didn't realize they would have to negotiate every step of the way, even if ultimately their edits would work just fine for all concerned. People do get tired of having to battle just to improve articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass a Method should have known it from last time (where, I should point out, he made four edits, and I only reverted one of them) and had almost a month to draft some suitable text. St Anselm (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already had collected references for Baha'i scriptures, yet after you revision my draft would no longer make as much sense. Pass a Method talk 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no suggestions for what a solution should be, but what it shouldn't be is a double indefinite block; I can't imagine any situation in which Bigpoliticsfan's suggestion would be appropriate. A quick glance at SA's talk and PAM's talk shows plenty of comments from PAM on SA's talk, many of which are rather strongly worded and seemingly hostile, while there's only one comparable note from SA on PAM's talk. For examples of what I mean, see 23:26, 24 December 2013 (SA to PAM) and 05:42, 13 November 2013, 05:32, 10 December 2013 and the comment above it, 23:48, 22 December 2013, and 00:06, 23 December 2013 (PAM to SA). It definitely seems as if PAM's assuming bad faith more readily than SA, and the diffs that SA gives (example, 02:27, 23 December 2013) seem to back up his statements, while the diffs that PAM gives (example, 05:42, 13 November 2013) don't appear to be grounded in reality. Their talk page interactions are definitely not equally problematic. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This calls for the WWJLP solution. WWJLP stands for What would Jean-Luc Picard do? Picard would recommend that both editors work this out with an independent mediator selected by and amenable to both parties and agree to abide by their decision. The deliberation should consist of brief statements from both parties, followed by questions from the mediator, and two closing statements in response to those questions. This should take no more than a few days to a week. Engage. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas, I am pretty confident that Jean Luc-Picard would revert this edit? If not, why not? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, that was not my full edit. I was reverted in 10 minutes in the midts of work-in-progress. Pass a Method talk 06:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Directive would prevent him from interfering. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which shows the difference between a Wikipedia editor seeing someone insert Garden of Eden notable in the Quran and Genesis and reverting it and being on a starship. It's seems to be that some editors here don't understand the point of reverting edits. The Wikipedia religion articles are fringe and POV magnets, the Jesus article for example bleeps daily with editors reverting most of the edits made to it, and the main activity is simply preserving the article. The Bible articles where Pass a Method is making edits such as placing the Quran ahead of the Bible in the lead are typical of religion articles which have been long stable, finished and where new material is almost always bad. This is an example. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's about textual neutrality itself, not about being neutral on a starship. If you want to change the behavior here, then it's best to address both sides with a neutral mediator approved by both. As for the content itself, I think you will find a multitude of interpretations. I, for one, would bump up its legendary origins and role in mythological literature and downplay its importance in religion. After all, it is not as important as other religious issues on the table, and I don't personally believe that any religious narrative should dominate or supersede the comparative literature approach. And yet, we see this religious bias throughout Wikipedia, an encyclopedic work that should remain neutral in regards to scriptural interpretations. The fall of man narrative is not unique to any one religion as the Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil#Motif and Fall_of_Man#Similar traditions sections show. Funny how both sides ignore that fact. From where I stand, this a Babylonian myth and should be treated primarily as such. I'm sure you will disagree, hence the need for a neutral mediator that both parties will respect. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but when you compare Genesis and the Quran to the other scriptures out there mentioning the garden of eden - then it WOULD make sense, wouldn't it? Pass a Method talk 06:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I forgot to mention this before, but in the interests of full disclosure, there is a draft RfC/U concerning Pass a Method, to which I contributed suggestions. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment StAnselm, so you're not gonna comment on whether you support an interaction ban or 1RR restriction between us? Pass a Method talk 05:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had been holding off to see what explanation you would give for your conduct, but in light of the anti-conservative bias you explicitly articulate, and in light of these edits [25][26][27] indicating either a refusal to discuss issues on talk pages, or else an incompetence in doing so, I would support a topic ban for Pass a Method on all religious articles. St Anselm (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs I started this I'm being bold and changing my section heading to include a 1RR restriction, which I see as a much better solution. I'm trouting myself (virtually) for not thinking about it first. User:Black Kite is right, and if I hadn't gone to bed I would have revised this then. I'd warned StAnselm over Garden of Eden where his 4th revert was just minutes outside 24 hours, didn't notice Tree of life (biblical) where he hit 4RR within 24 hours but by changing the order of words. I wouldn't want either to be blocked over this. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR restriction. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, from my perspective, the Quran is the only book in the world where millions of people have memorized chapters of it off the top of their head word for word. Plus I also know that the garden of eden is among the first stories told in the quran in sura Al-Baqara, plus it is repeated in many other quranic chapters. Hence its notability/weight to me is obvious without even necessarily doing a google search return count. Pass a Method talk 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Argumentum ad populum. As easy as it is to argue by the numbers or by authority, or by the majority, it is just as easy to argue that the textual roots of the Babylonian religion are older and are closer to the original text. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many Christians can read the New Testamant back to front off the top of their head? none that I know of. As for Muslims, there are millions of those. In fact this is standard practise to enable Muslims to pray tarawih which actually requires full quran memorization. Pass a Method talk 06:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Argumentum ad populum. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already ¡voted for 1RR, and 24hr block for any 3RR violations. But, as with most major religious topics, things can (and have) become contentious. Perhaps any future edits by these two, should first have consensus on either the talk page or at the relevant WikiProject page. - ^theWOLFchild 06:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all measures suggested. Since more details have emerged about the latest spat, it's clear that this is a continuation of the previous incident (from a month ago), so this should go to RfC/U and/or ArbCom. Transforming edit warring into slightly slower edit warring won't have any appreciable benefits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This post by User:Someone not using his real name (for which thanks), linking Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content pretty well makes all of the above irrelevant. The first diff given by Pass a Method in the previous Noah's Ark of sura Hud and the Book of Genesis is self-incriminating, although Pass a Method evidently has no concept of the problem. It is not an issue of Jewish/Christian bias that Wikipedia references Bible stories/articles to the Jewish/Christian Bible, it is simply following WP:RS, since WP:RS place the 1000BCE, or whenever, ancient Jewish stories first and then the 7th Century Quran mentions based on the Jewish stories second. Muhammad's writings are tertiary references, chronologically. A couple of words in a sura does not give the Quran primary billing ahead of the Hebrew Bible in wikipedia article space. I suggest this section be closed with 1RR on Pass a Method as an interim action and draft RfC/U opened ASAP. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-ban Pass a Method. I perused the diffs and the previous incident, and I can't see why this is being framed as a symmetric situation of edit-warring, when we obviously have a POV-pushing, WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor trying to introduce novel and WP:UNDUE reading into articles, then edit-wars to keep it in, and an editor with a clue who reverts to a previous, consensus version, and occasionally loses temper in the process? I really do not see any kind of honest difference of opinion, just a disruptive editor who should be removed in the best interest of the encyclopedia? No such user (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This won't happen on ANI because he clearly has fans; see the comments of Sportfan5000 above, for example. ANI is unsuitable for solving disputes unless they are very imbalanced in terms of numbers on each side of the BATTLE. ANI is also unsuitable for presenting large amounts of evidence. So on both counts this is more like the Tea Party situation that went to ArbCom in the summer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Someone not using his real name, re User:No such user's suggestion I would expect - the more I look at Pass a Method's pattern of edits - a topic ban would be the likely outcome of taking this to a more in depth location. But are you proposing starting from User:Halo Jerk1's draft RfC/U? (User Halo Jerk hasn't been online since 16 Dec. Are you proposing something/somewhere else? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how i'm going to be judged over an incomplete set of edits, like i mentioned above; it was a work-in-progrress. Plus there has already been an RfC on weihgt given to religions; (see here), but the close was inconclusive. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that we need another RfC similar to the one earlier this year, but this time with alterations made to our guidelines, since its obvious this is currently a grey area. This entire dispute falls within that grey area. It doesn't matter what happens on this thread, because inevitably, a month from now, or a year from now similar situations are going to pop up. if we keep it as it is now, the only conclusion i can see is more editos leaving wikipedia, either through frustration and personally quitting, or through blocks, and we'll have even less editors than we have now. Pass a Method talk 17:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, StAnselms version of the article apppears to represent the Conservapedia version of the article; (see here). I'm pretty sure most wikipedians here don't want to turn wikipedia into Conservapedia do we? Pass a Method talk 17:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between wikipedia andConservapedia:
- Garden of Eden, on Conservapedia vs wikipedia - similar
- Tree of life/knowledge, on Conservapedia vs wikipedia - similar
- Lot, on Conservapedia vs wikipedia somewhat similar

Why should Wikipedia be similar to Conservapedia? Pass a Method talk 18:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion about (comparing) Conservapedia & WP is pointless and borders on AGF violation. If CPedia has RS (which meets WP standards) in its articles, then what's the beef? Is there a problem in our project simply because one wiki looks like another? Could it be that CPedia has copied from WP? So what?? – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just an AGF violation (and it isn't borderline, either); it's an in-your-face civility violation, because it amounts to saying (to paraphrase) "Why don't you go somewhere else?" Roccodrift (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any sort of violation to point out the similarity. The violation is that Conservapedia is openly biased, so if WP articles look like it, then they're also biased. MilesMoney (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That, my friend, is the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. "Biased articles look like X. This article looks like X, therefore it's biased." It's the equivalent of saying. "Dogs have four legs. Horses also have four legs, therefore horses are dogs." St Anselm (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, but conservapedia's mission statement purpusefully presents one point of view. If this happens on an article which is as general and all-encompassing as the garden of eden, then we aren't doing it correctly. Pass a Method talk 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the the Columbia Encyclopedia via Qeustia. That entry is only 5 lines long, and starts "Garden of Eden, in the Bible, first home to humankind". The last sentence says "also mentioned in the Quran". The Encyclopedia of World Mythology (2009) has no mention of the Quran. (HighBeam; paywall) Britannica has no mention of the Quran in the first 100 words (which is the only ones I can access, total article is 190). It's very common in a Western context to mostly relate Garden of Eden to the Genesis narrative. Of course, the world is changing and Wikipedia is meant to have a global focus, so the traditional Western of presenting this way may need modification. But there is hardly a straightforward answer on how to handle this. The question of how these articles should be structured is complex; several viewpoints may be valid, we should try not making it into a battleground. Iselilja (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but because of our Anglo-American focus guideline, wikipedia is different to those other encyclopedias. Pass a Method talk 21:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal, support a ban on editing religion articles for Pass a Method only. Pass a Method has a long history of disruptive edits and edits against consensus, while StAnselm is one of Wikipedia's more productive editors. The comments by Pass a Method suggest an ideological motivation. -- 101.119.29.234 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either dole out mutual indefinite blocks or take this to AN and seek consensus for a mutual community ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpoliticsfan (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I thought you were kidding. - ^theWOLFchild 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) [reply]

No I'm not. This is a disgrace to the project of the first order. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved comment I consider myself involved, having myself been in a position similar to StAnslem, and this current situation feels far too familiar. Here is the pattern:

1. Pass a Method makes a Bold but problematic edit or move (often tendentious, reactionary, and not well thought out) often making similar problematic changes across multiple articles. (Example: Moving Lot (biblical person) to Lot (Abrahamic person) ???) Typically this is done with a bland edit summary that doesn't justify the edit such as "add content" or "copyedit" as if PaM is trying to slip the edit under the radar.

2. Someone (in this case StAnselm) recognizes the problem, reverts it, perhaps reverting parallel changes in other articles, and asking for discussion.

3. Instead of discussing, Pass a Method simply reverts back to their preferred version.

4. From this point the outcome varies, but generally ends up fairly quickly at a noticeboard, with a fair amount of reverting, user talk page templating, and often a bit of canvassing by PaM. ([28] [29] for instance).

All of this could be avoided and the disputes could be quickly resolved if PaM simply followed either WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO. Like others who have commented, I don't think an interaction ban would be the ideal solution, and I don't think a 1RR restriction would solve the problem. It looks like a couple people have mentioned RfC/U, and with all due respect to the OP, I think that would be a slightly better direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban for Pass a Method, and Support an interaction ban for both. The "Abrahamic person" should be discussed at an RfC before someone runs off doing undiscussed moves (Pass a Method didn't reach out to the relevant WikiProject's for their comments)--especially since "Abrahamic" might not be the correct WP:UCN-compliant term for all contexts--such a move is thoroughly unnecessary since we've pretty much covered the Judeo-Christian contexts in the "biblical person" articles, like Lot, Cain and Abel, the articles on Mary, and accomplished an Islamic context in their own spin-off articles like Lot in Islam, Mary in Islam, etc. etc. We have articles on biblical persons and biblical narratives in the Quran. His contributions in adding "Abrahamic" and other information should be reviewed given that they might pose issues with WP:CFORK and being redundant at the articles he's effecting and several already-existing articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A non mutual punishment of any kind in this matter suggests you are more than involved; you are biased, which is the worst thing to be on ANI. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban for Pass a Method. I see no reason to punish StAnselm who has been trying to maintain the articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Binksternet: See my comment directly above yours. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban on Hebrew Bible articles for Pass a Method - this is further to comment and additional to the 1RR restriction on Pass a Method above, I haven't looked in depth at the other contribs outside Hebrew Bible subjects to judge whether further topic bans are called for, but have now looked at both sets of edits from 27 November and this week. Conclusion: it's evident that Pass a Method has a topic-ban level problem with Hebrew Bible articles. To come repeatedly to different articles on Genesis subjects and refusing discussion edit war the lead to "in the Quran and Genesis" falls simultaneously into all 3 of the WP:POV/WP:POINTY/WP:FRINGE areas. I cannot see a single edit from either the first run of attempts to put the Quran ahead of the Hebrew Bible starting 27 November which were forestalled by the earlier appearance at ANI, and the second re-run of the second run of attempts to put the Quran ahead of the Hebrew Bible this time. Pass a Method was warned the first time, redoing the same edits and edit-warring up to 3RR justifies a topic ban. I say "first" only in relation to ANI, the editor has been trying to insert the Quran ahead of Genesis in various articles and even dabs since at least as far back as 7 Feb 2013 Eve is the first woman created by God in the Quran, the Book of Genesis and Baha'i scriptures. Abraham.. in the Quran, the Book of Genesis and Baha'i scriptures. These additions are long term and persistent. When challenged Pass a Method edit wars up to the 3RR line, then goes away and comes back later or takes the "in the Quran and Genesis" formula to a different article. If the editor's views on Judaism and Christianity moderate to recognize the usual chronological sequence of history of religions (Judaism->Christianity->Islam) then this can be demonstrated on Talk pages before the topic ban on Hebrew Bible articles is lifted. Pass a Method simply needs to demonstrate an understanding that the Hebrew Bible stories are firstly Jewish and not firstly Islamic, but there are posts above here indicating quite clearly that Pass a Method refuses to acknowledge what in WP:RS sources is axiomatic. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. If I had had time to write more, and the skill, my reasoning would have looked much like yours. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support mutual 1RR restriction per Dougweller. The objective is to quiet the dispute not to punish transgressors. Ignocrates (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why "mutual"? If the objective is to quiet the dispute then a simple 1RR on Pass a Method as the editor adding POV controversial edits will suffice. There's no need to add a 1RR on editors reverting Pass a Method since if Pass a Method can't put edits such as in the Quran and [Genesis] edit straight back two times and three times there's nothing to revert. I see St Anselm and User:Editor2020 and before they left PiCo, History2007 and John Carter, and a few others, daily on my Watchlist reverting endless POV and fringe material edits from Bible articles. Being able to go up to 2RR or 3RR with the latest POV or fringe editor is essential to stop the articles deteriorating further. Most of these articles could actually be edit protected and frozen at 3 or 5 years ago when they were in better shape than today.

Closer? Note that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content is still open so this RM ideally should close that off too. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either do a mutual editing restriction or nothing at all. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: PaM messaged me on my talk page, as was mentioned above. Anyway...I am not comfortable with a vote being held on ANI to enforce topic bans, interaction bans or whatnot. Why not go through a dual RfC/U for both users, hash it out there, and then turn it over to AN upon closing? It will take longer but it's more appropriate for drawn out discussions, ensures that all sides are heard and can make any resolutions afterward more definitive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm leaning toward doing nothing at all at this point. Both parties to this dispute are veteran editors who should know better. Let them take the dispute to WP:DRN where they can find a way to work through their differences without being disagreeable. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban Pass a Method from religious topics. Those who've read my WP:RfC/U draft (mentioned a few times higher up) already know that I see Pass a Method as a very troubling editor who 99.9 % of the time can never edit neutrally, especially on religious topics. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Pass a Method having fans, if so, he does not have many. In ictu oculi and others, feel free to help me shape the WP:RfC/U. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Halo Jerk: You are just as biased as all the other editors suggesting a non mutual restriction in this matter. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support mutual 1RR restriction per Dougweller. Both are good editors! Both have strong convictions! The objective is to quiet the dispute not to punish transgressors. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dougweller - I don't really understand your 1RR proposal as it relates to the editor preventing controversial edits repeatedly being added, i.e. St Anselm. The edits you have linked seem to all of them show Pass a Method adding Quran-first comments and editors, recently St Anselm, but previously other WP Religion editors, reverting Pass a Method. What about other editors reverting either Pass a Method or similar to edits to religion articles? As you know someone intent on pushing a fringe or POV or WEIGHT problem edit rarely stops with 1 revert, they very often take it to 2RR or 3RR. Under your proposal will St Anselm still be able to revert other editors than Pass a Method? If not then who is going to? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not my proposal, but it would be a 1RR restriction between the two editors and not affect them reverting anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As not being shown to have any likelihood of improving the project. The idea of "no reverts to each other" is weird as it does not allow for doing what Wikipedia states is the solution: require consensus for substantial changes to an article if anyone objects. Tell each to follow WP:CONSENSUS and avoid thousands of potential "solutions" which do not solve the issue as well as policy already provides. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spreadsol

Indef-blocked by Dougweller. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This user has repeatedly added copyvios (Good Ol' Freda, Down Terrace, I'm Still Here (film), Pioneer (Film), possibly Milo (film), Chawz, [30] from [31], [32] from [33], etc.). They claim to work for the distributor responsible for the films, in which case they are abusing Wikipedia as a marketing medium. The user is completely non-communicative, with zero user talk edits in four years. MER-C 08:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block until they start discussions. There is also a WP:COI. See Talk:Grand Piano (film) where the editor writes "I work for Magnet Releasing and this is not a copyright infringement as it is our synopsis. I cited ComingSoon as well." Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to help clean up the copyvio text it would be appreciated. I can delete any articles that need it or rev/del old edits to suppress the copyvio. Advice on the images would be useful also. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the image uploads, everything is now chill in that regard. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared out the remaining text copyvios. MER-C 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Addition of unsourced claim to List of top international rankings by country by 99.244.158.43

I removed the unsourced claim (that Iran is the world's oldest country) from List of top international rankings by country. However, the ip user, 99.244.158.43, keeps reverting my edit by claiming the linked article History of Iran as a citation. There is no claim on that page that Iran is the world's oldest country. There is only a statement that Iran is one of the world's oldest civilizations. However, the ip user either doesn't understand the difference or just doesn't care. In anycase, they keep adding back in the unsourced claim. I've given the user 4 warnings already, but they've ignored it. Transcendence (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I would normally suggest WP:3, but it appears that the content the IP is adding is clearly wrong (and the angry edit summaries aren't helping matters either). However, s/he hasn't edited anywhere since Dougweller's final warning, so let's just see what happens. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to NAC this, but I noticed that earlier today the IP made this edit. I don't know enough about this topic to determine if the edit is legit or not though; would anyone else like to check it out? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppets at Middle Ages

Discussion has been moved to WP:SPI. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

My experience with sockpuppeting POV-pushers has been pleasantly minimal, so I'm hoping those with more experience with wikiconflicts can help me out here.

Middle Ages is a vital article, and several fantastic contributors (particularly Ealdgyth) made it a Featured article and have worked hard to maintain its quality. Recently, Sumatro and JanHusCz have been tag-teaming there to promote Bulgaria's importance, deteriorating the article's quality and engaging it edit wars with several other editors. Ealdgyth brought the situation to my attention, opining "This is the sort of crap that drives good content editors away." So I did a little research, and here's what I found.

In May of this year, Ceco31 was permanently topic-banned from anything relating to Bulgaria, and was blocked from all edits (account creation blocked) for 3 months. (See previous.) His last edits were to editwar on Bulgarians. He did not return under that username when his 3-month block was lifted, but Sumatro showed up in August instead, immediately using rather complex Wikisyntax and engaging in an editwar right off the bat at Bulgarians. It sure looks like a topic-ban-evading sock to me. Sumatro edited nothing but the Bulgarians article all month, then in September switched to Nina Dobrev, a model, where he's only interested in the "Bulgarian nationality and citizenship" aspects. He editwarred there, and edited nothing but that one article for months. Meanwhile, JanHusCz also showed up on Wikipedia in September, and after the 4 days and 12 edits it takes to get auto-confirmed, he immediately set about at Nina Dobrev making the same sort of changes as Sumatro, using wikisyntax and citing Wikipedia policy like a pro. Both quit Nina in early December and set on Middle Ages together, edit warring to emphasize Bulgaria there. Despite agreeing completely, and reverting to each other's versions, they never once use each other's talk page or really reply to each other on article talk pages. I have no doubt that both Sumatro and JanHusCz are sockpuppets (or at least meatpuppets) of the topic-banned Ceco31.

JanHusCz has been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation, but I think permanently blocking all three accounts for evading a topic ban would be appropriate. I'm not directly involved with any of these users or articles, and my only interest is in protecting vital, featured articles in general. Is it okay for me to simply block the accounts? Are there any hoops I need to jump through first? Thanks for any assistance. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't a request for checkuser be opened first to determine whether they are the same editor, or could you or another admin simply block these accounts because they are duck accounts? Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks duck-worthy to me, but I have little experience with this. Also, I just saw that Only opened a (partial) sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro, but that doesn't mention Ceco31 or the topic ban. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Ceco31 or the topic ban, so please feel free to make additions to /move my sockpuppet investigation request. I was tempted to pull the trigger on a duck block, but leaned towards the SPI for the moment. Any other admin is more than welcome to implement longer blocks if they desire; I have no objection to that. only (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, best I guess if we move discussion over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advertisement??

I see a rather racist "advertisement" on the page People's_Liberation_Army (here is a screenshot). Is this intended, an error, or has something got hacked on wikipedia? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is the talk page that the link at the bottom of the ad links to: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it's in the html page source, but can't be edited from within the article. Photo is here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that one of the templates that is being used in the page has been vandalized. Finding which one may be a little challenging. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be vandalism of the {{Infobox Chinese}} template. I used only that template, with no parameters filled in, at User:Quadell/draft, and the ad shows up. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found and reverted at {{Infobox Chinese/Footer}} --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Was that a coordinated attack by a political group, or just a hoax? If it was the former, the problem will surely reappear. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. :) May be drop a notice at https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia ? And I agree with Quadell. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note there, though who knows if people will read it or not. The other problem is it took purging the pages to clear the "ad" off of it and I probably missed quite a few, if not most. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the backlink for the template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Chinese. Let's look through the pages in the list and purge them. I'll do my bit. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the test.wikipedia.org site linked in these "adverts" which are still showing up actually owned by wikipedia or is it just some troll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.42.141 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Test Wikipedia is where the developers test new things before doing a mass deployment, I think at least, and is owned and operated by the Foundation --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blacklisted the page that they keep linking to, in hopes that it will start to calm this down, but we'll see. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also created abuse filter 600 which should detect and block such edits, a little more generically. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It seems almost all the pages using the template (several thousands it seemed) have been purged. Just wondering: Was all of it done manually or is there is a bot/script at the disposal of the admins that helped with that? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying a template actually queues a purge on all the pages, but they get stuffed into the job queue. Depending on traffic, it could take a long time before those purges actually happen. If the job queue isn't that long, though, it happens quickly. "action=purge" just forces it to happen immediately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution 96.232.85.20 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user:Masroor Khan0 and IP 124.124.22.142

Can someone who has more knowledge of Wikipedia policies and editing ability than I do look at User:Masroor Khan0 the page seems to provide a lot of information about this editor that seems like a violation of self promotion. Along with the articles Sant Kabir Nagar district and Bakhira Sanctuary. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcomed (and advised) the new editor. Miniapolis 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid many of thier edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control

This is already being discussed at the proper venue, 3RRN, and the fight at Talk:Gun control is unproductively spilling over into this forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs)

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

Steady edit war at aforementioned article and User:MilesMoney has confessed to being at 3RR. I propose a one week block on MilesMoney for edit warring, a battlefield stance on almost every article he touches, an inability to edit collaboratively and well, a plethora of other reasons. He's not here to edit this project in good faith.--MONGO 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close this. It's being handled at WP:3RRN, where it turns out that Mongo and Gaijin lied about my edit comment and behavior. Mongo is out to block me using any excuse he can find. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. MONGO is involved in the dispute at gun control. 2. The material that MilesMoney removed has never had consensus to be included; is only in the article due to edit warring; and has no source which connects the material to the subject of the article. He was entirely correct to remove the material. — goethean 18:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me edits that demonstrate my clear involvement. 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least three comments on the talk page. Looks like you're involved. MilesMoney (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being addressed at Wikipedia:3RRN#User:MilesMoney_reported_by_User:Gaijin42_.28Result:_.29. Should ordinary Wikipedia channels fail to address this matter, then we can explore extraordinary measures. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is being discussed (vociferously) on the article talk page, and the page is now protected. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a "spirited" discussion, but a couple people are really heaping abuse on editors.......a continuous barrage of mis-characterizations of what people said and nasty accusations and villianizing built on the mis-characterizations, sarcastic insults, ad-hominem/deprecating editors approaches, while refusing to engage on the particulars, Editors should not have to endure such abuse and I've left the article for at least a breather to avoid such abuse. It's not my style to seek actions against individuals, but could somebody take a look and see if any warnings against such nastiness are merited? Again, a spirited discussion and some disagreement is to be expected, but not a barrage of abuse. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that your WP:IDHT is a pretty serious abuse. You literally walked away from the discussion rather than acknowledge that policy forbids undue linkage. MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have Miles in mind within the "couple people", but their post here is an example.North8000 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI is entirely gratuitous. The article is a mess, but the issues are being dealt with in multiple venues and this appears to be no more than harassment of MilesMoney. This should be withdrawn or closed. MONGO, do the right thing and hold your fire. This just makes you look like a jackass. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, please link to the personal attack or stop making accusations.

North8000 has engaged in edit warring and ICANTHEARYOU. He has responded to simply, polite, on-topic requests for sourcing[34] with accusations that editors are attacking him when no one is doing any such thing.[35] He has been asked repeatedly to provide a source which connects his preferred material to the subject of the article. He has refused to do so and continued to edit war. He is editing tendentiously. No one is attacking North8000; what is happening is that he is unable argue for his position policy-wise and so he chooses to make accusations. His behavior is unacceptable. — goethean 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current RfC -- which several editors seem not to consider. Removal of a large section before the RfC is complete is "out of process" action, and those editors who were unwilling to allow the normal WP:CONSENSUS process to work should remove themselves from the article. The only one really misbehaving here on this noticeboard is User:MilesMoney. SPECIFICO's comments above also are ill-suited to this noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uninvolvededitor If you're referring to this RfC, that's pretty heated as it is (although forum-shopping isn't the way to go either, Mongo). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: There was never consensus to include the Nazi material. It was added through edit warring on the part of ROG5728, North8000, Gaijin42 and other associated editors. — goethean 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 3RR violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield mentality of MilesMoney and a host of others, but he's by far the most disruptive. He's not entitled to 3RR...read the policy. My sole involvement as if that matters since I have never edited the article, was to find out if the article was ever any good or was a POV fork.--MONGO 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be understood here is the underlying issue - which is whether Wikipedia content on the Holocaust should include fringe theories - entirely unsupported by any credible historiography - which attempt to directly link Nazi Genocide with firearms regulations. The fact that the promotion of this 'theory' (which is frankly ridiculous, for multiple reasons) is being promoted on the 'gun control' article rather than in our article on the Holocaust itself is incidental. It is simply untenable for Wikipedia to be promoting pseudohistorical propaganda on the Holocaust - propaganda which has clearly been concocted for the purposes of swaying another debate, in another time and place. We owe a duty to our readers (and incidentally to the memory of victims of the Holocaust) not to allow this distortion of history to be presented as anything but the tendentious, cherry-picked and decontextualised concoction that reliable sources report it to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mass changes to UK addresses

Narrow Feint (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose editor whose sole contribution on Wikipedia is to enforce a particular address format on articles containing British addresses. I have discussed it with him on his talk page and a number of wider discussions have been held about the practice, most recently this one, but these discussions have always centred on the various merits of different formats, rather than the merits of mass enforcement of a particular format. While a small majority were in favour of the format Narrow Feint is enforcing, there has never been a consensus to make mass changes to that format. Narrow Feint has decided that the partial support for his preferred format constitutes a right to change all British addresses to that format. I do not believe such mass changes are constructive, and they are not supported by any guideline that I can find.

It is important to add that Narrow Feint has always been civil, did not continue editing while discussions were being held, and has always denied a nationalist bias and claims not to deliberately concentrate on English addresses. But nevertheless, 100% of his mainspace edits are to remove "UK" from English addresses, even allowing "UK" to remain on Scottish addresses such as in this edit [36].

I myself use various address formats for British addresses, including the one Narrow Feint prefers, and I am not concerned here about which format different people may favour; I simply object to mass enforcement of a particular format at the expense of others when there is no policy on Wikipedia to support it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This issue seems more suitable for WP:DRN. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why? As I say, this is specifically not about the merits of the various formats, it is about whether or not we are happy with mass changes from one to another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why? Sure, because it simply seems like a friendly disagreement (which is more than can be said for issues that are usually brought to this board). Have a good day. :) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, I suppose it is more civil than most. But it's been dragging on for a long time and I would like some concrete guidance on it, something I haven't found anywhere else. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the edits all be reverted? It seems that though this user is civil, their edits are not constructive. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would agree. An editor making such mass changes without consensus is clearly being disruptive regardless of whether they stop specific instances when called on it. (Consider if this had been an ENGVAR, or date format or BC/BCE issue.) I'm not an admin but frankly the only thing stopping me calling for a block or topic ban is the fact that they perhaps haven't received sufficient warning yet. Discussion should of course using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary but that doesn't negate the disruption cause by the editor concerned. Ultimately if they can't achieve consensus for any specific usage which wouldn't exactly be surprising for something like this, then they will need to just let it be, regardless of their personal dislike for whatever format. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost now. I didn't know if I was allowed to post here at the administrators noticeboard, but I'm told I can and anyway it looks like no administrator has replied to this topic. What do I do next? There is a clear consensus that UK is not needed in addition to the home country (there always was a consensus, but that has been reconfirmed). Apparently that consensus is the wrong kind of consensus, so do I need to ask somewhere else (and then I guess I apologise to the UK board for wasting a crowd of peoples time and effort) and will I get accused of some variant of 'forum shopping'? Then, if the next consensus is different to the old consensuses (consensi?) then what? Also, it seems that not only do you have to decide what the right form is, you then have to decide if the right form should be used and who should use it. So where do I ask that? Some advice from people who know what to do next would be appreciated. Yours, utterly baffled, Narrow Feint (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first mistake was not having in the first or second sentence the words "the current consensus was reached [[xxxxx|here]] and [[xxxxx|here]], and his edits were rejected by other editors [[xxx|here]], [[xxxx|here]] and [[xxxx|here]], and he refused to comply / failed to answer multiple requests by multiple editors / made clear that he doesn't intend to stop [[xxx|here]] and [[xxx|here]] ."

The second mistake was not going to WP:DRN, not getting a few editors in WP:DRN to say "yes, these edits are against consensus", and not telling the editor "See? the guys at DRN agree that this is against consensus. If you don't stop, I'll ask that action is taken by administrators".

Admins are always scared of blocking someone only because of content disagreements. I will repeat the same thing, in a different way. You need to:

show the breaking of consensus in a very clear way,
get independient editors to agree that it's a breaking of consensus,
show proof that the editor has been warned about the consensus several times
show proof that he refuses to comply with the consensus of several other editors

--Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, nobody is breaking consensus. It's me that is editing to bring articles in line with consensus, but apparently I should not. Yours, still confused, Narrow Feint (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, my comment was addressed to the editor who made the complaint.

As for you, you could link the discussions where the consensus was reached, and link a couple of edits where you are following that consensus, and a couple of edits where he is not following it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus is at here. There are a couple of links at that place to the old consensus, which was the same. Sample simple edit (or one of most of my edits). Narrow Feint (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also slightly confused now, and I repeat this is not a content dispute. Enric, you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. The discussion Narrow Feint has linked to makes no mention of making mass changes to articles and does not constitute a consensus for what he is doing. He simply asked what address format people prefer and acted on some of those responses. Nowhere did he suggest enforcing any format across the entire project. NF is not acting against a consensus as such, because none exists. I simply object to someone making (controversial) mass changes with no consensus to do so or following any guideline, because similarly, none exists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the discussion to which which both NF and I have linked, a number of editors shared a preference for NF's preferred format, a number of editors disagreed with him, and several other editors favoured different formats entirely. How anyone could construe a consensus out of that discussion, I do not know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel removing my comments in violation of TPG

Moving right along. DS, please look before you leap and throw ANI threads and F-bombs around. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

So Gamaliel is removing my comments from the BLPN board for no reason, and has done so thrice in violation of TPG, do something. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has now reverted my comments for a forth time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No reason"? I've repeatedly stated in edit summaries and in talk page conversations with User:Darkness Shines that posting the full text of a copyrighted article is both unnecessary (as a link is available) and a copyright violation. Posting an entire article does not fall under fair use. As per Wikipedia:Copyrights:

"If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed."
"Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems."

This matter is quite clear. Gamaliel (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - a clear breach of copyright. I suspect it might be in DS's best interest to take a Wikibreak, before he is obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And I told you it was in quotation marks, hence quoted, hence not a fucking copyvio, got that yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYRIGHT instructs users inserting copyrighted material in the form of quotations to follow the guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content, which states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The entire article surely qualifies as "extensive". Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting quotes around copied text does not auto-magically make it not a copyright violation. Especially when the work is copied in it's entirety. Roccodrift (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting quotes round it doesn't stop it from failing WP:NFCC. Copying an entire article is never going to be able to be passed off as "fair use". Link to it, or quote the relevant section. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it was used to make a point, and was not in an article but a talk page, and was obviously quoted and attributed, so not a copyvio by any stretch of the imagination. So admit you are wrong and self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, he's not wrong. WP:NFCC#9 prohibits any use of copyrighted material in non-article space, quite apart from the main criteria WP:NFCC#3b. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness, you are wrong and have been told so by a couple of people now. Go read the policy and drop this. Whether in regular quotes or in fucking quotes, it's not OK. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he should have just remove the quote then, not the fucking lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, you're not on firm ground here. Let's assume you're right that Gamaliel shouldn't have removed the lot, posting a huge bit of copyrighted text is a much bigger deal than blanking a page. No one is going to bat an eye at Gamaliel while the giant threat of legal retribution by the copyright holder hangs in the air. You can quotes bits and pieces, a sentence or two really, of copyrighted text if you are discussing that quote specifically. Bob said "Blah blah blah" about this book; for example. You cannot quote entire pages. There is just no way that Gamaliel is going to be addressed at all because the issue you've brought up is so insignificant in comparison. You really should heed the advice here and back up a step.--v/r - T P 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already did what he ought to have done, that is it so far as i am concerned. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, the article covered a few unrelated topics. The least you could have done was to extract just the part relevant to Ocean Grove and Scott Rasmussen. I don't know about copyright policy, but that huge block of text was very disruptive to the discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Legal threat from new user

User indef-blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

See User talk:JohnCD#ELISA N. SUSIE- ME and, for background, the deleted version of User:ELISA N susie and my reply on User talk:ELISA N susie. I am inclined not to take this threat seriously, but I bring it here for others to review. JohnCD (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ JohnCD - I support your statements on that user's talk page (now blanked), and the indefinite block. The legal threat? What possible basis for it could there be? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user is obviously not well; I'm not sure any administrative action is needed here. LFaraone 01:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert blocked under WP:NOTHERE, which I think is appropriate. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user erased the block notice. Should it be restored and the user blocked from editting their own talk page, perhaps? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really necessary. In blanking her current userpage (which contained additional nonsense), I added {{blocked user}}, which should be good enough notice to other users that she's not going to be responsive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bardrick amendment of allegiance field on military biographies

Blocked for 72 hours for obvious edit warring and personal attacks, any repetition of either may require other remedies. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bardrick has been changing the "allegiance" for military biographies of Commonwealth military figures and replacing Canada, New Zealand and Australia, etc with "British Empire".

Recognizing that during WWI and WWII there are some independence ambiguity questions for Commonwealth countries, split discussions at Talk:Arthur_Currie#Flag_of_allegiance and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#WP:MILMOS.23FLAGS_and_WWI_flags_of_Commonwealth_dominions are leading to the conclusion that allegiance field for military biographies should be the associated country. The only topic of debate appears to be whether the inclusion of a flag is a policy violation. There is thus far no one in the participating discussions, other than Bardrick, advocating for the inclusion of "British Empire" instead of the name of the various commonwealth countries.

A couple of editors have undone Bardrick's edits these are reverted. Reverts by various users with comments provided:

Hawkeye7: [37][38] [39] [40] [41]
Zawed: [42] [43]
Myself (Labattblueboy) [44] [45] [46] [47]
Abraham, B.S.: [48] [49]

Warning to Bardrick's talk page: [50]

A dispute at Arthur Currie between Bardrick and myself was very close to becoming a 3RR situation as Bardick was not interesting in returning to the baseline while the issue (which would have affected a large number of articles) was discussed. I'm too closely involved at this point to undo any more of Bardrick edits as it's going nowhere.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Answer from Bardrick: There's a legitimate debate going on on this issue & the "Labattblueboy" is continually reverting the text. He has taken ownership of these articles, has an unhistorical approach to this particular issue, will not debate the matter, has come running to you as he's lost the argument on the historical case & can't take it. Bit sad really =(

Bardrick ****

User:Bardrick's response is quite unconvincing. He is engaging in edit wars but he won't make the effort to properly sign his talk messages. His indifference to consensus suggests that a block may be necessary. He has a previous edit warring block from 24 September. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Answer from Bardrick: This "Johnston" guy is on a power-trip & these threats to have other users banned (which is against Wiki policy itself) & this type of character's incessant running off trying to get you to do it for them should, I'd suggest, be ignored. These people use the term "concensus" to try to bully others into obeying small cabals they set up on Wiki, they don't like open debate based on logic & evidence, as can be seen from "Labattblueboy's" behaviour over the Currie article, & are a slightly creepy (check out the way this "Johnston" character has gone all over my history desperately looking for ammunition to try to use here) element in Wikipedia. It really is a bit sad =(****

Bardrick.

Blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks. Other remedies may be necessary if this continues after the block. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dedicated vandal

RIDICULOUS

Request for a WP:BAN after 1 edit denied. Toddst1 (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Before Christmas, I was sure I changed the date Alan Turing was pardoned to 24 December. I saw someone had changed it to 23 Dec, and searched page history and found that the date was changed by this strange edit. It's 117.202.56.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have a pretty good knowledge of the wikisyntax, really taking time to mess up the page. This was, while the page was (and still is) being featured on the Main Page's "In The News" section, and the vandal edit was only first properly noticed two days later. Other users had partially undone the vandal's edit, and I just undid the rest in a pretty frustrating exercise comparing the diff to the present page, trying to avoid undoing any of the 100+ well-intended edits from the time between. I am appealing for admins to ban this user straight away – it's obviously no use warning him if he is ready to take such dedication to messing up the page, and this is probably not the first time the person behind the IP has done something like this. --hydrox (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) That edit was pretty ridiculous, but I doubt s/he'll be banned for something like that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dragonron's disruptive behavior

Dragonron blocked for WP:BATTLE. If this continues after release of this block, an indef block is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Dragonron, despite being a new account, appears to be run by someone semi-knowledgeable about Wikipedia and its guidelines and has done around 3 constructive edits. However, they do so with sarcastic and plain weird comments showing in my opinion a purpose to disrupt that outshines being a constructive editor.

They have been warned in the past and responded by warning the ClueBot [51].

In this edit [52] they claimed to have "edited the redirects cause the pages were moved", when by looking through their edit history clearly shows no such work.

I gave sufficient explanations for my reverts here [53] and here [54].

Additionally, because they are knowledgeable about guidelines and given the recent edits by the ip 166.147.118.210 suggest to me sockpuppetry.

I frankly do not know what to do or if this is even the place to discuss this. Does such behavior constitute vandalism, a sockpuppet block or trying to ignore/work around them? Xfansd (talk)

(Non-administrator comment)The user has also requested a page protection at Wikipedia:RPP#List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters claiming you are the one edit warring. Bluefist^talk 03:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. However, I'm confident others will see the user is disruptive and bring an end to that as well. Xfansd (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U revert me without a basis! Kuririn, Freeza, and the others were moved, no? I hate redirects, and theres no reason for using em. And we dont use "manga Viz names" per WP:DBZ. May I remind Xfansd that I opened a discussion which he wont partake in?! Check my contribs. i am not a suckpuppet, another baseless allegation this editor is the disruptive one. Dragonron (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to indef dragonron per his apparent hounding, but I'd like a second opinion on that matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh! Ur "hounding" claims go unsubstantiated. I am just doin mah job. Dragonron (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, calm down Dragonron. And fellas, hows about we compromise on a partial revert? 166.147.118.210 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - excuse me, theres no compromising with Xfansz unless he talks to either of us. I am waiting for the block, I mean, lock to expire so I can nix it up again. Dragonron (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some useful edits among Dragonron's contributions, but his tone and attitude show either a lack of maturity or outright trolling. Given his tag-teaming with the 166.147 IPs as noted above, on Talk:Bleach (anime) and here, plus his (and their) obvious experience with Wikipedia, I find the sockpuppetry allegations likely. That puts me into the "trolling" camp. That said, I believe Xfansd misunderstood the "edited the redirects" edit summary: Dragonron changed the {{main}} targets from redirects to the corresponding articles themselves; I expect that's what the edit summary refers to. Huon (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- THANK U! Finally someone who understands wut I was doing. Huon, ur wrong on one thing: I dont resort to suckpuppetry. Trust me. Now, Mark or whoever, revert back to the version without redirects please. Dragonron (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a short block to Dragonron for WP:BATTLE. Let's hope that ends this mess and after the block there is more constructive engagement with other editors. If not, Mark's suggestion of an indef is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lone Gunmen

That Acroterion protected the article was an act of kindness. The IP editor is urged not just to edit the article talk page but to argue that there are reliable sources (not YouTube videos and websites related to the subject) that warrant inclusion of what a person of real good faith might call "material". Bringing up "white wash" is frequently a sign of unencyclopedicness, but that's by the by: for now, it suffices to say that no admin intervention is required unless it is by way of the dreaded boomerang. UPDATE: now blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This morning I began edits to The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series) in an effort to expand sections and provide citations where there previously were none. Later in the day before my edits were completed, User:GSK and User:Grapple_X showed and began reverting and section blanking before I had the proper time to condense the new information and ensure the citations were all good.

Reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=588012439&oldid=588009013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=587992610&oldid=587992402 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=587992402&oldid=587992337 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=587980735&oldid=587958976

Their section blanking also lead to them blanking previously added subsections of the article which were never cited nor did I add. I also previously warned both users on the talk page that they were being unconstructive and vandalizing the articles content, I was completely ignored. Also the information they have section blanked is some of the same content from The Lone Gunmen about where the show gets its original name, except my version was properly cited. I would appreciate it if all editors here could sit down and have a rational discussion with Wikipedia administrative oversight in which all of these issues are resolved/discussed. Thank you. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at ANEW did not go in the IP's favor, so I guess they thought it was necessary to come here instead. I think this is borderline WP:HOUNDING. GSK ✉ ✓ 04:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is in retaliation at all, if you could all slow down a second and give me a time to properly respond. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you drop this immediately: I've already warned you about forum-shopping, and if you continue you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked, since I've grown tired of seeing the word "liar" in the IP's posts. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing from IP 219.116.115.176, again...

Blocked for three months by User:Someguy1221. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP 219.116.115.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the subject of this ANI-report from three months ago, a report that resulted in a block, is back again, continuing the same pattern of highly disruptive, and very strange edits, edits that IMHO show a clear lack of competence. The IP, which geolocates to Japan and makes many edit summaries in Japanese, edits both articles and other users' talk pages, reverts many of their own edits with edit summaries that claim they're reverting vandalism, creates redirects, adds and removes images, and generally just plays around, without contributing anything worthwhile to the project (I could add diffs but a look at the IP's list of contributions should be enough...). The IP has overnight (from my perspective, i.e. European time) received a full set of warnings, up to and including a final warning for vandalism, but IMHO the lack of competence, and resulting disruption, warrants more than just a short block for vandalism. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wow. Some of his edits are....OK? His global contributions are interesting - he's actually performing this exact same behavior over at least a dozen other Wikis (with three blocks on ja-wiki and one on commons). I am of agreement that this editor, while he might mean well, is simply too incompetent to be allowed to edit. I'm blocking for three months, with the hope that he either stays away from Wikipedia in the future, or starts trying to actually communicate with people. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantly weird indeed. I love the self-reverts with accusation of vandalism. Maybe we should make it an administrator so it will block itself. Zero^talk 11:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's getting even weirder after the block, with the IP now making nonsense-edits on their own talk page, and then self-reverting with an edit summary saying "reverting vandalism"... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bengali people

User:Amitabho, is repeatedly inserting a copy vio image in the article despite being properly explained about the copyright problems of the image in the talk page. DIFFS of inserting the image: [55],[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]

The image has been nominated for deletion in the commons. Moreover, the user has also uploaded some non-free images with missing info like this one, using wrong licenses falsely claiming that they are in public domain per FOP just to use those images as a source in the collage. Since the user continues with his disruptive editing, I thought to report him here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified User:Amitabho. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmzayeem: I probably missed it but have you communicated with him? I didn't see it on his talk page or on the article talk page but I sure could have missed it. A diff please? JodyB_talk 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken every reasonable step in regard to the aforementioned image. There should be no infringing material remaining. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! JodyB_talk 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You as well. May I ask that both this incident and the deletion request at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bengali_collage.png both be closed, considering the resolution of this dispute's circumstances? Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JodyB, take a look at this thread on the article talk page, I've tried my best to explain the problems, some other editors have also raised their concerns about the image.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Exhibiting Tendentious Behavior/Editing

Scoobydunk blocked for edit warring and strongly cautioned on further attempts to WP:OWN articles. WLRoss cautioned about edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:WLRoss has been exhibiting tendentious behavior and editing regarding the articles of Anthony Johnson and John Punch. I will layout multiple examples of how User:WLRoss as been gaming the system, ignoring dispute resolution, violating consensus of dispute resolution, and demonstrating tendentious behavior/editing over the last few months as described by WikiPedia:TEND.

wall of text collapsed

1. Examples of tendentious behavior in our first dispute involving the Anthony Johnson article.

- Reverted edits I made to the article and deleted sources I included supporting the information I provided. [62]

- After a few interactions on the talk page he chose to try and bypass the talk discussion and have the page protected. [63]

- He then sought administrative intervention by reporting me for edit warring, which he too was a party of. I was new to wikipedia editing at the time and was not aware of the 3RR rule or what constituted as edit warring. [64]

- When his attempt to report me for edit warring was declined, he sought dispute resolution from the noticeboard(the approach he should have taken in the first place).[65]

- He then tried to recruit favorable editors to participate that he did not list as part of the discussion. [66] [67]

- During the dispute resolution process, WLRoss also contacted an administrator to try and have me investigated for sock-puppetry. A friend of his formally request a checkuser against me. His accusation was that I showed too much knowledge about wikipedia policy to be a new user, yet my grasp of WP:POV and WP:OR came about after WLRoss was the one that linked me the policies in the first place. In the first couple of links I gave, you'll notice how I incorrectly refer to WP:POV as WP:OP, that's because I was still learning the terminology, yet WLRoss seemed more interested in circumventing the dispute resolution process by having me blocked or banned. [68] [69]

- WLRoss then stopped responding after a 3rd party editor explained how WLRoss's sources were tertiary or self published and were therefore unreliable compared to stronger secondary sources. This editor also had some problems with some of my sources but agreed that I was accurately reflecting the information. As per WP:consensus, "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" Here you'll see where WLRoss stopped responding to myself and the 3rd party assisting in the dispute resolution on both the dispute resolution page and the Anthony Johnson (talk) page. [70] [71]

- After withdrawing from the dispute resolution process, WLRoss then followed me over to the John Punch article and started to revert changes I made to the article and insert information that was refuted during the dispute resolution. Also according to WP:Consensus, "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." After he disengaged from the dispute resolution process, he continued to edit and include disputed material, being all around disruptive. [72]

Now, individually, some of these behaviors are necessary and required when valid concerns are raised, but when all of this behavior is intertwined it shows that WLRoss was intent on trying to game the system. He was using parts of wikipedia policies and procedures to discourage discussion, he showed bad faith when inquiring if I was a sock puppet, and tried to manipulate procedures to his benefit.

2. Now I'll discuss more tendentious behavior that occurred during our dispute regarding the John Punch which is, essentially, an extension of the first dispute. An administrator warned both of us that we were heading towards edit warring disciplinary action. This time I opened a 3O ticket for dispute resolution. It wasn't long before an objective 3rd party editor decided to take our case and help us resolve our dispute...again. After a lot of back and forth, the 3rd party editor decided to come up with a criteria of "strongest sources" to help us evaluate the situation and come to an accurate understanding. The 3 criteria he laid out was 1) The author had to have a PhD. in a related field 2) The work must have been published in a peer reviewed journal, scholarly press or University Press, or published in a specialized scholarly journal and 3) Had to be published within the last 50 years. This was our opportunity to search and provide sources meeting the criteria to bolster our positions on the argument. It was at this point WLRoss started to become increasingly disruptive to the consensus building process and to the dispute resolution. [73] [74]

- WLRoss repeatedly made assertions without providing sources to support his arguments even when he was asked to. Even the 3rd party editor had to point out that Wayne was failing to provide sources and violating WP:OR. When he finally did get around to adding sources, they did not address the dispute at hand and instead related to our previous dispute. This exhibits behavior clearly defined in the WP:Tedious article regarding tendentious behavior where inadequate sources are provided and one who disputes the reliability of other sources. [75] [76]

- WLRoss tried to include textbooks in the table of "strongest sources" knowing that they didn't meet the criteria. You'll also see where we had a very lengthy discussion about tertiary sources and how they don't take preference of reliable secondary sources when editing a wikipedia article.

- The whole reason I had to open a new dispute resolution was because our previous dispute was whether John Punch or John Casor was the first slave in the English Colonies and now WLRoss was trying to claim that John Punch was never a slave and remained an indentured servant. As you'll notice throughout the dispute resolution WLRoss continuously changes his argument. First he argues that Punch remained an indentured servant, then he submits sources that don't support that claim and instead just mention that Casor was the first slave "where no crime was committed" which has no relevance to the current argument, and then he changes the argument to a matter of what "legality" and "legal" mean and that Punch wasn't a "legal" slave. Every time we refuted his points, he'd just switch back to repeating the same previous argument without convincing people.

- After reviewing the information and both sides of the argument, a consensus was formed that accurately reflected the sources given. For the second time, WLRoss stopped responding and left the discussion thus cementing our consensus.

- Now after over 2 months of no incidents, WLRoss is trying to revert the consensus of our dispute resolution again. What is most troubling is that WLRoss hasn't edited the Anthony Johnson article since October 1, and now, suddenly, when an editor with no account mass deletes information from the article, WLRoss shows up to make additional reverts knowing full well that I can't continue to revert against 2 editors, otherwise I'd violate the 3RR rule before either of them do. This is a blatant attempt at him gaming the system, waiting for another editor with a dissenting opinion to make changes to the article before he begins to revert the article to his own point of view, so that I can't possibly maintain the article's integrity without violating WP policy. [77] [78]

- WLRoss also includes weasel words as described by WP:WEASEL by including "Some" when referring to Genealogists and Historians. This is also a violation of WP:WEIGHT because it undermines the fact that John Punch was a slave and is intended to give equal weight to the claim "Some historians don't consider him a slave" which he's yet to provide a strong reliable source supporting that view. Since neither of us could find a reliable source speaking to majority or minority opinions regarding the matter, the article was written without inclusion of terms that would suggest minority or majority viewpoints, which WLRoss is now trying to add back in by using "Some" which is specifically listed as a weasel word or term. On top of this, WLRoss accuses that not including weasel words is a violation of WP:Weasel and that makes no sense.

All of these behaviors demonstrate WLRoss's abuse of wikipedia policies and tendentious behavior. I willingly worked through all of the dispute resolutions, meeting the criteria that was demanded for my argument while learning and adopting Wikipedia's policies, procedures, and etiquette at the same time. The reason why i feel I must get an administrator involved is because WLRoss has repeatedly shown this behavior and his most recent antics of reverting is the last straw.

Scoobydunk (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Offensive/Controversial Advertisement (possible hacking?)

I have much trouble believing that this advertisement http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Promoted_icon_finnish.gif on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Reported_cost_and_schedule_issues is legitimately from Wikipedia. The animated GIF purports to be an NRA ad, showing a dark-faced figure in a hoodie. The viewer is apparently holding a gun, and the text reads "DEFEND YOURSELF FROM THE INTRUDER AND WIN A FREE GIFTCARD FROM THE NATIONAL IFLE [sic] ASSOCIATION". The link on the image is to the article on the NRA; there is no link to any Webpage from which any actual product could be acquired. The image appears in a box headed "Promoted Content" with text below the image reading "Seeing ads? Wikimedia is experimenting with a new ad program. Add your thoughts here. " There is a link to https://test2.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia&action=edit&section=new .

The content has appeared on multiple computers that I have checked, including an Andriod device and from Tor, so I do not believe I have been hacked. I have been unable to locate any code in the Wiki markup that generates the ad. The ad does not appear in the previous version of the page, but the difference shown in the page history does not appear to generate the content. Furthermore, using the preview button when editing the page does not generate the ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDnar (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! What syphilitic pus-brained idiot thought this was a good idea? I mean the candy in hand and hoody is 'brilliant'? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Promoted_icon_finnish.gif

<tr> <td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="/wiki/National_Rifle_Association" title="National Rifle Association"><img alt="Promoted icon finnish.gif" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Promoted_icon_finnish.gif" width="300" height="300" /></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Seeing ads? Wikimedia is experimenting with a new ad program. <a class="external text" href="https://test2.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia&action=edit&section=new">Add your thoughts here.</a></td> </tr> Shenme (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, chill out. Scroll up to the section titled "Advertising" above and you will see a full explanation on what happened. In the meantime, jumping to conclusions like "it must have been a hack!" are not particularly helpful. Instead, search for where the content is coming from. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bar chart}} this time, which has already been reverted and protected --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out abuse filter 600 did detect this, but was configured incorrectly and didn't block it. The page in question just needed to be purged, it looks like. The template was reverted a while back. (The filter is now correctly configured.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I checked the bar graph page, but didn't see the "ad", hence my concern about possible hacking, since there appeared to be no generating code. I didn't realize that templates were cached (although in retrospect, the large number of templates Wikipedia uses would make that a necessary performance optimization.)—Dr. D'nar (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting on the Job Queue to flush all the translucations --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SuzanneTXC

Speedily deleted per G11 by User:LFaraone. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

So I was patrolling the new users log and clicked on this user. It seemed legit until I saw the bit about 'All Natural Testosterone Booster'. (see for yourself). I'm edgy about sending it to the CSD Line and have no idea about where to send a page that smells but seemingly can't be CSD'd so I've dashed here.

Anyone who can shed light on this? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 20:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've deleted it as G11/spam. LFaraone 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SALebato FBI

Indef-blocked by User:TParis. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a bit worried about this new user. So far I have not blocked him/her but have asked them to find a new username. Any comments? Deb (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for creating attack pages without sources.--v/r - T P 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:I AM NO TAX BOY (same editor with two same username accounts)

Case closed. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This seems to be a an obvious case of WP:DUCK but it's seems more complicated than it should be. Two different accounts with the same username, firstly User:Ι ΑΜ ΝΟ ΤΑΧ ΒΟΥ created at 20:25, December 28, 2013 (see [79]) and User:I AM NO TAX BOY created at 20:27, December 28, 2013 (see [80]) have been edit warring and making some disruptive edits at various articles. At first glance both of these look as if they are one single account but it looks like a very unique type of MediaWiki glitch where there are two different accounts with one single and exact username. Can an Administrator look into this and see what's going on here ? ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Any sources? I AM NO TAX BOY (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One has username starting with English letter I and other has username starting with greek letter iota. Clever malicious move though. :) Hitro talk 21:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The response on their talk leads me to conclude they aren't here to clear the AfC backlog. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the helpful answer given by Hitro and Ritchie, it looks it was a spoof attempt by the person to create two same named different accounts only for disruption/vandalism. And both the accounts have now been blocked, so I believe the situation is resolved and this thread can now be closed. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am feeling intimitated by Yambaram

For around ten hours ago, Yambaram reinserted my discussions att the talk page, claiming that "you're not allowed to blank your talk page, see WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE archive it properly or you". Then he wrote a comment saying that:

Deleting material and POV-editing

I'm writing you this warning message because as you may or may not know, a talk page needs to be archived properly, not deleted. Repeated violation of WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE will lead to you being blocked.

The bolded text is the title of the section. His two other edits under that period were removing "and POV-editing" and signed his comment.

I responded him by pointing to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. He then said that he did not know about that. Personally, before suggesting to others that they are violating a policy and linking to it, and issuing threats about getting blocked, I would read very carefully about the policies. Then you would most likely find Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. However, while I accept that he did not know about the user talk page-policy, I believe he sees it as a badge of shame and wants me to keep it. While would he otherwise reinsert all discussions except the bot messages? I think his response shows even more clearly that this is his agenda:

Well, to be honest I actually didn't know of that, so please do as you wish now. The fact that you choose to consistently delete posts from your talk page instead of archiving the which is Wikipedia policy's "preferred" option means a lot, as there must be a reason behind it. What are you hiding? You have exposed your POV-pushing editing style everywhere, and other editors have told you about it already. Anyway, I can only guess how long this comment will stay before it gets removed too. -Yambaram (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of accepting that his edits and claims were wrong, he keeps on with his intimidating attacks against me. I of course find it very unpleasing and hopes it will stop, which seem to be impossible without someone pointing out to him that his behaviour is not acceptable. And the focus should be on the articles, not me. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to delete content from your user page through normal editing. It is still available through the talk page history. WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE is referring to the admin delete tool. Admins cannot delete user talk pages which would remove the page history from public view. That's different from removing it through editing.--v/r - T P 02:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, TP - the wording seems clear that it refers to removing the content without copying it to an archive for easy access. That said, it is a guideline, rather than a policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also talking about article talk pages. The next section down says "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."--v/r - T P 14:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"For around ten hours ago," ... Wat? CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a language barrier. Not everyone speaks English as a first language. Please don't gripe over their grammar.--v/r - T P 02:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a language barrier that person should edit the Wikipedia for the languages they can speak fluently, so yes I will "gripe over their grammar". In this case it isn't that bad so I was just asking for clarification. CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" not just "people who speak English well". Take your snobby ass somewhere else if you can't handle other cultures editing this encyclopedia.--v/r - T P 03:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I know that I did not break any policy. What I see as the problem is Yambaram's behaviour. It must stop.

Swedish is my first language. This type of wording is normal. It gives around 8.5 million hits on Google. But please lets focus on the topic. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him. No administrator is going to act on his word alone and we all know the applicable policy.--v/r - T P 03:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan edit war

The involved users:

Nikhilmn2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Feysalafghan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smsarmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Feysalafghan and Smsarmad have dueling 3RR reports at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Feysalafghan_reported_by_User:Smsarmad_(Result: ) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Smsarmad reported by User:Feysalafghan (Result: ) (though this one is barely a report since it's not formatted at all properly).

I'm not entirely sure what to do with the reports and the situations so would appreciate other admins' insights. Feysalafghan seems to be committed the most editing warring infractions here, and seems to have some near personal attack concerns in calling other users "non-adults" on the 3RR report and in this talk page message, so I'm tempted to block him.

Should the page be protected? Should blocks be implemented on any of these users? I'm just not able to wrap my mind around a proper response so I'm seeking other input. And, please, any admin is welcome to take any actions they feel is appropriate here without consulting with me first. Thanks in advance, only (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks all around, first off. We can determine who is right later, which isn't an exemption to edit warring so it's not important to determine it first. The rest is a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page but it's an easy answer. Refer to it like the sources do. If 70% of them say one thing and 30% say another, say both but say which one is used more, ect.--v/r - T P 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, invoke the Arbcom sanctions while you block them.--v/r - T P 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this arbitration case nor the enforcement of it. Can someone who's more familiar with it please look into this edit war and take action? Thanks, only (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too much time has passed since the warring at this point, so I've issued a warning to Feysalafghan about the Arbcom restrictions. Next time can be a block.--v/r - T P 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the convenience for those who like to take any administrative action against me: I admit/realize that I edit warred and if I was an admin I would have blocked myself, so if I am blocked I would not complain or request an unblock regardless of whether an administrative action is taken against other users or not. So if anyone is confused whether I should be blocked or not please block me as I am unable to edit anyway with the sword swinging over my head that whether I will be blocked or not. -- SMS ^Talk 12:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening editor

IP blocked, and comments removed. Ross HillTalk to me! 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Check out this diff, I caught it while perusing recent changes. This would appear to be a threat of one anonymous user to another. I'm not sure how seriously to take the threat; it doesn't really give a specific violent act threat, but it's indicative. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an anonymous editor, was an account with the threat. Indefblocked with hardblock activated. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the IP before that edit, but it wasn't quite as severe. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erm, Daniel, that is an IP address (specifically an IPv6 address), unless I'm way sleepier than I think I am. Could you please give it a non-indefinite block instead? — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's new to me, thanks for the headsup User:PinkAmpersand. Reduced to 72 hours. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:O'Dea

BOOMERANG

OP blocked for one week by User:Tide rolls. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:O'Dea whom i have never heard of came over to the 2014 in article for the United States that i have for the last 4 years and with some 2000 good edits (such as 2011 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2011_in_the_United_States, 2012 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2012_in_the_United_States, 2013 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2013_in_the_United_States, and 2014 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2014_in_the_United_States) tirelessly worked on and began to vandalize the page when i tried to stop him he got my ip address blocked (i normally never bother to spend the time to log in so my address is 68.231.15.56 (my old ip address was 70.162.171.210 but my ip carrier changed it)) then he used my block to again vandalize the page. I have never heard of this user he suddenly appeared a few days ago and began wholesale vandalism of the this page 2014 in the United States - he made a few idiotic statements about why he thought he should do what he was doing and my reverts and continued to vandalize the page as in here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_in_the_United_States&diff=588164742&oldid=588153015 --S-d n r (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when i disagreed and reverted his vandalism he threatened me with block and later got an admin to do so--S-d n r (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether this user ever heard of me is irrelevant. That goes both ways; it is meaningless.
It is incorrect to claim that I had him blocked. He may inspect my edit history to confirm this; he will not find me initiating action against him. The block was an independent initiative by an administrator.
This user, S-d n r, performed disruptive edits at 2014 in the United States under the IP identity 68.231.15.56. He, the IP editor, was blocked from editing for these actions today. I was not involved in that block, but I did warn him a few days ago that his behaviour could lead to it.
He listed events which will occur in 2015 in the 2014 article.
He formatted edits in violation of WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK.
He violated WP:Civil on my talk page and in edit summaries by making unfounded accusations of disruption and vandalism, and using foul language.
He makes false claims about the content of Wikipedia policies to support his actions.
Today's block is not his first. He was blocked in the past because of his behaviours.
In toto, he is belligerent, resentful, disruptive, and operates a policy of angry edit reversions without care for the policies he violates. — O'Dea (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quote "he is belligerent" i guess i must be so because you say so

quote "He makes false claims about the content of Wikipedia policies to support his actions" i have made little of claims because i have had to endlessly defend agains datelinking issues in the past and was told in no uncertain terms to just revert such wrongheaded activities - the bad user quotes both WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK neither of which apply to year in articles which are for the millionth time i have to state "INSTRINSICALLY DATE ORIENTED WORKS AND ARE THEREBY EXEMPT"--S-d n r (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for edit warring per their admission and block evasion. Tiderolls 06:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vandalism only account

Attack of the boomerang; OP indef-blocked by User:DeltaQuad. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, could someone please block user Nehapant19. Removing my article deletion nominaton and vandalising 100 crore club article for a long time.--Joyceevan (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Johnny Squeaky and "Trivia"

Matter closed; see below. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johnny Squeaky seems to feel that many sections (especially "In popular culture" sections) should instead be labelled with the less precise/less descriptive "Trivia". Some of these sections do need to be cleaned up (often as indiscriminate listing of occurrences under WP:IPC). Numerous discussions with him have demonstrated what I believe is a clear consensus against these changes, after much name calling and labeling of much of the discussion as "threats" and "bullying".[81][82][83] SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have *not* had "numerous" discussions with me on this subject. Yes, you have threatened to have me blocked, you have threatened to bring me up on charges here, but discussion? Nope, you have never attempted to engaged me in quality meaningful discussion on any Talk Page on this subject, in a friendly way.

Now back on subject, "Trivia" is not "less precise/less descriptive", "In Popular Culture" is non-descriptive and inaccurate, simply a "more polite" synonym. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in defense of his preferred version resulted in locking an article and a warning[84] and a block.[85] SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, I do not like "edit waring" at all, and usually end up losing to powerful editors with connections. But the fact is, "In Popular Culture" is a disingenuous term for the more accurate "Trivia", used to avoid the "stigma" of calling trivia what it is. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Additionally, but a bit off topic, I cautioned him against making repeated unsubstantiated claims that another editor was using socks. Squeaky was later identified as using a sock.) SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is off topic and not the subject of this discussion. You comment is inappropriate, and essentially "bad mouthing" as it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Shame on you, especially since you just accused *me* of threats and name calling. Wow. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this [86][87], I'm done. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in "edit waring" about this, but serious discussion about what is "trivia" and what is "In Popular Culture" is not going on. Factually, much of what is titled "In Popular Culture" is in fact trivia, and the Leona Helmsley article is a perfect example: The section titled "In Popular Culture" is clearly a random list of "factoids", otherwise known as "trivia", and it should be honestly labeled and tagged as such. The reason that people tend to lable "trivia" as "In Popular Culture" is that "trivia" is discouraged. But if "In Popular Culture" is used as a synonym to get around proper and honest ladling of trivia as "trivia", is this correct? Isn't that just a dishonest subterfuge? Seriously, I'm not the one trying to include "discouraged" content, and insisting on mislabeling it as something that it is not. If certain editors don't like "trivia", perhaps they should work it into the article or get rid of it, not badmouth me for bringing some honesty to the subject. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is not what to call the sections, but whether or not there is a consensus that you do not hear and are editing against. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is *exactly* what to call sections: If it's trivia, the section should be called "Trivia" and tagged with the "trivia" tag. And as to "consensus", you, sir, have exactly zero discussions on the article pages you have started "edit wars" with me on this subject that show any "consensus" for your point of view. It's simply amazing to read you keep bringing up "consensus" for this article or that when in fact you have none. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it takes *two* to "edit war", and User:SummerPhD seems to enjoy following me around Wikipedia and starting them. Some might call this an obsession, other might call it "stalking", I call it annoying and unproductive. User:SummerPhD likes to make threats and bring things up here, but has *NEVER* engaged me politely on a Talk Page to discuss my edits. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Squeaky, you know from experience that a single editor can edit war against several other editors who only revert once or twice. It doesn't always take two to edit war. As a matter of fact, that's exactly the sort of behavior that led to you being blocked in October. And yet you continue this tendentious editing pattern, with all the bolds and asterisks and italics, insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps it is time for a topic ban for you on "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JS, can you refrain from inserting your comments in to the middle of someone elses? Such discussion style tends to confuse more than it helps, particularly when the discussion grows long with multiple replies as we would frequently expect at ANI. Also SPhD is correct this discussion should have nothing to do with what to call the sections. That's a WP:Content dispute so not something that would be dealt with at ANI but instead via one of the methods outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. The actions of participants in that content dispute can of course be scrutinised (and this will be their conduct, in other words largely seperate from whether people agree or disagree with the end result of their actions). I haven't looked enough at any actions here to comment specifically, but as I said a few sections above, someone who repeatedly make mass changes to a large number of articles when it's clear that they lack any sort of consensus for said changes is almost definitely behaving WP:Disruptively and should resonably be expected to be blocked or topic banned or both. Others shouldn't edit war over such changes, but reversion of them a single time will generally be acceptable per WP:BRD. If the person keeps making those changes, thats when the block or topic ban starts to come in. As for the sockpuppet issue, while it's largely an aside and people's previous behaviour shouldn't always be brought up particularly when it's largely irrelevant, you also cannot resonably expect your previous behaviour to be always ignored, even if it's largely distinct from any current problems. Definitely mentioning that someone has been proven to have violated WP:SOCK in the past if that claim is correct, is quite different from someone repeatedly making unsubtaniated claims of sockpuppetry. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained previously (more than once), it took several to edit war: you and the several editors you reverted who disagreed with you. When you take actions that generate warnings and see all warnings as uncivil threat, you will see lots of "uncivil threats" (from lots of editors). To my tired eyes, all of my comments on your talk page, my talk page and various article talk pages seem to be civil. That you and I have repeatedly disagreed on this topic does not mean that I have not engaged you politely or discussed the issue. As you see me as part of the cabal of thugs with connections to all of the right editors out to get you, there is no way that I could possibly convince you otherwise. - SummerPhD (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer, I'm not here to discuss your bullying (see your off-topic discussion above), nor get off into railroading on the subject of "edit waring". As you have the "connections", you can and will have me blocked if you choose to do so, I accept that. The real subject here is Trivia.

The fact is, "consensus" about trivia in one article, one context, does not extend across all articles and all contexts. Saying, as you have, that there is "consensus" Wikipedia-wide that "Trivia" will not be used is misleading and untrue. The fact is, "Trivia" is no more (or less) than "discouraged" as clearly supported by the fact that a "trivia" tag exists. The issue is honesty. The issue is not labeling trivia as "In Popular Culture" when it is more accurately described as "trivia". The issue is that "In Popular Culture" is in many (not all) cases a disingenuous synonym for "Trivia", used for the sake of appearances to make it look more serious, when it's just trivia.

It's clear you folks don't really want to have meaningful discussion about this, but would rather bully your view. That's fine, it doesn't reflect negatively on me, I'm ready to have friendly discussion, within the context of each article as to the appropriateness withing the context of that article (as it the proper way to do it). But I know that you folks have already made up your mind to block me, so why not just do it and get it out of the way? Since you folks don't seem to want to engage in actual discussion of what is the real subject here, it's pointless for me to waste more time on it. And it's really too bad, railroading might "feel good" in a narcissistic way, but it really is not productive. =//= Johnny Squeaky 08:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have not said that "Trivia" will be used, this discussion is about whether or not you are hearing the consensus repeatedly demonstrated that sections about subjects' impact on popular culture are called "In popular culture" and are editing against that consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What view? I haven't expressed an opinion on what the section should be called and frankly I haven't thought about it enough to care. As I indicated in my first response, if you think that anyone opposed to your actions is automatically opposed to your idea, then you clearly don't understand how wikipedia works and that's your problem and not going to help you achieve consensus. And I don't know your history, but it sounds like you've been to ANI before so you should have known before my reply if not definitely after my reply, that ANI is not the place to engage in such a discussion.

If you want to engage in discussion on the subject, you should start such a centralised discussion in an appropriate place rather than trying to change articles enmass hoping no one will notice and then accusing people of being uncivil or blaming them for following you when they object. But such a discussion will need to take place before your edits, and if you keep carrying out your edits while the discussion is taking place or before you have consensus, you shouldn't be surprised if people get too distracted or just don't bother to discuss the issue. In fact, while a localised consensus may not necessarily speak to a wider consensus, if you have a localised consensus against your actions that's an even bigger sign you need to either seek such a wider consensus for them or give up on your edits, not move on to some other article which you think may be unwatched and try your luck.

In other words, if anyone is trying to railroad something, it clearly isn't the other participants. And BTW, you're wrong about the other thing as well. As I said, I know little of your history. Sorry to say, what I've seen hasn't given me reason to think you being blocked would be a great loss to wikipedia, but by the same token I also haven't seen enough to make me think wikipedia would be better off with your blocked. (Unlike say the editor discussed in the the topic below who from the little I've seen we probably would be better of losing. Although I'm by no means blaming the admins involved for not indefing them yet.) All I want is for you to stop your edits and either achieve consensus for them and continue or not do so and don't repeat them. In either case, I would hope you'd then go on to make great contributions to wikipedia, in which case I'd be happy you weren't blocked. Of course if you continue to make mass changes without consensus then I can't help calling for a topic ban or block, but it's not something I want to happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While "In popular culture" sections do often include trivia, they equally often include commentary about the influence or the culture impact of a work or person which is of encyclopedic value. Ideally our aim should be to reduce or remove the trivia while leaving in the encylopedic stuff, so changing the titles of these sections is counter-productive: i) it doesn't address the presence of trivia itself; ii) naming these sections "trivia" actually encourages the addition of more trivia! If Johnny really wants to be part of the solution in tackling trivia on Wikipedia then he needs to realize that renaming these sections is not helping. I think a ban from retitling trivia/popular culture sections is the order of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jonny knows perfectly well that this has been going on for over two years with at least six editors repeatedly stating that he does not have consensus to add trivia tags. The following are a few from this year. [88] [89] [90] [91] Also socking and constantly edit warring [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]. He goes by the name of Donny Squeaky and Ronny Squeaky and many other titles. He is not listening or hearing other editors and shows no desire to take on board what any one else says after dozens of repeated efforts. I'm not sure what point there is in a topic ban. This isn't about trivia, this about not respecting the guidelines of the community and the inability to work as part of a group. He was blocked again until Dec 25 and the minute it comes off he starts on the same "I can't hear you" routine. He is a patently disruptive editor who needs an indefinite ban. Span (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jonny Squeaky's plea that no editors want to enter into 'proper discussion' here is one of the many attempts, after which he carried on regardless. (also linked above) Span (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban of Squeaky changing any section heading to 'trivia' and adding any trivia tags would stop the immediate problem which from what I've read mostly relates to this. If the problem extends to discussion in this area, then the topic ban could likewise be extended to discussion in this area. It's possible Squeaky would then repeat the poor behaviour in other areas or simply not respect the topic ban, such behaviour would likely lead to an indef block or community ban if it continues. On the other hand, there may be merit to simply blocking now. I was simply wanting to point out that if an editor refuses to either accept the community consensus or accept the need for consensus in a specific area or is otherwise making problems in a specific area, they can be told to leave that area in the hope (vain or not) that they will be less problematic in other areas (it helps if they're already demonstrated this which I'm not sure is the case here). Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Johnny has a long history of 1) changing section headings (mostly IPC, but also others) to "Trivia" 2) edit-warring with the multiple people who revert his edits 3) accusing everyone who disagrees with him of offenses ranging from COI to sockpuppetry, with little to no supporting evidence 4) alternately removing attempts at discussion from his talk page, or going on rants that do not serve to advance any understanding. The edit-warring and battleground behaviours also extend beyond the "Trivia" issue, as for example in this discussion. Perhaps a 1RR restriction would be helpful, although the "discussion" tactics also need to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Trivia must be determined *article by article* unless *UNLESS* there is a policy statement from the Wikilords that "trivia" is unlawful. That "In Popular Culture" is OK as a synonym for "trivia" for *one* article does not propagate to all. Folks are trying to say because it was decided for X article, it's automatically good for all, and this is just a silly idea. Context is important. And again, thanks guys for making this "personal" when it's not. It just shows the kind if bias that develops with the "in crowd", and why Wikipedia is regularly trashed in the media. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll agree that SummerPhD has a tendency to be an aggressively creepy WikiStalker, you should probably read WP:HTRIVIA more carefully, and when in doubt, post a note on the talk page letting other users comment on your proposed changes. Some people are sensitive about their indiscriminate triviacruft "in popular culture" sections--personally, I like to get rid of them with the finesse of a surgeon doing brain surgery with a shovel. But exercise a little good sense, make the effort at being transparent about your intentions and what you propose to do on the talk page (most of them aren't even read...after a week, no response, take it as a tacit approval. if your proposal is resisted, kick rocks for a few weeks be patient and raise the issue again in a month and maybe the consensus will change), and take care of it according to WP:HTRIVIA. Wikipedia doesn't benefit from "trivia" unless it has an encyclopaedic purpose that elaborates on the meaning of the subject. Most trivia is bullshit that should be deleted. However, you're acting a little too much like a cowboy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is about working with Wikipedia guidelines and listening to other editors. Accusations of conspiracy and backscratching WikiLords abound. This is nothing to do with an 'in crowd'. Span (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but my experiences with Johnny suggest an attitude of WP:IDHT and a lack of interest in abiding by consensus if he feels he knows better. He also has what I'd consider a non-helpful though admittedly technically non-actionable pattern of simply blanking his Talk page which, coupled with his editing patterns, suggest to me that he's not so much interested in collaborating with his fellow editors as trying to force through his own views. Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree that a topic ban seems a reasonable course of action if Johnny is unwilling to acknowledge any wrongdoing and/or agree to make more of an effort to procure consensus for his changes. I led what I would call an overly-detailed discussion on the subject on one article (the specific article escapes me at present) to ensure that Johnny's changes didn't have consensus, only to have him disregard the findings in any case (I believe that led to a block). DonIago (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here's two instances of Johnny being blocked for edit-warring: [104], [105]. The second one relates to the discussion I felt we shouldn't have needed to have at Talk:Soylent Green. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

PASSED

Per community consensus, Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs) is restricted to the one-revert rule throughout the project, and is prohibited from changing the title of section headings to "Trivia", broadly construed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFaraone (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 January 2014‎

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

In order to resolve the issues discussed above, I propose the following restriction, appealable to the community: Johnny Squeaky cannot change any section heading to "Trivia". He is further to observe a one-revert rule in all situations.

Support as proposer. Ping SummerPhD, Johnny Squeaky, , Cullen³²⁸ Nil Einne, Betty Logan, Span, ColonelHenry, DonIago. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless Johnny is willing to a) acknowledge that he has been making edits without consensus and b) agree that he will not make any further edits of this nature without beginning an appropriate dialogue first (I'd define appropriate as, at minimum, a Talk page conversation that involves at least two additional editors, and ideally a project page conversation). DonIago (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sensible proposal. I'd also add that "Trivia" is such a bad section header because it is s cheaply unencyclopaedic. I echo DonIago in admonishing Johnny to always to attempt consensus before such potentially problematic edits, first on the talk page and reaching out to relevant project pages...use the one-week rule as I mentioned above. If trivia can't be incorporated in the article properly, it should be removed. But reckless antics such as this do nothing to further dialogue regarding the merits of such content. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A useful restriction, given this editor's continued behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a ban on any edits to do with 'popular culture' and 'trivia' though I doubt it with make him less deaf to others. Behaviour with socks, edit warring and conspiracy accusations suggests to me that the editor neither understands / agrees with the basic way WP works. Span (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been going on long enough, and a topic ban is worth trying before a block. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is clearly time for these restrictions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support After looking at this user's edit history and behavior in the above discussion, this seems to be the only solution that might be workable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we seem to have a consensus, and I'm not aware of any admins having an issue with this proposal (they haven't said anything?), and I'd like to see this acted on rather than archived due to inactivity, I guess I'm both bouncing this and hoping that we can move it forward. I apologize if I'm out of line here. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serious personal attack against a teenager

Indef-blocked by User:Jac16888 (and while I don't necessarily agree with editors telling each other to "shut up" on here, your comments do sound pretty cold, CombatWombat). (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a serious personal attack against an editor. I want to draw AN's attention as Soham is a youngster (most probably 14 years old). Some sites including Facebook give special attention in such cases.Tito☸Dutta 10:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that editors who make those sort of personal attacks deserve to be blocked, but I fear the community as a whole disagrees with me. St Anselm (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I completely agree with you. In addition, I just discovered, I don't know how we protect under 18 editors here in Wikipedia. Do we have any special page? If we have please direct me to that page. If it becomes irrelevant here, you may post at my talk page too. Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 10:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC) This seems to be the page Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors Tito☸Dutta 10:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)May I point to the unblock request made by this editor the last time they were blocked. Editors should not have to put up with this sort of abuse.Flat Out let's discuss it 10:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to pontificate about child protection, it might be a good idea to avoid speculating about the ages of other Wikipedians.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes I am 15, I have no reservations about revealing my age here. I don't know how to react. Most probably I'll go into retirement, a decision I've been toying around lately. I have requested for this editor to be blocked by the last blocking admin on grounds of personal attack here. Soham 10:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked for a week (again). However, things are different now, and it is extremely likely that a repeat of the attack on you would result in them being indefinitely blocked. My suggestion would be to ignore the issue and let others deal with it. Looking for the positive side of this incident, I'm afraid that one encounters out-of-the-blue nonsense like this in real life as well, although probably in an entirely different form, and it is important to deal with stuff like this by pretending to be unaffected. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I hate to say it, but this is one of the great failings of Wikipedia. Surely he should have been blocked for more than a week. Aren't blocks supposed to escalate if editors haven't learned their lessons? But I fear we have developed a culture in which personal attacks and abusive language are regarded as normal. St Anselm (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In his last block request he says " I am ordering you, whoever who blocked me, unblock or i'll find u and beat you up in front of your mother." That block was also for one week and obviously didn't do the trick. This block should be extended to a month at least, if not indefinitely. N^oformation ^Talk 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your age and saying things like "probably I'll go into retirement" make me think you are just whining for attention(Ironically something teenagers are known for). To me you are starting to sound like a WP:DIVA CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is nothing but a bully, pure and simple. The concept of escalating blocks means the block must be in line with the escalation process, as this editor clearly doesn't get that their online abuse towards others is not acceptable on the project ES &L 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef Block - a week is not enough and now we have testimony that uncivil behavior chases editors away. I would also support a ban- MrX 14:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely - since when do we go easy on such people? Deb (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barring an extremely sincere and profuse apology, yea, this user has to be shown the block door. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Should be indeffed, not here to build an encyclopaedia and incapable of getting along with others. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Indef. I don't get why everybody is pussyfooting around here, had I seen that unblock request above I would have indeffed then, that attack is inexcuseable (although I would say the age of the person being attacked, or the attacker for that matter, is irelevant.)--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we care about an editors age (I could not possibly care less personally), we need to treat it like we would any other fact here on Wikipedia, we would need proof. Otherwise every time someone gets their feeling hurt or wants to win an argument they could just say "I'm under age, you should be more harsh to this guy." CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Jac16888 has hit the nail on the head with his reasoning. I will say that Soham's old username showed his age, but agree that it is irrelevant; what is relevant is that he is an enthusiastic young editor who I'm seen acting more maturely than people three times his age. CombatWombat, please shut up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probable sock

Indef-blocked as well due to block evasion. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It appears that Anice has now started socking, RoshniBaby (talk · contribs) & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This edit is pretty incriminating.

Looks like a duck to me. - Mr X 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm> But wait, it can't be the same person because their virtually identical userpages say that Roshni is from Panaji and Anice is from Kottayam </sarcasm>. I have sockblocked Roshni indef, and I suspect we will need to be on the lookout for more--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk page block request

OP blocked indefinitely by only as a case of WP:NOTHERE. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request a talk page block of user Flat Out for her several edits to my talk page. I have discussed the nature of her vandalism with her. Rather than behaving reasonably, she has actually misused the Wikipedia warning notices, in opposition to Wikipedia staff. Because Flat Out's behavior is persistent, it must be more than a "cool-down" block. Speling12345 (talk) 1:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Speling12345 is a persistent disruptive editor, and following a block release has engaged in edit warring and trolling the talk pages of every editor that as reverted one of their edits. Goodnight. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I ask staff to take appropriate actions against the person vandalizing my talk page. Speling12345 (talk) 1:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You're both edit warring, stop it. Please read WP:Edit warring, WP:3RR and WP:Talk page guidelines. Tiderolls 13:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, my reverts are for vandalism and disruptive editing. Diffs of dispruptive talk page posts include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have discussed the vandalism with that person Flat Out, I am not satisfied with a request for both to stop. Speling12345 (talk) 1:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You can both stop or you can both be blocked. Read the pages linked in my previous post. Tiderolls 13:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to include the details directly. Ok. Tell me the details clearly so I can have that person blocked in line with Wikipedia's recommendations for blocking. Speling12345 (talk) 1:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You reverted them to excess or their user talk and they did the same on yours. Not the end of the world but very silly in appearance. Move on. I have to believe both of you have better things to do. Tiderolls 13:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "move on" mean? If you are not willing to enforce the block, I will ask a staff member other than you to enforce Wikipedia policy against an offensive person. Speling12345 (talk) 1:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no staff, but someone may come along and respond to your request for more opinion. In the meantime, if you continue to edit war I will block your account. Tiderolls 13:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no staff. Speling12345 (talk) 1:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling12345, you might also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. And, please stop signing your posts with a time that doesn't match up with the Wikipedia system time. The time is current 13:36; please stop signing your posts as 12 hours later. only (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only, what do you mean by, also? Are you going to enforce the talk page block for me? Speling12345 (talk) 1:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that in calling the attention of us to the actions of others, you're calling our attention to your own actions which are currently putting you on a path towards another block for disruption. only (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only, that is a very useful, or, specific, answer. But there is no mention of assistance in your reply to me. Speling12345 (talk) 1:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Speling12345 was referred to the talk page guidelines before his/her block, but has continued with a series of nonsense posts to user and article pages.[106][107][108]

After I reverted one of Speling12345's edits, he/she asked whether I had ever edited the Albino page (huh?) and proceeded to revert my six most recent edits, including removing relevant talk page comments and deleting sourced content. He/she is indeed persistently disruptive. Kanguole 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiries regarding gender and pigmentation have now been supplemented with this. Block approaching. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be kind of staff to ignore the intrusive and irregular reply of Kanguole, he or she was not related to Flat Out, unless he or she is a sock puppet. Speling12345 (talk) 1:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Speling12345's account indefinitely as it is clear that he is not here to contribute and is just going to continue being disruptive/immature. User:Tide rolls, I see you placed a warning to him as I was blocking him and that he did respond. If you feel I acted too quickly or you think he deserves a second chance, you're welcome to consider it, but I think that this is the appropriate action at this time. only (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems in your action, only. I was holding off acting as it appeared I was making no headway with them in this thread. I just wanted to make sure they had every opportunity. Tiderolls 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think plenty of WP:ROPE was given. Thanks for your efforts with him, only (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:COI and legal threats at Oklahoma City Energy FC

COI accounts indef-blocked for legal threats (among other things); article semi-protected. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oklahoma City Energy FC and the related Oklahoma City Barons have been hit recently by a spate of edits overtly connected to the teams' ownership group, Prodigal LLC: Prodigal llc (talk · contribs · count) and Sportsismylife87 (talk · contribs · count) have been blocked already, but a new one, Prodigal MGT (talk · contribs · count) turned up this morning making the same edits. In addition to blanking sourced content for unspecified accuracy concerns, the accounts have also been making legal threats.[109][110]--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigal llc was already blocked for the user name. I have blocked Sportsismylife87 indefinitely for the legal threats (it had already been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring). I blocked Prodigal MGT indefinitely for the username violation (and edit warring). I've also given the page a week's worth of semi-protection to protect it from any new accounts. I think that should cover it. only (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Portillo and football (soccer)

Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically changing references of [[association football|soccer]] to [[football (soccer)|football]] in articles relating to the Australian game. This is a a problem for a number of reasons. Firstly when placed in prose, Australian football is ambiguous given Australian Football is the official name for Australian rules football and football is used by a number of sports in Australia. Secondly the user has no consensus for this change. There has been a long running debate at Soccer in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Football in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is at best deadlocked and at worst leaning in favour of soccer as the name of the game in Australia. Thirdly, [[football (soccer)|football]] points to a redirect rather than the association football page. The user refuses to engage and continues on their way. I would like to go back and change these back but I'm not entirely sure what to change back to - I would appreciate some administrative assistance in resolving this issue. Hack (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am somewhat involved as I have taken part in a few RMs related to this issue. However, for what it's worth, as the relevant article about the sport in Australia is currently located at Soccer in Australia, then it seems sensible to conclude that 'soccer' is the most appropriate term and therefore should be used. Changing it en masse to 'football' - and yes, this user is fully aware of the issues around this topic - is nothing but disruptive. And changing the target article from 'association football' to 'football (soccer)' i.e. from a direct link to a redirect is just baffling, and raises questions about this user's competency. Giant Snowman 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too think competency is an issue here, or at least an unwillingness to cooperate enough to be a helpful Wikipedia editor. None of the hundreds of changes that have led to this report were accompanied by an Edit summary, despite requests to do so. The user has also failed to respond at all in words to requests at both the Talk pages of some of the articles, and on his own Talk page. He did respond to my comments on his Talk page, by simply deleting them. So we have a completely uncommunicative editor making mass changes against consensus, and in defiance of multiple requests to cease and desist. Because he won't communicate, we have no idea why he's doing it either. All very weird. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the user in question has taken actions into his own hands in relation to discussions to change the usage of "soccer" to "football". On the last point made by Hack, "I would like to go back and change these back but I'm not entirely sure what to change back to", there is a strong desire to change the usage of "soccer" to an alternative, a desire which is currently applicable to the sport. Although HiLo48 has concluded that the topic of naming has been sufficiently discussed, I would disagree with him; I would request that the issue of naming be again looked at. GiantSnowman, you say you have been somewhat involved with the topic, what would you recommend? That the topic be again discussed, or that we draw the line, whip in hand?--2nyte (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will continue to disagree with me that three failed RfCs is enough to demonstrate a pretty solid consensus for as long as you refuse to accept that consensus, which seems likely to be forever. That contribution of yours does not help resolve this present issue at all. In response to Hack's question on changing the articles back, the obvious thing to do is to simply reverse every one of Portillo's undiscussed edits. The longer term (re)naming issue is for discussion elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What outcome are you seeking HiLo48? For Portillo to receive a slap on the wrist and for the ~500 edits to be reverted? What about all the other users (myself included) that fail to use "soccer"? Will we get blocked form editing for 'vandalism' or 'bad faith edits'? This must be resolved. If you look at the facts plainly and simply they show that we need a compromise that is not "soccer". The three failed RfCs did not properly acknowledged the topic and on all three accounts a rather forceful decision was made. It's no longer enough to say "in Australia, it's soccer" because for many, it simply isn't.--2nyte (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply wanted the massive number of article changes to cease. Portillo did stop around an hour after this thread began, but still hasn't communicated with anybody, so one must question his competence to edit here. If that leads to a block, so be it. We have no real idea why he was doing it, nor really why stopped. He could therefore start again at any moment. Obviously the edits must be reverted. Is there an easy way to do that? I don't know. I'll ignore the rest of your post. It's just you using yet another soapbox to push your POV against a triple consensus. Please stick to the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hack & Hilo are biased anti-football supporters of Project AFL, a project where more time is spent stopping the official name for football in Australia being used by creating false consensus based on what one city in Australia (Melbourne) prefers to use as a nickname for Australian modified Gaelic Football, and creating pointless articles that duplicate specific articles simply to give them a platform for their hatred of Football, than on the actual subject of their project (ie, the AFL). Football is the official name of the sport in Australia, is used at every level of administration, is used as the proper name for the sport in the majority of the country both in common use and in the media, while the other major sports in Australia all have their own official name, which is emphatically not football. They have Rugby League, Rugby Union, and Australian Rules. Yet Hilo belives that only Football should be forced to use an uncommon nickname while the other sports can use their own official names. Hilo has been on a crusade for years to prevent the cultural changes in Australian sport, the media and in common life using the word football being replicated on Wikipedia. Even on articles specifically about teams who play football in the A-League, which is the Australian football competition run by Football Federation Australia, and that play in the Asian Football Confederation Champions League, the AFL Project continue to vandalise, disrupt and attack people who only want to use the correct, official name of the sport in their articles. Users Hack & Hilo should be banned from disrupting the football community on wikipedia and be told to stick to their own Australian modified Gaelic Football league articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a background, Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted mentions of [[association football|soccer]] to [[association football|football]], suggesting vandalism on the part of other users who happen to be members of WP:AFL.[111][112] For disclosure, I'm a member of WP:AFL, WP:FOOTBALL and WP:FSIA. Hack (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is false consensus and biased editors trying to jam their non-neutral POV down the throat of articles completely unrelated to the AFL, or even Melbourne itself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the above is a true representation of the case. User Hack and Hilo should have received a topic ban well and truly by now based on the simple fact that they refuse to accept the weight of evidence regarding the ongoing shift away from soccer and towards football in Australia. I as well as many other editors have tried to establish this with supporting evidence, while Hilo in particular continues to ignore verifiability while instead promoting a POV argument that does not reflect the evidence based naming shift that has occurred in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes the name has been shifted from Soccer to Football by the sports governing body, the term Football is ambigious and will remain so currently the use of football if assigned to any sport would be Australian Rules as that clearly meets the requirements of WP:Primary Topic for the term Football... but that isnt total relevant here the issue is Portillo actions clearly they are pushing a disambiguation term that isnt acceptable to 90% of all editors involved in the subject matter and using an automated to achieve 3-4 edits per minute, noting that the user isnt on the list authorised for AWB. The user lack of responding to any requests I think a block would be an appropriate action at this stage. Gnan garra 07:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some sanity. Hack and I are among the editors who understand the evidence that has three times in the past couple of years led to Administrators closing RfCs in favour of the name Soccer in Australia. (I wonder if Orestes wants those Admins banned too?) A handful of "soccer should be called football" campaigners have refused to accept that ruling (three times!) and now routinely and vexatiously re-open discussions and throw abuse around. No new evidence has been presented, just the same evidence, rudely and repetitively. These editors are possibly the cause of Portillo's weird behaviour over the past couple of days, by giving him the idea that what he did would be OK. They certainly aren't accepting consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, if we want sanity to prevail then there is a double edged sword here and it clearly shows that you have a history of not being civil to other users, myself included. Nor am I perfect, however, neither is HiLo48. Although unlike HiLo48 I have not received a ban due to lack of civility in the past. While I agree in principle that what Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did was not the best way of managing this and I agree with any necessary ramifications, there is more to it than the above. There is a concerted agenda of meat puppetry and consensus stacking in order to promote the agenda that the sport of soccer has no place being called football, even in concern to internationally recognised Australian players such as Lucas Neill and Tim Cahill in order to push the POV argument that these players and other Australian based articles should refer to the sport of soccer and not football. Moreover there is also an ongoing push to neglect the recent history of the sport and the change in official name from soccer to football. Promoting the agenda that this is one sided is hardly correct by any stretch of the imagination --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh corks, this again. I'll try and give some background here.

The two most popular football codes in Australia are Australian Rules Football and Rugby League Football, with the country divided by what is know as "the Barassi line". Less popular but with significant followings are Rugby Union Football and Association Football. Throughout the world, "Association Football" is usually referred to as just "football", except in a few countries where not the main football code. Examples are the USA and Australia, where "Association Football" is usually called "soccer".

I personally dislike the term "soccer", and try not to use it. It annoys people from countries where Association Football is the main football code (ie: almost everywhere). To me its Oxford "-er" is suggestive of a distinction between "rugger" (the game played by toffs) and "soccer" (the game played by commoners).

In Australia there has been a recent push to establish "football" as having the primary meaning "Association Football". Some examples:

Soccer Australia was re-named Football Federation Australia in 2005. (The modern predecessor organizations all had the word "Soccer" in their names)
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's website's sport home page has these navigation links:

News Home • Sport Home • Just In • Cricket • Football • Rugby Union • Rugby League • AFL • More

But. It hasn't really caught on. Maybe in a decade or so, who knows? For now, and like it or not, in Australia "Association Football" is most commonly known as "soccer".

As for this being a "Melbourne conspiracy", I've lived half my life above the "Barassi line" (if you count time overseas). I love the fact the A-League is played as a summer sport (so as not to be in competition with the Australian Rules and Rugby League) and I can listen to one of my favourite football codes on the radio during the Cricket season.

One may as well try and rename "Soccer mom" to "Football mom" or "Raw Like Sushi" to "Raw Like Sashimi".

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately soccer mom is an anachronism like the US english spelling that gives it away. You are also right, I like many others including yourself try to avoid using the word soccer in conversation unless necessary. As the FFA said when they rebranded the sport, cited in context, it's not supposed to catch on over night. On the issue broadly however, I look at it from an academic perspective and while the word soccer may be a common name, the cut and dry perspective is that it is no longer the correct name. We have to look at this as to whether we want Wikipedia to represent the currently accepted official name, correctly as it is. Or whether we want to use a term that for all intents and purposes has been scrubbed out. I have suggested a few compromises Association football (soccer) and its variants in the past with a redirect to soccer. I have no agenda as Hilo48 would suggest other than to represent this particular article as it should be rather than via a term that has been put aside officially. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told numerous times, the official name isn't always the most appropriate name per WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIG. Football is ambiguous in the Australian context, therefore a commonly known alternative is required. It's not a difficult concept. Hack (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is redundant when there are 3 other "football" codes articles that use the term football and yet the one sport that actually uses the name football proper in this country has no entitlement to it. It's this kind of illogical, irrational behaviour that leads to the reaction I don't agree with by Portillo. I may not be able to agree with it but I can rationalise with why they reacted in such a manner --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, the current community consensus - whether you agree or not - is that the sport of association football on Australia should be known on Wikipedia as 'soccer' - it really is that simple. If/when that changes (although looking at the recent RFCs, some of which I participated in, such a change is unlikely to happen anytime soon) then we can change the terminology. But for now, 'soccer' should be used. Giant Snowman 11:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just coming back to the changes by Portillo, I was disappointed that the editor ignored attempts to discuss the issue. However, I don't feel that a block is in order - it is done, and unless Portillo starts up again, a block now would be punitive, although I'd be willing to consider one again if the issue starts up again. I'm inclined, though, to revert the changes, unless there is some opposition. I don't necessarily like the prior state, but given the intensity of the naming dispute, we're not going to get consensus to use a single term in the immediate future unless we do something extreme. Thus it seems that the best option is to return things to how they were, and then to discuss whether or not a single term has current consensus. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of variants used including [[soccer]], [[association football]], [[association football|soccer]], [[association football|football (soccer)]]. I would suggest there be some sort of uniform usage such as [[association football|soccer]]. Hack (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the results of the last RfC, which is the nearest thing we have to a current consensus, I'd agree with you. But as this is likely to be disputed, my thought was that it might be best to just revert now, leave the articles as inconsistent, and then try to work out what term to use. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus is invalid, falsely declared by a biased group of people who aren't working in the best interests of Wikipedia, but instead are working for the best interests of a single sport played in a major capacity in only one city of one state of one single country. The various sports all have their own specific official titles used on Wikipedia. Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league, American football. Wikipedia has an official policy of referring to Football as Association football, most often shown as Football. Yet Project AFL continue to push for just one of these sports to be denied the use of the official name of the sport OR what the worldwide consensus on wikipedia is on naming the same sport. The AFL project continue to create a false consensus that somehow it is 'confusing' if Football is used alongside the official names for other sports Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league & American football. Their claim comes down to their belief that people from one city in Australia (Melbourne) should be coddled because they are too stupid to understand the clear and obvious differences between Association football, Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league & American football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo blocked for 48 hours. Aside from the disruption detailed here, he simultaneously (1) didn't respond to any of the allegations made here, and (2) just kept on going with the link changes. GiantSnowman, I'm guessing that the football (soccer) links were to facilitate quicker work, since you can simply type [[football (soccer)|]] and get a link displaying as "football". Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just unblocked. I failed to check the contribution history — he "ignored" this ANI thread because his last edit was some ten hours before this thread was filed. The editing is still highly problematic, and I would suggest that someone else reimpose a block simply because enough disruption has been demonstrated here. However, I can't allow my own block to stand when it was based on a pretty blatant misunderstanding. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo's actions, though overly bold, are symptomatic of the poisonous atmosphere surrounding this matter. "Soccer" is definitely the term in common parlance Australia-wide, but we can't use anecdotes to support our articles, and when I see the major media outlets calling it "Football", the names of the various organising bodies using "Football" rather than "Soccer", I think that if we need reliable sources, they mostly fall on the Football side of the line. Substitution of wikipolicy with personal attacks is no answer. This whole matter is a running sore, an embarrassment to us all. --Pete (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer is not the common name. F

Responding to Bilby's post at 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) - I support such an approach. Portillo seems to have stopped his misbehaviour, so that half of the problem is fixed for the moment. The other half is deciding what we do about all the changes he made. Given that they were done without discussion or agreement with anyone else, the logical thing to do right now is just reverse his actions. The debate over what the name should be long term can continue elsewhere (I somehow suspect it will), but we cannot wait for resolution of that discussion before we sort out this mess. So, can Portillo's edits be reversed in any automated way? If not, I'm happy to play some part in putting things back in order. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently reminded users Hack and particularly HiLo48. That we CANNOT use anecdotes as evidence under Wikipedia:Verifiability. All of this has fallen on deaf ears. I have consistently ALSO reminded user HiLo48 about Wikipedia:ORIGINAL with regards to his claims. There seems to be an ongoing INTERNAL reference to OR concept of research on the Barrassi Line and its effects on soccer (football) which has no direct reference to soccer (football) ITSELF. This is nothing more than consistent OR and internal self referencing which is used for meat puppetry and consensus stacking. I have consistently reminded HiLo48 of this and have been treated with contempt which goes against Wikipedia:Civility. The constant provocation has at times led me to react improperly, however I digress, if anything HiLo48's consistent lack of civility should be the straw that breaks the camels back here rather than my reaction to an editor who does not understand the concept of Wikipedia:ORIGINAL . The ongoing claim about the Barassi line and its relevance to soccer (football) cannot stand on its own under Wikipedia:ORIGINAL as original research by which a consensus IS being stacked. The tendentious editing and failure to verify broad statements in discussion is an ongoing issue which cannot continue. Any further claims about the Barassi line regarding soccer (football) MUST be verified.--Orestes1984 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these off-topic matters elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not off topic, the reasoning it has gotten this far is extremely similar to the reasoning I continue to have civility related issues with yourself. Furthermore, your consistent statement that the matters at hand RELATING to why this outcome has occurred are "off topic" according to yourself and yourself only, are a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Civility. The matters I am talking about here are directly related to why this event has occurred and WHY they have blown out of proportion. Your use of the passive aggressive line of reasoning, most recently in Talk:Soccer_in_Australia with claims of myself being "off topic" where you have directly referenced me are direct signposts to this kind of irrational, illogical, passive aggressive behaviour. The fact that you continue to deny the fact that the current issues I'm raising are meaningful and pertinently on topic only continue to highlight your problematic nature as an editor. I have previously asked you to simply clarify your position, I have also asked as with Talk:Soccer_in_Australia as to why you brought me into this discussion with much the same result. I have had discussions previously with yourself where I have been responded to with nothing more than "you're talking crap." No this kind of continued activity is exactly why these incidents have been elevated to this level. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place. Not helping here at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this to some sort of conclusion... User:Portillo has made no edits at all on Wikipedia since this thread began, so no more damage has been done, and User:Bilby has reverted all (I think) of Portillo's questionable changes. All we have left is the mystery that Portillo has not communicated at all with anybody on Wikipedia since the dramas began. Presumably he has at least read what has been written on his Talk page, and perhaps here. I think we can all move on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Bilby is still going - there are more to be reverted. Hack (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about more than Portillo's edits. This discussion and the long acrimonious saga on Talk:Soccer in Australia is disruptive and an illustration of what Wikipedia is not about. It's just a name, but goodness me, what a lot of egotism is invested in it! --Pete (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you're replying to but I would suggest that commenting in this thread is not really in the spirit of your interaction ban with User:HiLo48. Hack (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should be done before too long - there have been subsequent edits, so I'm being cautious rather than automatically undoing each edit. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please block ‎Mumbojumbo1000

They already reverted their removal from the talkpage themself. So, discuss ES &L 14:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for action at this time; he did revert at the talk page, but then reverted it back in 2 minutes' time. If he continues to edit war, take it to Wikipedia:AN3. only (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous warnings/harrassment on User talk:Raykyogrou0 and User talk:Sni56996 by User:ONITOPIA (with talk page comment altering)

This user has repeatedly been harassing me and Sni on our talk pages: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6

After warnings for his edits were issued: diff 1 -- me, informing him about posting on sni's talk page diff 2 -- same

Here he struck out said warnings, which I reverted before posting another warning. Apparently, he didn't read WP:TPO so I posted another warning and informed him that deleting comments is fine, but altering the meaning isn't. And again and again. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me point out the report I announced to do on December 26th, 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I felt the need to do so since this Frivolous warnings/harrassment is something I feel done to all users who have a different opinion than User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996, especially in this single case which is the only reason for this dispute User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 are not willing to settle (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring). This Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seems to only be a result of me announcing my report.
User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 kept deleting all warnings directed to them on their Talk pages, so please be sure you check their User Talk page history and their behavior towards all users in the dispute case (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring).
Please make sure to look at the history of all pages since User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 like to alter history to make it look better at first sight. Those who investigate are able to see the truth. Thank you!

--ONITOPIA (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For additional proof for User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 behavior see: User talk:DjScrawl. --ONITOPIA (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I locked both pages involved in the content dispute. I think that you all need to stop templating each other. TALK. Go to each other's pages and write productive messages. Do not just slap templates over each other's talk pages. We are a project based on collaboration and conversation, not WARN WARN WARN WARN. All three of you are now banned from placing warnings on each other's talk pages. The only thing you can place on there is conversations. I'll let others weigh in with more ideas, but you need to stop warning each other and think that's going to solve the issues. only (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked ONITOPIA for one week for disruptive editing, including persistent aggression, personal attacks, and sock puppetry. Although a bit stale, ONITOPIA, has been using IPs at the same time as he is editing to gain the upper hand in disputes on these articles: 46.115.48.6 (talk · contribs) and 46.115.122.181 (talk · contribs). Both are German IP addresses. In addition to the fact that the two IPs "agree" with ONITOPIA, ONITOPIA is apparently German (see [113] - note the user of the word "warnung" instead of warning). As an aside, I do not see the refactoring Raykyogrou0 refers to above; I see only striking, i.e., no changing of meaning. Finally, I express no opinion about the content dispute itself, which, of course, doesn't even belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, (if there is a next time) I will post a normal message instead. But doesn't "striking text constitute a change in meaning"? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user is entitled to remove the warning. Striking it seems to be more "honest" than removal. They're saying they disagree with it but leaving it in place for others to see without checking the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

108.89.165.164 Disruptive Editing

IP blocked for one month by Kuru. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This IP's only contributions seem to be deletion of TV show articles. It has been warned various times and anon-blocked once, but still returned to its previous activities today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbadal (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I agree that something should be done. Not sure exactly what, though, as IP addresses can't be indef-blocked. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a report at WP:AIV. However, since the IP user only made one edit today, they will most likely not be blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)How did an IP get the ability to delete articles??--Auric talk 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Nbadal meant is that the IP blanked the articles, not deleted them. ;) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks like s/he got blocked after all. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page locked by admins violating WP:OWN

BOOMERANG

OP and sock blocked for one month. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocks should not be punitive See also: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment Policy shortcuts: WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE WP:NOPUNISH Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern.

THEY VIOLATED ALL OF THIS. Huon and Ronhjones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.208.235 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating several things. It was determined in this discussion that the page would be a redirect. If you wanted to turn it back into a page on the book, you should've contacted the closing user: Richard-of-Earth (talk · contribs) or gone to WP:DRV.--v/r - T P 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like [114] suggest if a block wasn't deserved before, perhaps it's deserved now. But anyway [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] suggest a block was deserved before, and except for the last one, that's just going by the edit summaries! With that sort of behaviour, don't be surprised if people can't be bothered checking if you have any legitimate concern. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for a month for disruption. Seems like a very long pattern with this user. My block is in no way a comment on the locking of the page, though. If others still want to discuss whether the protection by the other admins was appropriate there, have at it. only (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones semi-protected this page over a week ago, to end an admittedly small-scale edit war and restore the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Game (novel) . There might be an argument for lifting the semi-protection, but there was consensus at the "Articles for Deletion" page for this to be a redirect as an article on an unreleased book was premature. Rather than posting here can I suggest if you think there's sufficient secondary sources to justify an article on this book, you raise a discussion at Talk:The Dresden Files and see if other editors agree. If there's broad agreement, you'll be in a better position to overturn the decision at the "Articles for Deletion" page. Alternatively you can wait for the book to be released and then write the article. Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've added a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Game (novel) at Talk:Skin Game (novel). It's only semi-protected - I note someone tried to change it to an article six days ago, and also get reverted (and not by me or User:Huon). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones violated WP:SEMIPROTECT by semiprotecting the page in response to an edit war when the policy states that full protection should be used (although IAR might apply), and possibly violated WP:INVOLVED. Good block though. Dark Sun (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with WP:IAR if used correctly - the edit war was down to an IP on a dynamic address - thus obvious choice is a semi- protect (yes - block the IP, and 10 minutes later he will be back!). As for involved, I can't even remember why I went to the page in the first place - it not a subject of mine - The only thing that would have taken me there would be a report at AIV or my talk page or OTRS - and I can't see any obvious link there. I must have read the page for a while as I used Twinkle to add some tags - Twinkle then added them after User:Huon had reverted back to a redirect (sadly, pages don't update on your PC while your read them!), so I had to self revert - hence the strange editing at 22:11 on the 19th. C'ést la vie Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used admin tools on Skin Game (novel) or regarding 98.199.208.235. That said, 98.199.208.235 is completely incapable of civil discourse in the face of disagreement, as shown by Nil Einne above. On the issue, 98.199.208.235 failed to provide or point out any significant coverage in third-party sources - unsurprising for a book that hasn't been published yet. Given the AfD (and the insults), this was not merely a content dispute but disruptive editing on 98.199.208.235's part. Huon (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the link - User:98.199.208.235 called for help with 5 helpme templates on his talk page - I saw that on the Admin Dashboard and my edit at 22:21, 19 December 2013‎ killed the helpme with tlx. So in effect he shot himself in the foot. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God I just read all that crap and these are two of the worst lying admins i've ever seen. there are plenty of sources just from google searching alone here's a link: https://www.google.com/search?q=skin+game+dresden+files

it's covered at aint it cool news, sffworld, sarah's reviews, has amazon and barnes and noble listings for preorder, arched doorway has covereage and so does tor.com

i was going to try to fix this myself but i found out clicking through that this is locked up and that is ridiculous that these two can hold it hostage like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.150 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have tryed to put it in your stupid deletion review thing as the talk page says why does it not show up there?????? this site is shit!!!!!!

It's not for everyone. This site, that is. Maybe you can relax a bit and learn how to navigate it. If you can't, you can't. Doc talk 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this IP as a pretty obvious sock of User:98.199.208.235. only (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was a substantiative change on Dec 19, the author announced publication date of March 27 author's website. This seems to have been generally missed in the discussions. The book series are bestsellers and upcoming titles with a publication date meet the book notability guideline (until Dec 19 it would not have). I am unwilling to csll BITE but some AGF and research would have helped. I am un-redirecting, per the book notability guideline and newly established publication date. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses

I strongly object to the removal of my complaints about abusive biased editing practices which I placed on the talk page of the article that the editor in question edits abusively most frequently, to serve as a warning to other editors and, I hoped, to request administrator action against the abuses: [120], [121], [122]. I ask that User:Cadiomals's attempt to censor my complaints and warnings be reverted, and that User:VictorD7 be appropriately sanctioned for the clear abuses documented in the section which Cadiomals thinks is okay to delete.

I would also like some guidance about how to report such abuses in the future, please. EllenCT (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See? Was it so hard posting your grievances here rather than on the Talk page of an article, where it is inappropriate and irrelevant? The first and foremost rule from WP:TALK is that article Talk pages exist for the sole purpose of discussing direct changes/improvements to the articles. Kudos for finding your way. Cadiomals (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use user talk pages and, in extreme cases, noticeboards next time. Dark Sun (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, what I'm seeing from EllenCT looks far more like tattletaling in order to 'win' a dispute than a sincere and well-founded attempt to help an editor with their behaviour. I'm not 100% sure that the removed section strictly matches the rather narrow criteria by which one can remove talk-page comments, and WP:Hatting the section might have been a better choice, but it's at best borderline and Cadiomals' action seems to have been a good-faith attempt to stop a dispute or at least point it to a more appropriate venue. No action against Cadiomals is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen failed to even try to make a rational argument that I should be "sanctioned". Her low quality, POV pushing edits have been reverted by several different editors across multiple articles, not just me (e.g. [123],[124], [125]). In this example: [126], [127] she was reverted after trying to covertly slip in highly contentious economic/taxation material already under discussion (and ultimately rejected by strong consensus) with a totally misleading edit summary that pretended she was simply undoing some small, recent change to a different section. It's difficult to maintain assumptions of good faith under such conditions. Editors have been extremely patient with her for a long time, but she's been a persistently disruptive influence on multiple articles and Talk Pages, and perhaps it's time to examine whether she should be sanctioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uninvolvededitor Sounds like we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While commenting on this probably won't help relations in our current discussions, I do feel Ellen has a WP:TEDIOUS editing style and I'd welcome any review or intervention that might help us become more productive. Morphh ^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I will certainly not vouch for much of VictorD7's past behavior, EllenCT is being hypocritical plain and simple for reporting Victor's "biased editing abuses" when she also has quite the history of her own "biased editing abuses". I'm less familiar with her activity on other articles, but in United States she has a history of either childish attempts at circumventing discussion or being a general drag on the discussion and consensus-building process (though Victor too has a history of being confrontational and disagreeable). I think Ellen is misguided in how United States is supposed to look based on WP:SUMMARY, and often has a hard time letting things go even when consensus has repeatedly shown itself to be against her. At least she has stopped trying to insert content into the article without first consulting Talk, but she continues to be a general drag in progress there by continuing her advocacy of irrelevant content, and the recent off-topic dispute crossed the line to merit removal.

I don't think much more can reasonably be done except telling both of them to cool it. To prevent drawn out back-and-forth, instead of directly addressing one another, they should only seek opinions and consensus from others from now on. Otherwise, Ellen's post to this noticeboard was just a failed attempt at trying to make herself look like a victim. Cadiomals (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I reject any attempt to equate me with Ellen (how about the other people debating her, including yourself?), especially one based on no evidence. A baseless "pox on both their houses" attitude is intellectually lazy at best. All my edits and posts have been in good faith, and I've always been willing to rationally and civilly discuss any of them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VictorD7 is trying to include his political opinions by relying on non-peer reviewed sources, while the sources he complains about my inserting in opposition are peer reviewed and secondary. He has also been following my contributions to other articles, harassing me in an attempt to try to make that work out somehow. I have only asked that VictorD7 be encouraged to edit without conflicts, while he has asked that I be "banned from Wikipedia". I ask that VictorD7 be instructed to either edit based on peer reviewed sources or stop editing on the topics where we disagree. EllenCT (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False on all counts. I've repeatedly bent over backwards to make good faith efforts to engage you on the issues where we've disagreed, and I'm not the one who ran to report you to admin (and falsely at that). VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having commented on the substantive issue at Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Fourth_opinion, I would suggest that you two cool it a bit and refrain from the personal insults for a while. Also avoid trading long biting exchanges on the talkpage if you can. Maybe take it to talk to clarify the confusion or even have a phone conversation. You both seem to be capable of making rational contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll admit I lean left (and believe that reality has a left-wing bias), so I'm favorably inclined towards Ellen's position (and have seen quite a bit of good work from her) and naturally a bit suspicious of self-described conservatives. I suppose that goes both ways but the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like a valiant attempt. II | (t - c) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point of the political commentary here is, but I'll note that in the section he linked to I and another editor politely corrected II's mistakes, and today he politely conceded "looks like I was wrong". That's the way discussions among editors are supposed to unfold. It's when Ellen gets involved that all too often rationality and civility go out the window. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with this characterization. I was wrong about some federal tax numbers, but I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made about corporate tax incidence assumptions, which are highly debatable per e.g. Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity (2009) and How TPC Distributes The Corporate Income Tax (2012). It's not clear to me that either of you are really engaging that well on this point exactly either; seems to have just descended into insults. In addition, I lean towards agreeing with Ellen on the omission of the effects of state and local taxes as it seems somewhat arbitrary (and hence potentially politically-motivated) although I understand that there may be data limitations. As far as your political self-identification, it's a reasonable heuristic. Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a political platform but in my seven years floating around here I've seen more conservatives run afoul of that then the other way around. By definition, a heuristic is not perfect, but if you associate yourself with a group where the majority don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc then you should expect to receive additional scrutiny. The economics wikiproject is probably overrepresented with libertarians and it's a bit of a problem. Also, keep in mind that we don't always do things based on majorities around here. It's !votes, not votes. If a majority of people !vote to change evolution so it says it's just a theory and the world is 13,000 years sold similar to Conservapedia, the one person dissenting (and hopefully reverting) is in the right. II | (t - c) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was quote your edit summary to illustrate the reasonable give and take found in healthy editor discussions. I don't recall Ellen ever saying something like that, no matter undeniably wrong she's proved to be on a particular point. She keeps essentially insisting that 2+2=5 (or sometimes "green"). While I disagree with much of what you say (especially your 180 degree wrong liberal/conservative run afoul claim) and would love to debate you on various political issues, this page is hardly the proper place. VictorD7 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More socks from Newestcastleman

It's been blocked by Georgewilliamherbert. only (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, could an Admin please block User:SportsGamer1.. I believe it's another sock account of Newestcastleman SPI, who has already had multiple accounts blocked. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

request courtesy blanking of edit summary

And that is that. NAC Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

could someone blank this edit summary [128]. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Given the female anatomy references in the edit itself as in the edit summary, revdel it all... Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Revdel applied to all four edits on that user page. Since there are no useful edits at all from that mobile phone range, I have rangeblocked it for a month. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistent incivility and personal attacks by AndyTheGrump

Obviously gun control's a controversial topic. So's civility. Doesn't seem much chance of reaching a consensus when the two are mixed. (signed)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:AndyTheGrump is exhibiting disruptive, persistent incivility and personal attacks at the Gun control article. I understand that Gun control is a heated subject, but there is no excuse for this editor violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with disgusting temper tantrums and personal attacks like this one and this one. He has spent very little time actually discussing the material that is in dispute, instead choosing to attack other editors and misrepresent their motives at every turn. This editor's terrible behavior has already resulted in at least one editor leaving the project. This is the worst it gets on Wikipedia. Last, but not least, it's also worth noting that this editor (Andy) has been repeatedly blocked over the years for this same kind of behavior. ROG5728 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight correction. I have left the article in question, but am currently still in the project. Otherwise, ROG5728 is spot on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of raising anything from gun control at ANI? It's a heated topic, that sort of thing happens. It's more effective to ignore it than it is to fan the issue here. Since WP:CIVIL was revoked for favoured editors, this sort of attempt to use it on other editors is too partisan. It's a barely uncivil comment and took place amongst a whole bunch of tag team edit warring. CIVILity wasn't this edit's main problem.

I wish Andy the Grump would stick to more parliamentary language, but in a politically hot topic that's already well past the Godwins threshold, I'm not going to censure him for what he said. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we throw out WP civility policies when we happen to be on heated topics? You can only "ignore" bad behavior for so long before it becomes disruptive. Neither of those diffs could be described as "barely uncivil." ROG5728 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contentiousness of the situation is inevitable. Maybe even failing to have truly engaged discussion is (all too) common. But the extreme amount of trying to "win by nastiness" (trying to insult and villianize editors and their viewpoints and posts) as a way to "get ahead" by deprecating them, and heaping abuse on editors, deliberately misstating what other editors have said, continuous false accusations, ad hominem arguments, has gotten way out of hand. And there are editors on both sides of the issue who are willing to and keep starting civil discussions, and those discussions keep getting derailed by such nastiness. Andy and Geothean have been at the middle of it, Goethean has dialed back a bit in the last 1-2 days. . I'm not the type to seek sanctions, but twice In threads I've asked to have the situation reviewed and some warnings against those types of behaviors issued (just in general, not against any particular editor(s) would be fine), and both got closed, ....once already (and a second attempt now unsigned) by non-admin involved persons. Turmoil there is inevitable, viciousness against and abuse of editors is not Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone seeking to close this again: Closures ought only be done by impartial persons, and such closures should be signed. The prior "closure" was improper on both grounds. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to hold a first-class honours social science degree from a leading British university perhaps there is a larger problem here, Grump may have an unnatural opinion of his role in the project as well as a hypersensitivity to clueless patronising fuckwittery his opinion of others is not only disruptive, but could be considered hurtful to trolls, loons, and otherwise decent folk, patronising little troll...craziest of crazies...if you had an ounce of human decency. far too long has this behavior been excused by the editors acknowledgement he is a grump. i suggest it is time to cheer-up and play nice you super-shinny bag of horse happiness. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is something inherently not right in using a civility enforcement to advantage in a content dispute. Were Discretionary Sanctions available I would topic ban the lot of you and get truly uninvolved editors to sort it out. But this has to stop. Gamaliel has been warning and cajoling and trouting to no avail. I strongly suggest that everyone listen to him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is something inherently not right about attacking and insulting other editors and discouraging them from participating on Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting we should ignore an editor's longstanding bad behavior just because he's involved in a content dispute? As I pointed out earlier, this is a long term trend with this editor. ROG5728 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is particularly conspicuous is that the main article, Gun legislation in Germany, has seen relatively little editing in the same period, with two significant excisions but nothing like the kind of death struggle seen here. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Andy is admittedly getting uselessly angry, and might do well to leave the page alone for awhile, ROG5728, his comments need to be read in the context of others on the page. The whole article, and its talkpage, is a battleground. Compare Gamaliel's comment on the page today: "I've only been following what passes for debate here for a single evening, but I'm already disgusted and I want to trout the lot of you, on both sides of this." Hear, hear. As for your claim that Anythingyouwant is leaving the project, you obviously misunderstood his comment about leaving the page and taking it off his watchlist. (I thought it was very clear, and really, I would have thought it implied that he wouldn't follow the quarrel to ANI either, but whatever.)

Agree with GWH that dragging an opponent to ANI looks a lot like a battleground move on your part, ROG5728. What looks still worse is blatantly canvassing the people who agree with you.[129] As far as I can see from your contributions, you've notified a bunch of people who agree with you, and nobody else, about this ANI "discussion". Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry Bishonen, I merely wanted to correct a misstatement about me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the discussion there at Gun control for several months, and I haven't noticed any of the other editors stooping to this level of incivility (or even close to it). If you have diffs to the contrary, please provide them. Again, are you seriously suggesting we should ignore an editor's longstanding bad behavior just because he's involved in a content dispute? This is a long term trend with this editor. ROG5728 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't validate dragging a user to ANI in order to remove him from a content dispute and then blatantly violating WP:CANVASS to try to skew the argument in your favour. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks don't validate "dragging" a user to ANI? Why not? ROG5728 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is the worst it gets on Wikipedia."....not even close. There is something inherently not right about people with strong opinions on gun control editing articles about gun control. They should do the right thing and just walk away. Of course that will never happen, but why not ? It's easy. There are over 4 million other articles to edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have addressed the canvassing concerns, which was part of the same sentence. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re ROG - I can see a difference in rudeness levels between the two factions. And am not afraid of san tioning people for sufficiently bad personal attacks. But to directly answer the question - Yes, I will ignore history rather than decide a content dispute by sanctioning only one side as is asked for here. If I were to intervene I would full protect the article talk page for the duration of any other intervention, to prevent that. We 'usually do not' full protect talk pages, but protection policy does not forbid it, and this situation is not 'usual'. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

side note - I see a valid civility complaint here. The CANVASS and BOOMERANG comments seem not helpful. But again, using civility to 'win' a content dispute is not going to happen from my mop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "content dispute", please note that the article is already protected from editing and has been for days, so it's not like we stand to "win an edit war" by getting this editor temporarily blocked or warned for his bad behavior. I was not necessarily asking for a long term block, either; but this kind of bad behavior warrants a stern warning at the very least. ROG5728 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to stern warnings, ROG5728: I think I must have spoken too softly above, since you have ignored my most important point. How about this: canvassing is very disruptive. If you do something like that again, you risk being blocked. I hope that's clearer. I've put a warning on your page too, to make sure. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I was not aware of a duty to notify ALL editors about an ANI discussion. I notified the editor that was the subject of the ANI (Andy), and I notified the editors that have suffered from his incivility firsthand (some of whom have been the subject of his personal attacks). In the future I will try to notify everyone. With that said, why do you (Bishonen) have such a keen interest in my behavior, as opposed to Andy's flagrant violations of civility and WP:NPA? It doesn't seem right. ROG5728 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again - don't try and use this complaint or noticeboard to win a content dispute. That DOES bring BOOMERANG into plat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are only required to notify the subject of your complaint. However, if you are going to draw attention of others to the ANI section, you need to follow WP:CANVASS. In this case, that means that you should have notified everyone involved in the talk page dispute, or none of them. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any how, since Andy has been warned by GWH for his outburst, and ROG5728 has been warned against using ANI as a content dispute battleground and canvassing, I think this can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my mistake; and I will notify all editors in future cases. I guess I will also take the other admin's advice and do my best to just ignore incivility and personal attacks by other editors, especially if they happen in the midst of content disputes. ROG5728 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer your lesson be that "please block both the editors on the other side of this content dispute because they are being unspeakably rude" is a lot more complicated than "unspeakably rude". There are a bunch of issues in play, and multiple Wikipedia core calues in conglict. CIVIL does not trump NPOV, which would be affected by strong one sided sanctions without regard for the context. If you keep that in mind future incidents can be handled in a more straightforwards manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

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

Resolve licence dispute for File:Dielectric_model.svg

License issue corrected on Commons. In the future, discussing it over there is probably better than bringing it here. LFaraone 17:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I'm trying to resolve a licensing conflict in File:Dielectric_model.svg The problem seems to stem from the assertion that the SVG is based on a public domain PNG file File:Dielectric model.png which has since been deleted. Would it be possible to find out what the licence was before it was deleted? The deletion reason only says "csd i1" and I can't find that code in WP:CSD Thanks. Cube00 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary This is an diagram I drew in paint. It shows how an electric field interact with an atom under the classical dielectric model.

Timwilson85 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Licensing PD-self[reply]

Hope that helps, Nick (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this CSD I1 at the time is the same as CSD#F1 now, that the file is elsewhere. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The destination file on the Commons has now been changed to the same license as the source file on en.wiki. I also added the original upload log and deleted the local file as F8. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Banned from aspartame controversy

There is a clear consensus against lifting this topic ban. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to have the ban against me for posting at aspartame controversy lifted? I find it difficult to be a member of this community when the ban is in force. Arydberg (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please link to the discussion where the ban was enacted
please show proof of your successful editing outside of that topic since it was enacted
please provide a description of how things will be different should you be allowed back to editing that topic ES &L 17:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant AN/I discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user was already informed at the time the ban was instituted that a pattern of constructive editing outside the topic area was a prerequisite for having the topic ban lifted. However, since then he or she has made only two article-space edits: [130] [131]. IMHO this is not enough to establish a track record of successful editing outside the topic area. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to understand as has been explained to you before that simply staying away without actually editing other articles is not likely to get your topic ban revoked. The simple fact is, your history means we can't trust you to edit in the area of dispute. If you show an ability to edit constructively elsewhere, we hope that what you learnt from that editing combined with the time away will mean we can trust you, but the time away is not likely to be enough. If you disagree with your topic ban so strongly that don't wish to contribute here while your have it in place or whatever, that's fully your choice edit: but it does mean you may never effectively never be able to return. ~~But~~And do understand if you can't edit elsewhere because you feel you must be able to in the topic where edit: we feel you have problems in, that simply reenforces the view we can't trust you to edit there. And continuing to ask hurts the chances you will be allowed back in to that area. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lifting topic ban, absolutely no evidence that the editor's understanding of Wikipedia's content rules has advanced significantly since the ANI discussion that resulted in the topic ban, plus "I find it difficult to be a member of this community when the ban is in force." indicates their intention to return immediately to the problematic topic area. Zad68 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arydberg's edit count also indicates that they're more interested in posting on talk pages than they are in improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to mark my comment above as a formal Oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783#Propose topic ban (Immortale and Arydberg)

User talk:Arydberg#Topic ban

Repeating the advice Arydberg recieved ten months ago,[132] "Please please please listen to us again. You need to edit constructively in areas other than aspartame before you ask for your topic ban has ANY chance of being revoked. If you continue trying to get it removed without showing us you can be constructive (for at least 6 months or so before reapplying), you run a strong risk of being not only banned, but blocked from editing anything at all." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – you've made about two edits to article space since your ban. You should make some more edits to article space before you can reapply. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per own statement, "I find it difficult to be a member of this community when the ban is in force" which sounds like a warning that lifting the topic ban will lead to a return to the same topics and tactics that necessitated the ban in the first place. Come on, a wiki with 4.5 million articles on myriad topics, there has to be something else you can work on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Zad and Starblind took the words right out of my mouth. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although time formally has no meaning on Wikipedia, it's my firm belief that if you come to ask a favour on ANI, you'd better have the time to respond to concerns and questions when raised within a reasonable period of time. It's now been 24hrs with no response to my original 3 questions (yes, I already knew the answer to the first one). The other two are vital requirements for any request for a lessening of a topic ban, and the editor was required to include them as information in their request. Of course, I already knew the answer to question 2 because there are essentially zero contributions to this project. Topic bans are not "time served" - they are to give the editor time/space to re-prove themselves as potentially beneficial editors to this project. They are usually given in lieu of an indefinite block in situations where the community sees some possible degree of hope. Without any proof, and without any way forward, there's absolutely no possible way to lessen the restrictions. If you cannot "enjoy" Wikipedia without contributing to a specific topic, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you - we have far too many fringe-pushing SPA's already, tyvm ES &L 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎

The article has been protected without the offending material, it is now up to the editors involved to prove/disprove any BLP issues. The article is also at AfD. Given this, any block would not be preventative at this point and this discussion will merely attract those on "the other side" of the AFD/talk page dispute, as it has already. Any other admin is welcome to assist with DS's request for a block, but I do not see the point at this time. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was brought up on the fringe theories board, so I looked it over. It is one huge BLP vio, none of the BLPs in that article have stated they "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎". This is a BLP vio in that a few editors have engaged in OR to decide among themselves who is "opposed to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎" which is OR and also a BLP vio, I have remove the vios yet they are continually restored in violation of BLP and BURDEN. So either block me for being really wrong on BLP or protect the article at this version. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uninvolvededitor I'll admit that I don't know much about this subject, but given the discussion on the talk page (as well as reading the article), it appears that the only person that disagrees about all this is you. And I doubt any admin is going to protect your preferred version of the article. BTW, weren't you already told about throwing around F-bombs when you don't get your way? You really need to put a halt on the forum-shopping spree. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the OP's request for a block, for tendentious editing.- Mr X 19:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now protected, but gonna ask for the hell of it, Erpert, what forum shopping? And be aware, usually when I come here it is me who gets in the shite. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support OP's block request. Tendentious editing, forum shopping, edit warring. OP's claims of BLP violation do not appear to be valid. The four BLP's I've checked have all been accurate. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continued disruption

Sorry Black Kite, but I disagree with closing the section. Darkness is refusing to collaborate on the talk page besides repeating vague one sentence claims that the article violates blp. No other editor has so far agreed with his assessment, and not a single example of a problem has so far been produced, despite repeated requests. I believe the article should be unprotected so the content can be reintroduced (per consensus), and if Darkness persists in blanking sourced content without providing a specific rationale, his request for a block should be granted. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? chatting away quite amicably. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is just a little chat and not a discussion trying to resolve YOUR PROBLEM that YOU CREATED, then the article needs to be revised and the discussion needs to be ended so we can stop wasting our time. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I figured potential BLP violations were everyones problem, and that such issues were resolved by discussion, not just ending it cos you happen to like the article as it was? But as you said, I have my head up my arse so what would I know? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only person that has an issue with this article because of BLP violations is you right now. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, cos I see two editors over there who say much what I have. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently nobody had a problem except you, huh weird ya I'm thinking the same thing. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you never tire of being wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tire of you JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw the notice on FTN. I've had the page on watch for a long time, since it was a question of whether we should have long quotes by the name of each individual. There clearly is a case to be answered about BLP, even if you think Darkness isn't pursuing it in the right way. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with deleting the entire list? QuackGuru (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe something to be a BLP violation you have to delete it, no? It's then the responsibility of the people who want the material included to put a rationale. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindzen was on that list, yet he has written "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations" Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto pp 21-22 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by JayJay (talk): Rv per WP:BLP. And do not misuse rollback again bud. (TW)"
18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Bluerasberry (talk): Again. this content is a BLP vio, so it stays out. BLP is not negotiable for gods sake. (TW)"
18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Bluerasberry (talk): Everything is BLP, rv per BLP. (TW)"
19:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk): Read BLP, and stop now. (TW)"
19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rhododendrites (talk): BLP is not negotiable. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning on talk page Continued reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting attention from another admin

As Mann jess notes above, Black Kite's actions in protecting an edit warrior's gutted article, while in good faith, are wrong headed and quite damaging.

Darkness Shines, as the diffs indicate above, engaged in a disruptive mass deletion of content after nominating this article for deletion
Darkness Shines followed the deletion by a prolonged edit war, well past 3RR while several other editors urged him to take his content dispute to the talk page.
Darkness Shines was reported here and on the edit warring noticeboard, but those incidents were closed and his actions shielded and [unintentionally] reinforced by Black Kite -- who didn't so much as leave a message on Darkness Shines's talk page about the incident. (Although the latter just removes any warnings on his talk pages anyway).
For hours, Darkness Shines did nothing other than remove content or justify the removal using absolute, non-negotiable WP:VAGUEWAVE, instructing others to read policies ad nauseum while refusing to engage in meaningful discussion. Although his technique entirely rests on wikilawyering and brute force, he nonetheless demonstrates either poor understanding of the policies or otherwise applies bad faith interpretations of said policies (for example "You cannot categorize a person as something which they themselves have explicitly stated they are not").
Black Kite's actions are particularly damaging because now, unless someone finds Black Kite's disclaimer at the top of the lengthy AfD discussion, the article people will be weighing in on (the version of the article that was protected) is a disgrace. What are visible are the BLP accusations without the consensus-based equilibrium version of the article there for people to judge for themselves.
- A user who sees the page is protected in the current state will understand the protection to mean there is, in fact, something egregious that had to be removed -- that administrator attention was needed because it was so bad.
- In an attempt to err on the side of BLP caution, Black Kite has disregarded consensus built on extensive discussion and even an ARBCOM ruling, and bypassed any attempts at discussion (even saying that it is because he protected it that he will not weigh in) and thus rewarded this disruptive edit warrior
Darkness Shines has made clear that he will not compromise and vows to do WP:BATTLE over this, using nothing other than absolute terms (e.g. "this will never go in the article.") His one-man defense of his actions on the article talk page has since exploded into redundant and non-productive calls for people to read policy with scant (none at all until recently) explanation of why the policy even applies, general incivility, and personal attacks.

Darkness Shines has been successful in beginning a productive discussion on the AfD page. While I don't think it'll result in deletion, it would be nice if the discussion led to page improvements -- maybe even adding/removing content with the productive suggestions and criticisms of other users. But the page cannot be improved currently! While the AfD process runs its course, the page needs to be restored and unprotected. Also, because the methods employed by Darkness Shines have been entirely disruptive so far -- but shielded on the Edit Warring noticeboard and elsewhere by Black Kite -- Darkness Shines should be prevented from editing the page at least until the AfD is done. To be clear, though, I'm not saying Black Kite acted in bad faith -- only that I think he made a wrong and damaging decision and has not shown any indication that he's interested to fix it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, before the next bottle of wine kicks in, do you actually hope to get from this? Other than to show a wilful disregard for BLP on the talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Please remove the protection on this article and restore the status quo content. A single editor should not be allowed to stonewall everyone else using irrational arguments and insults. At this point, the page protection is completely unwarranted. If Darkness Shines reverts even once, he should be blocked to prevent further disruption.- Mr X 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no admin is willing to touch this subject and just reward Darkness for his blatant and disruptive edits with no real justification of his actions. This is getting a bit ridiculous as many users have tried to compromise with this user but has no indication of doing so. Something needs to be done instead of just sitting and watching and several users have disagreed with Black Kites decision and asked for the page to be reverted to its original state before the AfD nomination but nobody seems to respond. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All anyone needs do is look here We have a BLP who in his own words, said "I do not disagree with the consencus" but his own words are not good enough, op eds ad blog posts seems better that this mans own fucking words, Darkness Shines (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (U

He absolutely did not say that, and this has already been explained to you. Directly misquoting him to misrepresent his position and the problem is insanely disruptive. Lindzen, in fact, said the precise opposite of what you just "quoted" him saying. I'm blown away by how disruptive you're willing to be to "win". The fact is that consensus opposes your repeated claim that this is a BLP concern, and we should listen to that community consensus until you're able to change it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated insertion of contentious BLP material on a talk page

Blocked for 24 hours by Georgewilliamherbert. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roccodrift (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted contentious unsourced material about Amanda Marcotte in violation of WP:BLP here, here and here despite three warnings: #1 #2 #3. Considering how often he quotes WP:BLP in content disputes, I would certainly expect him to adhere to it.- Mr X 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agreed, blatant violation despite three warnings, blocked 24 hours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be one of the dumbest things to get blocked for that I have seen in some time. Mr. X read-added actual contentious BLP material into the Robertson article and then complains about the discussion? Arzel (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which came in here. And then got edit warred to death. If you want to try and slice that knot, be my guest... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so it begins. MilesMoney (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Joefromrandb

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

Accusations that IPs are socks of a banned user. When I have reverted this on the basis that there is no evidence that the IP is a sock there have been accusation of meatpuppetry.

Józef Kowalski Accuses 213.49.104.71 (talk · contribs) of being "Robert", presumably referring to User Ryoung122. Note that this IP is located in Brussels. I also note that the IP provides no edit summary and that Robert Young is extremely unlikely to have edited any longevity related articles without commenting (usually to promote his own epertise).
List of people with the longest marriages. [133] and [134] accuses 81.11.203.160 (talk · contribs) and 213.49.104.90 (talk · contribs) of being socks. These IPs are also from Brussels. [135] Claims to have restored to "last clean version". A blanket reversion of (mostly) valid changes.
List of oldest twins. [136] Another claim to restoration of "last clean version". Seems to have followed 83.134.143.22 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same person as other IPs as the location is Brussles) from above and blanket reverted all changes although again they appear to be valid.
Accusations of meatpuppetry: [137] and [138]. Another clear example of this user throwing around false accusations and attempting to bully other editors. Joefromrandb seems to be under the impression that I am one of the GRG fan club which is so far from the truth it is actually laughable.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm just slower tonight, but it took me a while to realise what's going on. DerbyCountyinNZ is saying that Joe's making baseless accusations regarding edits to the following pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Accusations of sock puppetry with no apparent evidence. Accusations of meat puppetry with no evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing that Derby has reported his own edit-warring. Last time I reverted this user's errors, he got his buddy, administrator Canadian Paul to block me. Apparently he considers himself so bulletproof that he's brazen enough to make multiple baseless reverts and then report someone else. A small group of users have long asserted ownership of all longevity-related articles. It would be nice if these articles were eventually returned to the community, but it really isn't an ANi issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've been involved in this area, but it looks more or less the same from when I was there, so if I may quickly comment before returning to isolation mode. The IPs don't strike me as being Ryoung122, because as DerbyCountyinNZ says usually Ryoung122 hastens to point out his work in the GRG. There are plenty of other IPs who edit the topic area who likely come from the Yahoo World's Oldest People group, to which Ryoung122 is openly a contributor; one could debate whether it's a meatpuppetting issue, but my experience has been they'll come over without invitation. A lot of times their edits are less than helpful, and I frequently found myself reverting them as well. DerbyCountyinNZ and I didn't always see eye-to-eye on some of the MoS issues in that project, but he's absolutely not one of the Yahoo WOP acolytes (a look at the archives of Talk:List of the verified oldest people should show that) and has always been willing to discuss things. Although I generally agree with the thrust of Joefromrandb's edits, I can see why his approach is somewhat off-putting. If he could write with a little more tact, I think the issues at each article could be resolved without too much difficulty. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "sock of Robert Young", I didn't mean it literally, as in Robert typing the edits. I was referring to Robert's promise to edit Wikipedia by proxy, as his legion of followers will update Wikipedia as Robert updates his sites. Perhaps I should have said "meat of banned editor"; after 3 years, I'm still learning the lingo. Yes, my tact could still use some improvement, but even if I wrote with the tact of a Dennis Brown, these issues are unlikely to be resolved until someone steps in and enforces Wikipedia's core policies on longevity-related articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as bad as it once was, the area has definitely improved since the arbitration case which I was marginally involved in, but I see many of the same problems you do. It doesn't hugely matter whether the IPs are acting as proxies for him or not, they're essentially serving that function and should be treated as if they were. I think what the area needs, more than anything else, is some fresh eyes, and that would be more than a hint for anyone happening across this thread... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely-banned editor using sockpuppet currently

(non-admin self-close) Offending IP has been blocked by Amalthea. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've opened a new investigation at SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TJ_Spyke) but the IP sock appears to be editing currently.
As I said on the investigation page, the IP sock passes the DUCK test by being a known prior sock and editing in the exact same manner (multiple violations of WP:R2D to the point where an annoyance becomes a major disruption). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wōdenhelm's sig

Wōdenhelm insists on using a signature which contains 2 images (File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg and File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg), despite the fact that I told this user that images in sigs are against policy. How should I procede? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Displaying the confederate flag is a problem in itself, IMO. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a message on his talk regarding this. Ethically ^(Yours) 07:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rebel flag in and of itself should not be considered problematic, it is strictly the use of images in a signature that is disruptive. The solution is simple: if user does not agree to stop using the images, an indefinite block for disruption and blatant disregard for accepted standards is appropriate, though I would point out the signature page is a guideline, not a policy. This block can and should be removed contingent on the removal of images from the signature. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try asking the editor politely? We've got three non-admins on his talkpage threatening him with blocks and accusing him of incivility. No wonder his only response has been "go away". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was asked politely by an admin, and now a couple of non-admins have chipped in. Not sure how much more politely you were looking for, but the original request was just fine. I'll pretty much guarantee that his first edit after being advised of this ANI filing better be either a) here on ANI, b) on his talkpage, or c) with a newly-minted signature or else he will receive a brand-new block for New Year's! ES &L 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of extreme block-on-sight violations, the first step I take (other than repairing the damage done, in some cases) is to talk to the user. I did it in this case before coming here, and got a "no" and a "go away". And I didn't threaten him with a block (although I'm capable of giving one) - that was other users, after he gave these answers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to you both, this is the kind of politeness I would have appreciated if I was the user at the centre of the furore:
"Hello Suriel1981, I'm such-and-such, an administrator on Wikipedia. You're not in trouble but I need to talk to you about your signature. Our guidelines state clearly that editors should not use images in their signatures so I'm going to have to insist you remove the flags from your signature before you continue editing. If you need help doing that or you have any question then feel free to message me back."
Something along those lines. There's no way anyone could reasonably misunderstand or take offense at a friendly-but-direct approach. I only made my comment because I would have been offended if the initial message had been left on my talkpage. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just tried friendly, direct, and uninvolved and was told to never speak to him again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much a textbook example of how not to handle this situation. Trouts to everyone involved. Since the matter has been brought here, lets let some other editors intervene and the editors involved in the original pile-on can step away to avoid escalating the situation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trout yourself first then. The first request, by Od Mishehu, was perfectly fine, and included the word "please". This user also used please in their second comment. Od Mishehu has acted exactly as they should've; they remained polite throughout, and escalated it to the only possible place. Given that Od Mishehu could've legitimately blocked Wodenhelm for their disruptive sig and refusal to change it, I fail to see why they are being accused of mishandling the situation... Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 21:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaand here we have another example of inappropriate escalation. I thought Od Mishehu was a bit brusque myself, but that's a minor and forgivable issue, certainly, but the other editors involved in the pile-on turned up the heat too quickly. This isn't a BLP matter and there's no need for immediate action or threats of such, so let's all simmer down now. This is the sort of nonsense and chest-beating that creates stories by disgruntled editors of administrative "abuse". Policy will be upheld in the end, but how we get there is important too. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The no image policy on signatures is unequivocal, and there's no iar benefit the encyclopedia to allow it to be over ridden. The fact that OM's first post wasn't perfect (should've included the wikilink to policy he posted the second time) doesn't affect the facts of the case. Indefinite block until editor agrees to change signature. End of drama. NE Ent 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^-- This ES &L 22:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefinite block unless and until Woden removes the images from his signature, based on his comments here and pretty much everything else he's posted on User talk pages in the last couple days. If he wants to martyr himself on this cause, fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that we don't know whether he's complied or not; he hasn't signed a post using his signature since 04:54, 1 January 2014 UTC. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Block indefinitely until they agree to remove the images and sign their posts. NE Ent 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Punitive. Images in a signature don't affect Wikipedia much. Dark Sun (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all punitive. Blocks ends as soon as they want it to. If we're not willing to do this, might as well delete the policy. NE Ent 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Wouldn't the proper response to be to build a consensus to change the policy on sigs? a13ean (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, I think it would. In fact I will post on the proper talk page suggesting that. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The signature issues is not policy on Wikipedia, it is only a guideline. only (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)On the original issue, i have just posted to Wōdenhelm's talk page as an uninvolved admin asking him to comply with the guideline which is so widely adhered to that it might as well be policy. I did not add any threats, but if he posts a sig with images again, I would be inclined to block. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Promotion to policy. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Can we back off on this guy for now? He has not, for 40 hours, posted a sig containing an image. So the immediate concern has been addressed. He is clearly a rebel who strongly resents being told what to do. So all of this saber-rattling and threatening to block, if y'all insist on escalating it, is all too likely to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is already being handled by cooler heads. There's no need for this escalation. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence it's being handled. The editor transitioning from a disruptive signature to not signing their posts is only changing the mode of disruption. NE Ent 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, is forgetting to sign a post "disruption"? Blockable disruption? (Not trying to sound sarcastic; I honestly didn't know this.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior keeping POV fork reverts User:Norden1990

Norden1990 insists in reverting a redirect link instead of expanding an article that I created:

Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Demographics history of Harghita County
- see here [139]

[140] And also on other articles he revertes sourced text related to the war-criminal and anti-semite Miklos Horty.

Miklos Horty

calling vandalism while he actually is deleted sourced information about this war-criminal.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[141]]

With his edits (can be cataloged as anti-semite) Norden1990 reverts sources text about the war criminal Miklos Horty.

And, YES, he was blocked before for edit-war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Norden1990

15:03, 14 July 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Norden1990 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: John Hunyadi)

2QW4 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit-war 3 times edit-war, see Hungarian discrimination against Roma

2QW4 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also using proxy IPs ; 195.89.201.254 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.89.201.254 2QW4 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand what is going on:

This is a section of the article on Harghita County that covers demographics - Harghita County#Demographics.
This is a stand-alone article Demographics history of Harghita County.

These contain the same statistical information, though Harghita County#Demographics has more textual information and a graph showing population growth over time. In other words Harghita County#Demographics is better.

2QW4 has three times tried removing cited information on the 2002 census from Harghita County#Demographics.[142][143][144] This did not find favour with other users who reverted this deletion.[145][146][147] The editors who reverted 2QW4 were Ruby Murray, Norden1990, and Josh3580.

2QW4 was the editor who created the stand-alone article on Demographics history of Harghita County on 30 December 2013.[148] This is the one that contains no information not already in Harghita County#Demographics. Norden1990 has twice turned this into a redirect to Demographics history of Harghita County,[149][150] on the grounds that it is a duplicate.

I think Norden is right about turning Demographics history of Harghita County into a redirect. It is a POV fork created by 2QW4. It has no merit compared with the section of the original article, which contains more useful information.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, who are you? How come you support war-criminal and anti-semite edits?I don't think in Wikipedia is allowed.2QW4 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 2QW4, who are you? You are the banned User:Hortobagy, are not you? If this is true, User:Norden1990 did not and could not make any edit war with you. Furthermore, your edits were not based on the sources you seemingly used. Finally, accusing other editors of Anti-Semitism without any basis is uncivil. Please refrain from it. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia has enough resources to know I am not. I have seen how you cover and delete sourced text about anti-semitism of Horty. 2QW4 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me? When? I would be surprised if I have ever edited this article, because the 20th century is not a favorite topic of mine. You really seem to like accusing other editors without any basis. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? For you his edits on Miklos Horty are OK??2QW4 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His reverts of your edits are OK, because your edits were not based on the sources you seemingly cited. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miklós Horthy, dear 2QW4. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SO, you do recognize you're edit warrior, because you got one time blocked for that...2QW4 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this report when proposing a merge of Demographics history of Harghita County into Harghita County, and I am concerned that 2QW4 is likely a sock.Flat Out let's discuss it 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, but if you're so smart tell who I am.2QW4 (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I know, is that you have been an editor for only 4 days and are already forum shopping- which usually means sock. Beware the Boomerang.Flat Out let's discuss it 14:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banned User:Hortobagy? Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. 2QW4 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you are, draga. I am sure. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, 2QW4 is actually the sock of literally-banned editor Iaaasi. But the fact that 2QW4 only edits this topic of articles is not suspicious to me, unless there is more substantial evidence that happened that I don't know about. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, that Iaaasi and Hortobagy are the same. However, I am sure that 2QW4 is identical with Hortobagy. Please find the reasoning below. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2QW4's claim of "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" regarding Miklós Horthy - the only post I could find by 2QW4 on Talk:Miklós Horthy was this one, made at 13:06 31 December 2013.[151] That was made at exactly the same time as he/she was creating his/her report to ANI. i.e. it is a sham.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could people contribute the reasons why they suspect that 2QW4 is a sockpuppet to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, that Iaaasi and Hortobagy are the same. However, I am sure that 2QW4 is identical with Hortobagy. Both editors are almost solely concentrate on 2 topics: (1) the existence of a Székely language separate from the Hungarian language (2) the discrimination against Romani in Hungary. Moreover, for this purpose they were/are creating separate articles without proper references. Finally, both editors obviously tend(ed) abuse reliable sources: they write/wrote sentences and add(ed) sources which do/did not substantiate their own claims. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uninvolvededitor FYI: 2QW4 has been indef-blocked for being a sock after all (of, interestingly, an entirely different user (Bonaparte)), but I didn't NAC this because the thread was originally about Norden1990 (I have no opinion on that). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to call other editors a "rat", as long as it is done in Hebrew?

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and I edit in the same area (Israel/Palestine), and we have not always agreed on matters, to put it diplomatically. Latest about a month ago, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Gilabrand.

However, Gilabrand has always called me by my correct nick, Huldra, earlier. (See e.g. this )

This last month they have suddenly started calling me "Hulda" (like here, and here)

Which, apparently means "Rat" in Hebrew. Comments? Huldra (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hulda can refer to a number of things, including an opera, but I would caution Gilabrand to avoid Mickey Mouse games with an editor's name. It's not very collegial. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is childish, and Gilabrand should be warned that such behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia editors. Hopefully that will put an end to it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he doesn't need to be calling any editors by any names other than their User Names, so this is not okay, no matter the meaning or language. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time that Gilabrand has engaged in playing juvenilishly with user names to wind other editors up: in the past she has used her own signature to try to get at Nableezy much as NoCal100 used his username to wind up another editor. Examples of Gilabrand's signature altered to read 'Nopleazy': 1, 2, 3, 4. Instances of me asking Gilabrand to desist: 1, 2, 3. Examples where Gilabrand altered her signature to read 'Yespleazy' instead: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
As mentioned in the recent AE case concerning Gilabrand, she was the subject of an indefinite ban in the Arab-Israeli topic area, which was eventually lifted with the warning that Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly. The recent AE case was closed with no action taken except another warning: "Gilabrand has been notified, warned of the heightened scrutiny and limits to how far things can go before they would become actionable, and encouraged to edit in a somewhat more neutral manner if possible" (see also Gilabrand's talkpage: "Gilabrand will be notified that their edits are under heightened scrutiny due to their personal opinions and editing trends on these topics, and that moderation and neutrality will be helpful to avoid further investigations as to whether their edits are becoming single purpose, soapboxing, or battleground type edits and subject to the Arbcom sanctions.")
Given that Gilabrand has had several strong warnings about her behaviour, one given very recently, perhaps this incident deserves to be taken a bit more seriously.
← ZScarpia 18:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievably ridiculous. I have nothing against Huldra - we have worked on many articles together to fill in the history of villages about which little is know. "Hulda" is simply a typo. But now that she mentions it, it is actually complimentary. Hulda is the name of a Biblical prophetess. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Here is a couple of Gilabrands posts about me from just this year: "By the way, I am keeping a log of your aggressive comments to me, which is growing quite long. Another one was added today on Hittin", and "clean up but leave Huldra's threat for posterity". Please also read my entry in the last AE: it was after that that Gilabrand suddenly started "misstyping". Coincident? Huldra (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you suddenly start repeatedly making the same typo in the name of a user you have been acquainted with for some time. Are there any other cases where you have done the same? ← ZScarpia 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more careful in the future to avoid creating even the appearance of an insult (though none may be intended)? If so, we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to type more slowly... Funny how stuff can be misinterpreted.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, isn't it? For example, your response when she asked you about it on your talk page: "My wife and kids had a good laugh over your detective skills. Maybe they will accept you to the FBI." That might be misinterpreted as sarcasm. Typing slowly might not be a bad idea if it helps you think about how things will be read. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an agreement from both of you to only refer to the other by correct username and only with respect (even if you don't like each other)? If so, I hope we can close this. Jonathunder (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this being a repeated pattern (compare the Nableezy-refs above), please do not close this yet. As noted: Gilabrand has posted untrue statements, IMO. And was 'Nopleazy' also a typo? And how many "warnings" does an editor receive before it has any consequences? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand makes here above as if she would be sorry for what she did but her initial answer on her talk page proves she is not sorry at all, at the contrary: [152]

This behaviour is in total disagreement with WP:NPA and the 4st pillar of wikipedia. In more of that, there is no content dispute between Huldra and Gilanbrand. This would show that Gilabrand acted because of other reasons (my mind: because Huldra is an Arab and Gilabrand an Israeli). That is not acceptable per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Gilabrand's should be blocked at least 1 week for this and she should receive a warning that she would be blocked indefinetely if she does this again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you realise that you make typos too? For example you misspelled "Gilabrand" as "Gilanbrand".--Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, no it isn't, because that is a personal attack p b p 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how many times in the November-December timeframe did Gilabrand type your account name in a comment or response? I see the two misspelled examples above, how many were there total and how many of those were misspelled? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To Georgewilliamherbert: AFAIK: she has only addressed me those two times this last month, misspelling my name each time. While she earlier always have spelled it correctly, (like here, back in 2008). Notice that her "misspelling" comes just after I have written very critically about her in the above mentioned AE. Compare it also to her spelling of Nableezy; another editor who she has disagreed with, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Prophetess Hulda: Her Message of Hope": [153] Perhaps it was meant as a compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.25.54 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if she is sorry or not. We cannot mandate that. An agreement to call each other by proper names is all we can ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I copy and paste names instead of typing them. This reduces the chance of the kind of error that Gilabrand/Geewhiz made about Huldra - but, if the typographic error occurs once, it means that it has the potential to be repeated many times. Maybe that is what happened here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Without telepathy we are not going to get an actual final answer here. The history of name games (3 years ago, but extensive) and repeat of the "typo" make intentional attack credible, but I have typoed enough things to know accident is possible.

My current opinion - Gilabrand, when I closed the AE I made heightened scrutiny clear to you. That does not mean an end to AGF or understanding sbout innocent mistakes, but it puts a hard and firm limit on the number of question marks we can accept going forwards.

This incident, given the repeat and meaning as misspelled and blowing off rather than apologizing when called on it, is a serious question mark. One strike for that.

You don't have 'three strikes and you're out". I don't want to set up a legalistic limit or let you game this. This counts. I won't act based on this one, but AGF goes away. This kind of thing happens again and you don't apologize and strike or retract, will be bad.

Heightened scrutiny does not mean zero tolerance for error, but it does approach zero tolerance for screwing around. Your response here was about all the slack you are going to get from me. If you goof again, make it right, and be a lot more careful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:IHaveAMastersDegree

In the last few days User:IHaveAMastersDegree in many articles has changed references about climate-change "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence", "contrarian", "anti-climate-science", "denial", etc. I left a message on IHaveAMastersDegree's talk page asking if there was any hope for retraction. He/she has ignored the message and done more edits today. Some examples:

Change "skeptics" to "individuals who reject the evidence" Change "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence" Change "skeptics" to "contrarian activists" Change "skeptic organizations" to "organizations that reject the science of global warming" Change "(skepticism) climate-change skeptic" to "(denial) climate science detractor" Change "is a skeptic of" to "rejects the scientific evidence for" Change "global warming skeptic" to "anti-climate-science blogger" Change "climate change skeptics" to "climate change denial" Change "climate change skeptics" to "climate science detractors" Change "climate change skeptic" to "denies the reality of global warming" ff. Change "are climate change skeptics" to "disagree with the physical basis and scientific evidence for global warming" Change "skeptics" to "denailists" (sic) Change "credibility of climate scientists" to "credibility of science"

There are many more examples at IHaveAMastersDegree contribution page. Reversion is justifiable in every case that I have looked at, but I will wait for advice first.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, User:Peter Gulutzan posted his concern at the moment I was composing my reply to him. I'm not sure what the customary period is to wait for a reply, but I would hope it is not less than 24 hours. I am happy to work with other editors to find a supportable solution. I can list many examples of the use of "skeptic" that are not supported by the information cited and appear to be violations of WP:SYNTH. I believe that my changes are improvements but am willing to revisit them on a case-by-case basis. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first change listed above and I did not find the term "skeptic" used in the cited articles. It got me to thinking that skeptic is ambiguous in its meaning in these contexts. Skeptics can be irrational doubters of everything or rational individuals who doubt fringe theories (there are other meanings as well). The first change is clearer in meaning than as originally phrased with "skeptics", so while I might not agree with all the changes, I think they should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think in the future that it would be a good idea not to be quite this bold and make one or a few changes and see how they are received before making wholesale changes. I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I have issued a ARBCC notification and logged it. This may be constructive but everyone needs to know about the discretionary sanctions and scrutiny. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at every edit made by IHaveAMastersDegree up to 20:55, 29 December 2013 and saw all but one as an improvement in clarity. He/she corrected the one problem I saw when I pointed it out. Most of the sources used to support the ambiguous-almost-to-the-point-of-meaningless term "climate change skeptic" do not in fact use the term, and IHaveAMastersDegree's edits are both more informative and more neutral - which is guaranteed to annoy warriors on both sides. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect that anyone would argue that it's okay to call living persons anti-science deniers etc. without backup, but an administrator has decided the edits may be constructive, so I won't revert the edits that have been done. As for my timing: I acted because more edits happened after I put out the message. Ordinarily, of course, it would be right to wait because it's reasonable to assume that the message receipient is away. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect that anyone would argue that it's okay to call living persons anti-science deniers etc. without backup Except, of course, as pointed out above, the opposite is true. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources actually say and not the spin you wish them to say. --Calton | Talk 03:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't make any edits that referred to any living person as an "anti-science denier." Is this issue resolved? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using quote marks and I was referring to later comments so it's pointless to make anything out of whether those variants of the words appeared in that order, and denies or denial or rejects-the-science or similar variants appear multiple times, see the quotes. If it's a big deal whether you used such terms near each other, you did change at least one living person from "skeptic" to "anti-climate science" and linked to "global warming denial". If you're asking whether this particular administrators-noticeboard issue is resolved, well, that was the way I understood things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I now realize that the administrator has not officially "resolved" the matter until the notice "the following discussion is closed" appears. So I'll reply to an earlier comment. It means nothing if "skeptic" does not appear in a cited source, when IHaveAMasterDegree's words also do not appear. And IHaveAMastersDegree has changed even if "skeptic" does appear in a cited source, when IHaveAMasterDegree's words do not appear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started editing again because I understood it to be resolved. I will discontinue if I'm supposed to be waiting for resolution. Where can I find guidance on what I'm supposed to do or not do? I am new at this, so apologies for not knowing where to look for this information. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I and others have pointed out, the term "climate skeptic" is so ambiguous that it is essentially meaningless outside of context. Sometimes it refers to scientific skeptic as defined by the traditional skeptic community, e.g. those involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. But it also serves as a euphemism for those who engage in global warming denial or generating disinformation. Because of the overloaded nature of this expression, it seems to be best to avoid using it unless it is explicitly defined. Where it is defined in source material, I have just used that definition. Moreover, it is a label rather than a description of belief or behavior. I think it is always better to avoid labeling people, especially living persons who might change their beliefs or behavior. It seems preferable and more neutral and non-judgmental to describe what individuals have done or what they say they believe in a way that nobody disputes. Then we can avoid and not get into semantic quibbles over what "climate skeptic" really means. If there are specific instances where you feel I did not do this properly, why not just go to the associated talk pages and discuss there? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of instances, and still growing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the one that you consider the best (or worst) example of inappropriate editing and let's talk about it on the associated talk page. I'm happy to work with you (or anyone else) on a case-by-case basis. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masters, if you are making contentious edits, especially to WP:BLP pages, you need BLP-grade RSs. Please read WP:BLP carefully, and refrain from editorializing. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is contentious about removing an ambiguous label and replacing it with an accurate description of opinion. The term "climate skeptic" and similar expressions are incorrect in the cases I edited and in some in some instances constitute pejorative editorializing and not supported by sources. Can you specify something I did that was actually contentious? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's contentious because of the history this subject has had on the English Wikipedia, with discussions going on for several years. Of particular note is your focus on removing the word "skeptic" or its related forms simply because it seems that being described as someone skeptical of climate change is in your eyes at least equated to being a global warming denier. All of this is suspect when coming from an account that has joined this site so recently and seems to be well versed in most matters of discourse.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong is (correct me if I'm wrong Ryulong) alluding to the fact that a number of warriors on all sides of the climate change debates have been banned from editing in that topic area, and some have been kicked off the encyclopedia altogether. Some of these turn up from time to time with new user names pretending to be newbies, carrying on their problematical behaviour. You will inevitably receive skeptical (sorry) sideways glances for a while. This topic has been a genuine nightmare here.

I have no interest or expertise in the topic: I noticed this edit on Australia Institute and checked IHaveAMastersDegree's contributions. They look to my untrained eye to be mostly improvements in clarity that didn't appear to me to be biased one way or another. The editor has also made several classic newbie mistakes (talk page indentation for one) - and I didn't see anything too suspiciously proficient. So I urge others to maintain their skepticism but also keep an open mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits, for the most part, seem to be removing the word "skeptic" when it regards global warming.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong is mischaracterizing my intent which I have explicitly stated multiple places. When the word "skeptical" is used in the context of global warming, it is ambiguous. It can refer to the global warming denial often associated with uninformed or politically-motivated individuals, which is involves denial of the incontravertible facts and has no basis in science. Or it can refer to the scientific skepticism of individuals like Richard Lindzen who accept the facts but have criticisms of the details and publish their criticism in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Richard Lindzen should not be tagged with a label that implies that he is a denier. My intent is to resolve the ambiguity associated with the word "skeptic" in a fair and neutral way. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the other point, for the record I have edited some pages before I got an account (so only my IP address was shown). Probably no more than 3 or 4 pages in the last 5 years and none were related to global warming. My editing interest is associated more with skepticism than it is with global warming. If you review my edit history, you can confirm this fact for yourself. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another editor, dave souza, has found an acceptable and neutral solution for the ambiguous "skeptic" problem on the Ian Plimer page. In deference to those who have been objecting I will stop editing BLP pages until it is clear that there is consensus on this particular case. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These wee alert tags are helpful, glad to see my name being raised in this thread. As I've stated on the article talk page, Plimer is a credulous opponent of mainstream science rather than a climate change sceptic in terms of scientific skepticism. Using the phrase properly, Michael E. Mann is a climate change sceptic in exactly the way that Plimer isn't. Thus while Mann carried out detailed research and published his concepts in scientific literature, Plimer appears to have publicised in interviews and in a book assertions about volcanoes which the EPA states have no factual basis. Unfortunately some editors posting above seem to be attempting to give "equal validity" to fringe views, and trying to drive IHaveAMastersDegree away from this topic area. It should be made clear to them that such battleground tactics are not acceptable in this topic area. . dave souza, talk 18:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IHaveAMastersDegree is simply bordering on the edge of disruption in a controversial topic area by completely eradicating the word "skeptic" because he automatically equates it with climate change denial. I don't see anyone trying to push fringe views, unless using the word "skeptical" when referring to someone who is (the dictionary definition of) skeptical of climate change is a fringe view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word is commonly misused [as a self-description] for or by those denying the science of climate change to give credence to their fringe views, but that's not the dictionary definition of wikt:skeptic. Clearer wording is desirable, and it's hardly the edge of disruption to attempt to find improvements which avoid misrepresenting these fringe views as though they were in some way justified as scientific skepticism. Are you suggesting that Plimer's views on volcanoes emitting CO₂ are not fringe? .. dave souza, talk 18:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that it's easier to use the word "skeptical" than "individuals who question the evidence".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Plimer (and for that matter Monckton) don't question the evidence on climate change, they make up assertions that are directly contrary to the evidence and publicise them in non-scientific channels. We should describe them in neutral language, and not use this loaded and misleading term "skeptic" which can give undue weight to their fringe views. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

per a recent controversy caused by me with the topic of holocaust denial, I think it makes sense to be narrowly explicit as to describing the views and opinions of the parties. "Climate skeptic" carries a lot of baggage, and in many cases what the person is actually skeptical about is much more narrow than the baggage implies. (IE, some believe in climate change, but that the effects are being exaggerated, or that certain evidence is exxagerated/faked but do not disagree with the thrust (Fake but accurate). As BLP is obviously applicable to these issues, we should avoid labeling people with any negative labels that are not heavily supported by sources. That being said, I am not giving an opinion to if skeptic should or should not apply to any particular person, as I have not read through the evidence/sources discussed above.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle, evidence is needed in each case. It is true that in this field "skeptic" is sometimes used as jargon for those opposed to mainstream science, but that in itself is a source of confusion or is misleading to those less immersed in the topic area. Hence a more neutral description is better. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IHaveAMastersDegree wrote: "It looks like another editor, dave souza, has found an acceptable and neutral solution for the ambiguous 'skeptic' problem on the Ian Plimer page." The original words there were ""Climate change scepticism"; dave souza's change was to "Views on climate change". If IHaveAMastersDegree means that for all cases where he/she dislikes the word "skepticism" he/she will only change to "views on climate change", and will only change "climate change skeptic" to "person with views about climate change" or "organization with views about climate change", and nothing else, well, I for one could hope for nothing more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said "in this particular case" referring specifically to the Ian Plimer page. Since it is a section heading and the individual's opinions are clearly stated beneath it, then "Views on climate change" is entirely appropriate. I hope you are being ironic when you suggest that inline statements that someone has "views about climate change" without further elaboration would be any more meaningful than calling them a "skeptic". IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, calling my edits a "disruption" does not make them a disruption. I have taken the discussion to talk pages whenever I have been asked, and have provided my reasons for the edits. I have attempted to reach consensus (successfully in at Ian Plimer case it appears). I have not simply reverted my changes that have been undone by others without any discussion. It is my understanding that this is how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work. It seems that some users are attempting to create a disruption where none actually exist. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, if a brief online dictionary definition of skepticism is the only one that matters, then you should consider editing the Wikipedia skepticism page to reflect that view and see how it goes for you. That said, Ian Plimer is not a skeptic by any definition. According to his page: "Plimer's views came to be associated with Monckton's claim that the international left created the threat of catastrophic global warming..." How is it "skeptical" (by your dictionary definition or any other) to believe in such a conspiracy theory? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:108.48.144.42 disruptive editing.

Hello I would like to report that this IP user has continued to be disruptive. While reverting the IP's edits on The Powerpuff Girls here [154] (Removing a reliable source and violating WP:NPOV) and here [155] (WP:NPOV) I noticed that there are already a heap of warnings on the IP's talkpage for disruptive and breaking NPOV edits. Also noteworthy is the removal of warnings placed by other editors [156]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having encountered some of the editor's contributions, it appears they are either deficient in understanding that Wikipedia is a community project with rules, or they are deliberately engaged in disruption. AGF led me to consider this edit a test, for which the IP received a warning. IP blanked their talk page, which is considered an acknowledgement of posted warnings, which included warnings for NPOV, edit tests and damaging articles.

User has also been engaged in the unexplained removal of sourced content, the removal of sources, and the addition of unsourced future dates, for example in these 17 consecutive edits. User seems to not understand our rules against the introduction of original research, for example when they submitted this edit "Most fans wonder what [Snow White] would look like with her ebony-black hair down." There are also these edits where the user submits repetitive non-neutral descriptions "the girls all strongly fall head-over-heels in love with the same guy", "...[the Spies] figure out how NV makes her hypnotically, irresistible siren-like perfume that spellbindingly attracts all males." This edit was reverted, but then the IP user attempted to sneak some of the content ("head-over-heels in love"), and the grandiose style of writing, back into the article here. User seems to have a POV that they are pushing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

108.48.144.42 is also one of several IPs being used to add unsourced ages for fictional characters in a range of youth media articles.[157][158][159][160][161][162] The editor seems to have just started using 108.10.240.190.[163][164] - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editor makes sweeping changes removing over 100 references without discussion then insults other editors

Issue closed for now, after a second block on Krutoi dezigner--one week by Georgewilliamherbert, which could be called an act of kindness. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Krutoi dezigner (a.k.a. User:G_PViB, User:Tempac3, and various IPs) has made sweeping changes to Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 page including the removal over 100 verifiable references (most of which can be linked to on the internet for all to read). He did this without discussion or any attempt to gain a consensus. When he was challenged by an IP user was openly hostile using insulting language. The following comes from the talk page and is unedited.

WOW! This is the best AK-47 vs M16 comparison I've ever read. I can't believe I found it on Wikipedia. Usually, these articles are filled with nonsense such as "the AK-47 can be buried in the surf for a year, dug out, shaken off and fired without a single malfunction." Or, the "I had an M16 jam on me in Nam once and I've never trusted the gun again" stories.

This article accurately list the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. Such as, the AK-47's primary advantages is that they are cheap and they are everywhere. You can buy 4 or 5 brand new AK-103's from the Russians for the price of one brand new M4. While the M16 overwhelming advantage is that a soldier armed with an M16 can carry twice as much ammo as a soldier armed with an AK-47. This was so much of an advantage that the Russians developed the AK-74 to counter the M16. It also helps to explain why American units armed with M4's routinely wipeout insurgents and terrorist groups armed with AKM's.

I've already printed off copies of the article and I'm going to hand them out to the guys. I really like the suggestion that the "The M16s bolt carrier group is small enough that an extra group can be carried as a back-up." This is the perfect solution for being unarmed when you're cleaning and lubricating your rifle. Just switch out the bolt carrier groups and clean the dirty one. It's such a simple solution I don't know why I didn't think of it myself. --70.173.135.216 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What happened?!! This was the best Ak-47 vs M16 comparison I've ever read. Now, a large amount of information has been removed and what's left has been whitewashed. I recommend that it go back to the last edit as of "20:15, 13 December 2013"‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16&oldid=585954678 --70.173.135.216 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That version? It was created by a psychotic imbecile (who lives with his mommy, I bet) and was full of WP:QUOTEMINING and attempted to game the system in order to represent M16 in best ways possible. It's still possible to incorporate some of his edits (the ones in which he didn't game the system) but only after inspection of sources one by one. Furthermore, he deleted tons of sourced information. Only when I took an edit break he felt safe to emerge from his hiding and vandalize the article. You might not be familiar with such tactics and the article gave a good impression. Krutoi dezigner (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

When you look User:Krutoi dezigner (a.k.a. User:G_PViB, User:Tempac3, and various IPs) edit history you will see that he routinely insults fellow editors. He routinely makes sweeping edits to various pages without attempting to gain consensus. He routinely removes information backed by verifiable English language references and replaces them with contradictory information back by unknown and unverifiable Russian language sources. He routinely demands that others accept his edits on good faith and show nothing but contempt for the work of others. He has been routinely warned and blocked for edit warring, only to return with a new user name. He cannot be reasoned with and will not stop. I recommend that the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 page be return to the last edit as of December 13, 2013 as stated above. I also recommend that the page be locked for a time. And, that User:Krutoi dezigner (a.k.a. User:G_PViB, User:Tempac3, and various IPs) be blocked.--RAF910 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there any discussion on the talk page about article versions? That would be the way to handle the content dispute portion of the matter...seek consensus. Protection wouldn't be warranted here. Behavior could be improved though...
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that lovely comment and warned the user via WP:TWINKLE. We'll see what happens next. Gamaliel (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted to the version prior to the POV-pushing removals. Removing 30k of information that is mostly well-sourced, and then trying to bodge their own POV in is bang out of order; particularly with incorrect and downright false edit summaries like "restoring to stable version" - or none at all. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 21:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one reason with someone who has shown this pattern of behavior? How does one try to reach a consensus with someone who refers to you as a "psychotic imbecile (who lives with his mommy, I bet)". It cannot be done. Any attempt to do so will result in an edit war. Which is nothing new to this user. No, User:Krutoi dezigner (a.k.a. User:G_PViB, User:Tempac3, and various IPs)--RAF910 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this situation so I'm not familiar with his pattern of behavior. I will see how he reacts to this current situation and escalate appropriately if his actions warrant it. We can certainly discuss a block or topic ban based on his long-term behavior, but that would require the presentation of multiple diffs and we would wait to hear his response to the proposal. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... This article (both the modified and original versions) reek of WP:SYNTH, in my professional opinion, and contain significant inaccurate information. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what that POV-pusher did with the article a while ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16&diff=557106814&oldid=549569909 He simply removed information he didn't like. And yes, he is both psychotic and a borderline autistic. Krutoi dezigner (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archived talk page history - read through the bottom topics where the same editor appears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16/Archive_2 Krutoi dezigner (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you referring to, the 71.22 IP editor?
The "psychotic and borderline autistic" is unacceptable to use referring to another editor on Wikipedia and if you do it again you will be blocked for it. You are urged to strike or remove that description.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are scientific terms. Krutoi dezigner (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...annnnd that's a 24 hr no personal attacks block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the IP and RAF910 is the same user. Krutoi dezigner (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given Krutoi dezigner's unblock request, I think WP:NOTHERE applies. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 10:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another mass vandalism by RAF910 (reverted on the AK-47 page):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AK-47&diff=564650732&oldid=564583650

RAF910 vandalism on the Fyodorov Avtomat page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedorov_Avtomat&diff=557891505&oldid=556868409

As you can see the user has no problem with removing sourced information he doesn't like. Krutoi dezigner (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal attacks etc. at Talk:Lycos

This has been handled. As a reminder, concerns about potentially libelous content should be sent to the Oversight team. LFaraone 17:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Henrydconte, User:James Champa, User:PaulBunyon000, User:Gaius Valabius ([165]), et al., have contributed off-topic material to Talk:Lycos, accusing the Lycos company and its employees of covering up a pedophilia ring and other bizarre things. Other users over the years have also used this Talk page as a place to air their complaints about Lycos (false advertising, etc.).

Per WP:NOTFORUM, I hid a recent contribution by Henrydconte along these lines with {hat}. In reply, Henrydconte made additional outrageous, false, and defamatory comments about me (as he has done in the past). User:James Champa added his own bizarre, false, and defamatory comments.

In the interest of full disclosure: I was an employee of Lycos (working on search, not Tripod) for two years (2004-2006). I have had no affiliation with Lycos since then.

Since I am the one being defamed, I feel it's COI for me to delete the defamatory content myself. I ask that an admin

delete the content on Talk:Lycos defaming Lycos and its present and former employees (including me)
delete irrelevant comments or hide them with {hat}
inform User:Henrydconte, User:James Champa, User:PaulBunyon000, User:Gaius Valabius of WP policy about Talk pages
possibly use CheckUser to see if some or all of these accounts are socks (Added: User:Gaius Valabius has already been found to be a sock)
take whatever other action he/she deems necessary to prevent future disruption of this kind

Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

– See similar discussion at Talk:Tripod.com.

--Auric talk 02:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've hatted both discussions as off-topic, with an explanation inside. If another admin wishes to pursue other avenues, such as CheckUser, be my guest. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:KahnJohn27 at Ariel Castro kidnappings

Ariel Castro kidnappings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User KahnJohn72 was warned about edit warring on a different article [166] [167] some 48 hours ago.

Previous consensus at this page has been to keep the name of the daughter out on two seperate occasions. KahnJohn27 added it back in [168]. I removed the name citing previous consensus. KahnJohn27 then added it back in with a personal attack directed at myself [169] "....Stop trying to make Wikipedia ignorant like yourself. Stop trying to impose your views.". I undid the change again citing previous consensus requesting he take it to talk and not engage in personal attacks, then KahnJohn27 put the name back in [170] claiming that there was permission from the family, and "Stay in your limits". I then undid it again citing WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. After my third revert I put a note on the talk page requesting discussion. KahnJohn then reverted the name back in without discussion, ignoring WP:BRD, something he was told about two days ago again claim permission from the family. He did not partake in discussion until several hours later saying "Naming of a victim of a horrible crime should be avoided if the victim or their family does not want the name to be mentioned and there should be reliable sources for the name". I then removed the name again and warned him [171]

Since the beginning of this case, the victims have all requested privacy, [172][173] especially the name of the daughter [174] to the point where her name was stricken from court records.[175][176]

User KahnJohn72 has ignored WP:3RR, WP:BRD, WP:BLP (specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME) WP:NPA and has made misleading edit summaries claiming permission to include the name against WP:BLP and specific requests for privacy.Martin451 21:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

diff of notice on users talk page.Martin451 21:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued a warning and strongly urged him to seek a new consensus on the talk page (if he can find a new one). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone should consider revdel-ing, so the name isn't found in the page history? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Not a bad idea. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anon on an unusual spree

What's going on here? This anon 2602:306:36ED:42C0:54D3:7A59:E490:5A36 (talk) has tinkered with latitude/longitude coordinates on several dozen locations in what seems to be at rather high speed over the past three days. Plus two other edits, perhaps valid, no references, I have no idea. Choor monster (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be removing unneeded accuracy. The Earth has a circumference of 40,000km. One degree is about 111km. One minute 1.85km. 1 second 30m. Coordinates are often given to the accuracy of the size of the feature. e.g. if something is 2km by 2km the coordinates will be given to one minute. 30m by 30m they will be given to 1 second. Stating the position of a city to an accuracy of 30 metres when it is many square km in size is not scientific.Martin451 23:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the coordinates, before the IP editor's changes, only describe one very specific point in each city, the latter of which can be described in minutes, instead of seconds, due to the cities' size. I guess the IP editor is actually doing some good. Let's not dismiss their edits prematurely. Epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many cities have specific features (a building or a square) from which all official mileage is measured. Are these editors moving the coordinates to those features, or away' from them, or, in one example IO looked at, removing unnecessary "0 seconds"? In other words, are the changes helping or hurting the accuracy of the articles? If they're neutral, then they're unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing false precision improves accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, is the precision "false" or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesMoney: "Removing false precision improves accuracy" is untrue. Imagine the actual value being 0.333... (3s repeating). Suppose "X" is 0.333 followed by random numbers and "Y" is exactly 0.333. Which is closer to the truth, X or Y? Turns out "X" will be closer if it's between 0.333 and 0.333666... (6s repeating). Therefore "X" has 66.666...% chance of being closer, and removing false precision does not improve accuracy. QED. 88.113.145.84 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for this, but: removing false or unnecessary precision certainly does improve things. I remove unnecessary precision from geographical coordinates on Wikipedia all the time. The flaw in your argument is the notion of "the actual value". What is "the actul value" of the latitude of Boston, MA? It's a meaningless or at least slippery question, on several levels. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"removing false or unnecessary precision certainly does improve things" - do you have a basis for your claim? "The flaw in your argument is the notion of "the actual value". What is "the actul value" of the latitude of Boston, MA?" So what you're saying is that because we don't know the exact value, that gives us the right to mess around with it? That's like saying you shouldn't lock your door because a burglar would just pick the lock anyway. 88.113.145.84 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm saying that the exact value of the latitude of a city (i.e. to ~~six or more~~ more than six decimal places) has no meaning -- not because we don't know what it is, but because the concept doesn't make sense. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) [edited 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Quite simply, I have no idea if there is supposed to be a policy. At the moment, reverts have already happened to some of the anon's edits. I asked here before doing anything—others just took action. To clarify: it's an anon with no previous history, there is no stated reason given, no mention of policy, and the edits are happening rather rapidly, perhaps semi-automated.

As one example, picked for personal familiarity, Philadelphia displays two-digit decimal coordinates above the infobox, and degree-minute-second coordinates inside the infobox (I assume this is done by the template, since I saw no explicit above the box coordinates). Interestingly enough, the two-digit decimal coordinates exhibits exactly the round-off mentioned above: the inside Geo URI geo:39.953333,-75.17 (seen at the top after clicking on the link) becomes geo:39.95,-75.17. Neither location is a particularly notable street location, however, the inside GEO URI is east-west aligned with City Hall. So if the -75.17 were also lowered just a tad—I eyeball it as -75.165—the inside Geo URI would land on City Hall. Choor monster (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia has two sets of coordinates because it contains both the latd and longd tags in the 'settlement' infobox, and also an explicit {{Coord}} template. That's an error, IMO -- I'll fix it.

As to policy in this area, I don't know of one, but I'll look around and see if I can find anything. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is, unsurprisingly, a WikiProject on this: WikiProject Geographical coordinates. And they have specific guidelines on precision (the basic advice being, as others have mentioned here, "avoid excessive"). There doesn't seem to be concise policy on whether to use, say, the location of a city hall as the location of a city. I also haven't found a policy (and I've certainly observed wide variation) in whether to use decimal degrees or degrees/minutes/seconds. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd

...AAAAAAND the sock has been put away. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tdadamemd seems to have a fixation on "discussing" negative content about Barack Obama or his parents. Looking at his edit summaries [177] reveals what he's focused on. A copy of his current talk page shows he's been warned for edit warring twice and for BLP violations (sections 43, 45, 46). Earlier, I removed this unsourced gem [178]. He persisted, using "google search results as a "source" for this declaration [179]. Multiple editors agreed the discussion was inappropriate and Tarc provided a solid source to refute the unsourced claim [180]. Having been warned by me on BLP and advised I would seek a BLP ban if he continued adding controversial unsourced claims to talk pages, Tdadamemd hit upon the idea of moving the conversation to Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. to duck our BLP policies. My attempts to remove his still unsourced assertion have been reverted. [181], [182] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not forum shopping here - I filed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tdadamemd_reported_by_User:JoeSperrazza_.28Result:_.29 before I saw this ANI filling. The diffs there help illustrate the problems. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Tdadamend [183] of potential sanctions for tendentious editing, BLP violations, edit-warring and personal attacks per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. The editor appears to be determined to insert original research concerning the circumstances of Obama's birth wherever it can go. I've recused myself from applying sanctions myself (I'm apparently a fascist-by-omission [184] and see no benefit in a tangential discussion of "involved"), but I request that Tdadamemd be restricted from edits concerning Obama, broadly construed, for at least six months. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotten to a point that the editor has to be purposely trolling. There is no way anyone would use such inflammatory descriptions if they were not trying to get reactions from other editors. The editor has committed BLP violations over and over, even after warned numerous times by numerous editors. He should either be blocked for a long period or topic banned. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really much to add. It's pretty much a given that any politician is going to be opposed by around 50% of the voting public, that's the nature of the beast, but there are some particularly salacious and fringe corners that have a particular dislike for the current president of the US. A serious encyclopedia should not be a platform from which to espouse such things; this user brought up the question of the age of consent as it relates to Obama's mother at the time of his conception. As noted above I gave demonstrable proof that she was well over Hawaii's age of consent in 1960. The user is polite enough in words in accepting that, but doesn't want to let go, wanting to explore "what if?" scenarios, e.g. what happened when they traveled outside of Hawaii, and so on. This just isn't the proper venue to explore such things. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a wealth of quotes from reliable sources. That makes me anti-Obama? Just because a bunch of editors find facts I have highlighted to be unpleasant, that does not mean that Wikipedia should ignore them. Here is a recap of well-referenced facts I posted:

- Parents' marriage was interracial,

- Mother got pregnant when she was a 17 year old child,

- Mother was pregnant at the time of the wedding,

- Father was already married at the time of the wedding.

The article mentions none of this. These facts are widely accepted. Why is Wikipedia choosing to not communicate what so many reliable authors readily do? Very strange. Just because these editors don't like hearing it does not mean that I am being tendentious by quoting facts that so many authors have documented.

My very patient, well supported and articulated discussion got summarily squashed. Why? To this day I do not know. One editor mentioned "bastard", so that became an issue. This morning I restored the conversation that had gotten inappropriately declared closed and subsequently archived. I then went on to elaborate on facts regarding Obama Sr and Ann Dunham. There was a huge pushback regarding BLP, so I honored that and reposted this info in the Obama Sr article with no mention of any living person whatsoever.

...and people are STILL freaking out, declaring that I'm anti-Obama and have some political agenda. I could probably look up old quotes where I've stated how much I love things Barack Obama has done. Yet here I will still be dismissed with a conclusion that I'm "purposely trolling".

The facts I have highlighted are backed by a wealth of exact quotes from books and other sources. I did not write these books. I did not publish them. I read from them and posted what I read.

The biggest problem asserted was BLP. After I moved the discussion to the article on a dead person, my post was still repeatedly reverted (current state). Upon seeing what's happened on the Obama Sr Talk Page, I am inclined to agree that what has been going on here is politically motivated. When we are at a point where we are prohibited from having an open discussion about simple facts regarding two dead people, then Wikipedia is in a very sad state indeed.

It is clear to me that immediate rectification needed is restoring the section on the Obama Sr Talk Page. Who exactly here is "wikilawyering" when so many editors are forcing BLP into "BDP" in order to suit their own desires as to what topics are too taboo to have a mature rational discussion over?--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you can recreate the wall of text visible here [185], whose proposals received no support at all, at two or three more articles, for a third round? You're discussing the circumstances of birth of a living person, so BLP still applies. Other editors simply thought that your calculations were more relevant to the lives of Obama's parents than to Obama, but that does not allow you to skirt BLP and to indulge in speculative discussions at places as far flung as Talk:Statutory rape. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP=BDP+offspring? And I am wikilawyering? Amazing.

I'm just one editor. There's a MUCH BIGGER issue going on here. And that is the question as to why there's this tidal wave of editing that's produced this sanitized version of the Barack Obama article, to the point where a single-word descriptor of interracial inserted before marriage gets clobbered with vehement opposition (such marriages were a felony across large swaths of the US in 1961).

All of this effort that's turned the focus onto me is merely a distraction from this much bigger point: Wikipedia is broken. And you all have ganged up to keep it that way. There needs to be a disclaimer posted to the top of the Barack Obama article that states: "Facts that might be viewed in a negative light can and will be erased. (No matter how well sourced such facts may be.)"

Here's where it gets extremely bizarre: One of the main sources I've cited is Barack Obama himself. How backward a world is this when the President is more open about sharing info about himself than Wikipedia is? Broken. My sadness deepens.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say here - this is not an unusual or new pattern. The pattern is generally associated with tea-party or more extreme-conservative true believers who expand from "Obama's parents' marriage was funky" to "...AND HE'S A MUSLIM TERRORIST!" by the time we're done. I do not know for a fact where your motivation is coming from here, but the pattern is highly worrying, Tdadamend.

I am all for allowing reasonable people to put (NPOV balanced, BLP appropriate) negative facts or opinions about Obama on his page. People who start making this type of edit and argument are calling "reasonable", "NPOV balanced", and "BLP appropriate" into question immediately.

That said, review still ongoing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted zero reliable sources for your repeated addition of this. Only an invitation to speculate. As EllenCT said: "Any assertion that someone who has the ability to grant pardons, secretly if need be, is the product of bigamy or statutory rape would need to be sourced to at least one WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic legal journal article with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy." You have not even provided a link to a general newspaper that makes that assertion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved admin please inform Tdadamemd (talk · contribs) that their efforts to use Wikipedia to investigate whether Obama is a bastard (diff, see bottom), or whether his father was a criminal who raped his mother (diff), must stop. Further, there must be no nibbling at the edges with attempts to spread the muck on other pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Tdadamemd for one week per WP:GS/BO.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, if you had bothered to read the full action of what had transpired since Dec 9th, then you saw that I put forth great effort toward fixing a broken article. My position was extremely well supported with a wealth of sources, and the vehement opposition provided zero (0) sources to support their position. You then saw that violations were made in the closing of an active discussion by an involved editor.

Today, the Barack Obama article still has not so much as a single mention of the word "interracial". Clearly this is because editors like me have been getting cyber-bullied. Your decision today to block me is your vote of supporting this cyber-bullying. It may not be your intent, but that is the effect.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in point (above). My efforts have been focused on rational discourse toward improvements of our articles. I have persistently been badgered and harassed in return. And I am the one who is being blocked.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out and continuing to edit while blocked is called Block Evasion and further demonstrates the need for additional sanctions. I SUPPORT a 6 month topic ban for Barack Obama related articles as proposed earlier in this thread. Note the circumstances regarding this editor's prior block and you will see the same pattern of IMHO and DE. -- Joe Sperrazza

The posts after Bbb23's comment are from 66.87.120.190 (the Sinebot signature was removed). Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If block evasion continues or the same type of editing continues after the block expires then yes, I support a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Obama's mother explains the situation in detail. What his parents may or may not have done is not Obama's fault. And by the way, the age of consent in Hawaii is 16. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, also by the way, though indeed the multiple marriages of Sr. would have made this one grounds for annulment, in Hawaii, issue of annulled marriages are "legitimate". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked by Jpgordon as a sock of User:ChrisfromHouston. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:The Rambling Man

Absolutely nothing is being solved or accomplished here other than bickering spilling over from one area to this one. TRM, if you have problems with editors' behavior at RD, I advise you to open an RFC and establish consensus that the behavior is problematic. There clearly is no appetite here for discussing much less enacting an interaction ban. Maybe all of you could just carry on smartly and focus on improving the encyclopedia. --Laser brain (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user, who is apparently an admin, has been engaging in ever-more-bizarre behavior in the last day or so. He's been criticizing Medeis and me, which may be fair (other than the "Statler and Waldorf" nonsense). But after both The Rambling Man and I were told by another admin to knock off the banter, he has continued on with it. He's generally got a snippy attitude, but it seems to be accelerating today: He's been edit-warring over the hatting of trolls' comments on the ref desk talk page. I don't know if this has to do with it being New Year's Eve, or if this is a long-time problem. And what can be done about it, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done about it? I have a suggestion: (a) that The Rambling Man be banned from any further interaction with Bugs and Medeis, and (b) that Medeis and Bugs are both banned from posting anything on the reference desks which isn't a direct and straightforward answer to the question - such answer to include a Wikilink to a relevant article, or a citation of a relevant source. Problem solved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, and will happily add my name to the (a) portion if (b) is actually accepted. There's no chance that (b) will be accepted without a fight though. --Onorem (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually the reference desks, or the talk page which are the primary problem now? Still looking at stuff, not seen enough yet. ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs was told by arbcom to "to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not." Comments like he must have won it in a Crackerjack box, coming unhinged are not consistent with that advice. NE Ent 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perhaps a notch too personally involved in this issue (see here, here, and here), so any recommendation from me should be taken with a grain of salt, but my personal opinion is that both Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man should be cautioned and reminded of the importance of civility. Both (again, IMO) have been behaving equally badly. In answer to GWH's question, the RD talk page seems to me to be the bigger problem lately. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Steve, and NE Ent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who wants to see what's going on here can simply look at these seven edits made over the last nine days by TRM where he talks to himself about me on his talk page and then deletes his own comments with the edit summary "expunge the crap from bugs and his cohort meds in an attempt to cleanse; so many people have asked these two to do something positive, but nothing. Per bugs: "Utter lack of temperament", "self-appointed court jester of ANI" etc" as if this bizarre monolog were anything to do with me.

Here's another example of the exact same obsessed monolog over a two-week period, with the edit summary "forget this rubbish. If Medeisss wants to call me an asshole, then she's entitled to do so, but despite everything I never resorted to personal attacks on her like that. Despicable snake-like behaviour." A search of TRM's most recent edit summaries finds him calling me a sneak on eight occasions, and a snake on three. I invite users to investigate my talk page to find any attacks by me, or similar obsession with TRM, whose actions I have largely ignored.

TRM will undoubtedly make a big deal out of this edit where I complain to Jayron on his talk page that Jayron's arguing on WP:ITN that only "pot heads" would be interested in a country's legalization of pot is inappropriate, but that, unlike TRM, I won't hound Jayron at ITN or in public. Strangely enough it turns out TRM was stalking the page and chose to interpret my telling J he wasn't an asshole as my saying that TRM was. I didn't become aware of TRM's crusade over this until his bizarre comments started appearing in ITN nomination and edit summaries:

16:37, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,635 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: help slippery one) (undo | thank)
16:37, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,609 bytes) (+234)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: feed the snake) (undo | thank)
16:31, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,375 bytes) (+406)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: not so sneaky) (undo | thank)

and I felt it best to ignore him, although he seems to have found this intolerable. These are the 20 user page notifications I have received from TRM alone over the last two weeks:

expand to see 20 reversions and talk page comments

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Rambling Man left a message on your talk page in "Note3". By the way, never post to my talk page ever again, the pair of you. If you have an issue with me, actually take it ANI and don't keep pretending a... 4 hours ago | View changes

Your edits on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk have been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 4 hours ago

Your edit on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 5 hours ago

The Rambling Man left a message on your talk page in "Note3". I agree, but please read the posts of the numerous people concerned with both of your edits to the reference desks. To see old contributors coming... 6 hours ago | View changes

The Rambling Man thanked you for your edit on UFC 168. 1 day ago | View edit

Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 1 day ago

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "AN/I". 1 day ago | View changes 27 DECEMBER

Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 8 days ago

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Posted] Mikhail Khodorkovs...". 8 days ago | View changes

Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 8 days ago

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "AN/I". 8 days ago | View changes 22 DECEMBER

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the Reference desk talk page in "unhelpful edit". 9 days ago | View changes

Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago

Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago 21 DECEMBER

Your edit on Radio Maryja has been reverted by Estlandia. (Show changes) 10 days ago 20 DECEMBER

Matty.007 mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 11 days ago | View changes

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 11 days ago | View changes 18 DECEMBER

The Rambling Man and 1 other left a message on your talk page. 13 days ago | View changes

Your edit on List of ethnic slurs has been reverted by Chisme. (Show changes) 15 days ago

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 18 days ago | View changes

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 19 days ago | View changes

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Ready] [Attention needed]...". 19 days ago | View changes

The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Gunny". 19 days ago | View changes

TRM's stalking behavior and attacks are well known to anyone who's interacted with him. I'd look at recent interactions of TRM with Jayron on his talk page, Somchai Sun, Ummit as mentioned above, and so forth. Within the last 24 hours TRM has stalked me at User:Deborahjay, reverted me twice when I closed off topic comments on a thread about IP54's socking at the ref desk, and stalked me at User Talk:Mark Arsten. None of this behavior is reciprocated by me.

I think the solution is rather obvious, an interaction ban between myself and TRM would be extremely welcome. It should consist on a ban from directly or indirectly addressing each other through talk page or edit summaries, but no restriction on editing the same page (since we both edit ITN, for example) except a restriction on following each other immediately from page to page. Perhaps TRM will welcome this. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would likewise be quite happy to never have to hear from or talk to that guy again. I saw today that he had been stalking my entries as well. The main reason I brought this here is because to my eyes it seems like there's something wrong going on with that guy. He seems obsessed. Here's an oddity: He told both Medeis and me to never post on his talk page again.[186] I don't recall ever posting on his talk page before, until after that edict when I posted the required notification of this discussion here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked his talk page history over the last year-plus, and I don't see my username there anywhere, except for today's required notification. So I don't know what that was about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WT:Reference desk#The unbearable crassness of a certain type of response by RD regulars (started by Deborahjay) with regard to the final two comments in a reference desk section, archived here. A reasonable person who had made the remarks complained of would simply say "sorry, I'll avoid that in the future". An unreasonable person might bring the case to ANI and demand that their exasperated critics be silenced. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at my comments on Deborahjay's talk page. There's nothing for me to apologize for, I was not personally insulted by BB's response, and TRM was entirely uninvolved until, as usual, he stalked me to DJ's talk and inserted himself in the conversation. This ANI has nothing to do with her thread. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Where did I say anything about TRM being "silenced"? I brought this here because when I saw his behavior yesterday, attacking us at every turn, I asked myself, "What's wrong with that guy?" I came here because I thought someone might have an answer to that question. So far, there is no answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AndyTheGrump's suggestion. If this pair of editors can restrict their RD edits to answering questions rather than upsetting numerous editors then I (along with others it would appear) will very happily never interact with either of them again. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answers with links have to be a bit more sensible than the ones posted by Bugs and Medeis in the thread "Gravity" on the Science ref desk. The correct way to respond to questions about gravity is to wait for a physicist/physics teacher to arrive. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked what gravity is, and I proposed he read the Gravity article. Silly me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Very silly you. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I failed to provide a link when I said that gravity is "heaviness". Here is that link.[187] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition. You're just underlining my point. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much an imbecile, so you'll need to spell out that point for me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were questions about gravity. That's a concept in physics. It needed someone who knows about physics, preferably also about teaching physics, to work out how the questions needed to be approached. That person might then decide that it would be enough to direct the OP to our article on gravity, or they might know of a more useful source. There actually are people around who have more to offer than a link to WP, a suggestion to Google, or a link to a dictionary definition. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to come here and ask, "What is Edelweiss? Where does it come from?" etc., I wouldn't expect to have to wait for a botanist to show up, I would expect someone familiar with wikipedia to tell me to read an appropriate article, such as, for example, Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I've never hear anyone besides you argue that providing a link to a Wikipedia article about an OP's question is somehow the wrong thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a basic flaw in TRM's argument. He chose to go after us, stalking our every edit yesterday. Summit advised him to stop interacting with us, and he ignored that advice. If he's "upset" with anybody, it's because he chooses to. And by the way, it's not just us. He's got a generally bad attitude in interacting with others.[188] It's totally reasonable to question how he ever got to be an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another oddity is how often TRM uses the edit summaries to make editorial rants.[189] He seems to have an ongoing ax to grind against Medeis over the last few weeks. I just don't see how TRM's behavior squares with how an admin is supposed to carry himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested way forward. As in a WikiProject, each desk should have a list of volunteers, and we add our areas of interest/expertise. Then OPs can look up to see whether a question falls under someone's area of expertise. For example, Medeis knows Latin and ancient Greek, which is helpful from time to time on the Languages board. Another advantage is that we can see where we have gaps and we could put out trawls in WikiProjects, Signpost etc for more volunteers. What do people think? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion by Itsmejudith that only experts should be allowed to answer RefDesk questions is very flawed and misguided. Most editors use screen names,and keep their real names secret. This is necessary to prevent harassment from disgruntled editors or malicious vandals and crackpots.Proposals to have some secret process of verifying claimed credentials have been rejected by the community. We judge edits by the quality of the sources, not by supposed credentials. By her proposal, a question at the Humanities Ref Desk about theology would have had to wait for a teacher of religion. Well, we had the Essjay controversy where someone falsely claimed to have a relevant PhD and to be a tenured professor in the field. At Wikipedia, there is no clear way to review the claimed credentials of anonymous editors. That is one reason we refuse to answer questions for professional advice. Most questions are so basic that the answer is clearly stated in one of the four million- plus Wikipedia articles, or in some editor's handy undergraduate textbook,or even in a high school textbook. Editors' time would not be best spent by drafting an explanation which is already found in the relevant article. Few questions are such that a professor's expertise is required. If only highly-qualified professionals were allowed to answer questions, then perhaps only qualified professionals should be allowed to edit articles. But that is not a description of how Wikipedia works or how it should work. Edison (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was advocating at all. I said expertise/interest. I can see it working on the Entertainment desk where people say whether they are interested in TV, film, anime etc. Anyway, it's for the ref desks talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the editor's totally civil response to my required notification of this discussion:[190] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is Rambling Man's stalking and unending grudge holding which goes way beyond me or bugs or the ref desks. We need to institute an interaction ban to end this.

Other recent examples of unprovoked disruptive attacks by TRM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I make a comment at one desk on eggnog, advising the OP that it can be made better at home even if it is unavailable in stores. I get an insulting response from TRM with the edit summary "pointless".

I ask for advice on restoring a friend's computer I had upgraded from a back-up I made. I get mocked that it's really my computer: Classic "my friend" story. I blame Snowden. Looks like you need a trip to PC World to fix the damage. The Rambling Man (talk) 3:30 pm, 22 December 2013

I suggest at ITN that the car-bombing death of a Lebanese minister won't get posted if the article on the bombing remains a stub. I get an insulting response from TRM taunting that a totally separate article on the Russian bombings has been updated and that I should "think again". This despite the fact that TRM supported the nomination of Mohamad Fatah 24 hours earlier, and that I had supported it. His concern with taunting me caused him to confuse the nominations and disrupt a discussion he himself had just the day before supported.

Bugs and I have already said an interaction ban would be helpful, as has TRM. That should be instituted immediately, it is objectively verifiable and enforceable. This is not the place for a discussion of the usefulness of certain answers to questions on gravity or so forth--and any policy worked out would have o apply to all users equally. In the meantime, let's institute this interaction ban immediately. It will have an immediate beneficial effect not only on the parties involved, but on the project as a whole. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, is this still going on? I'd agree with Medeis; I'd also like her to apologise for sneakily calling me an asshole. And assuming her and BB can start to respond to questions at the RDs in a precise and helpful fashion rather than as some "comedic" double act, we'll have no further problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I'm beginning to get the picture: You're still irked over allegedly being called a name - weeks ago. One of your favorite patronizing, snippy comments is "move along". You should take that advice yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban means don't respond to my comments. The sooner you learn that, the quicker you can get back to the chat rooms. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also means don't respond to my comments. The sooner you learn that, the quicker your sought-after interaction ban will begin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"his comments on AN/I tend to inflame situations rather than defuse them", "your actions on ANI scares me", " Looking over his contributions to WP:AN/I, they're usually adding to the drama or really lame jokes that often derail serious conversations"... ring any bells? Seems that you haven't learnt a thing since then. And I think you'll find it was your RD pal Medeis who suggested the interaction ban. Get someone else to let me know when we can start ignoring each other, you can go back to using Wikipedia as Facebook and I'll carry on improving content. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no bells ringing. I don't know where you're getting those quotes from. But it's apparent that you don't want an interaction ban. Alrighty then, at Burger King. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know? Perhaps you should have a long think. There are plenty more where those came from. You're clearly back in the ANI game you like to play. I don't do crappy American food though, sorry, thanks for the offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really hate ANI, but sometimes it becomes necessary. But unlike you, I'm not bothered by name-calling, and since I don't remember it, it must be long ago. The front part of the "at Burger King" reference is "Have it your way..." That one is probably before your time. The reason I opened this discussion is because yesterday I began to seriously worry about your health and stability: Your obsessiveness over this perceived wrong seemed to be extreme and accelerating. If you can assure us that you've got things under control now, we can close this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't learnt a thing since receiving those comments it would appear. I've given you my conditions. Medeis apologises, and you pair start responding to editors in a helpful manner (as was requested near the top of this thread by yet another complainant of yours), not a double-act fashion which has caused so many people to complain about both of your behaviour at the ref desks. Done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your adminship does not give you license to demand "conditions" regarding perceived wrongs. And since you yourself so often respond to editors in an unhelpful manner, such advice coming from you carries no weight. Furthermore, you haven't confirmed that you're in control of your emotions yet, so I'm assuming the answer is still "No." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never mentioned or used adminship as any kind of tool in this "discussion". Please, go ahead, you and your cohort, continue to post here, knock yourselves out, and eventually it'll be closed and someone will chastise us all for being naughty and you'll carry on being unhelpful at the chat rooms and I'll carry on improving content. "Consistently bad attitude", "Unhelpful jokes/sarcasm on WP:AN/I. I'd like to see you tone it down" etc... plus all the good advice Arbcom gave you, all wasted it appears. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's your own attitude that needs substantial improvement. I raised this discussion because I was worried about you. It appears my concern was wasted. That's the way things go sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"inserting fatuous humor in wildly inappropriate contexts", "He tries to disrupt the project anytime somebody disagrees with him", "Baseball Bugs' comments have created a markedly hostile environment", "Bugs' comments have consistently been beyond the pale", "I've lurked enough in the past few weeks to see near universal resentment for the regularly unhelpful and/or detrimental additions by Bugs sand Medeis" .... Sounds like you need to look closer to home. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man needs to disengage from Bugs and Medeis immediately and permanently. His edits in the 20-edit box are pretty blatent Wikihounding, the kind that would get other editors indeffed. It is particularly disheartening that he has been edit warring on Wikipedia talk pages. As such, there needs to be a one-sided interaction ban on TRM with these two editors. p b p 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, hi PBP89, wondered how long it'd be before you weighed in. Nice to see you and happy new year. I take you advocate personal attacks then, since you (and most others here) are keen to overlook the fact that Medeis called me an asshole. What's more disheartening is that this pair of editors have been criticised by multiple editors for their abuse of the RDs but no-one is prepared to acknowledge that. I'm sorry to see that BB wasted all the good advice he was given by many, many editors (plus "sneaks in final word" for instance) and Arbcom themselves, and sorrier to see that Medeis is allowed to (nay, encouraged to) make personal attacks. All I've ever wanted was (a) a redaction of and apology for the direct personal attack by Medeis and (b) that her and BB actually treat editors with the respect they deserve at the RD. Whether they like it or not, their continuing attempts at humour are lost on most, and are interpreted as something completely (and distastefully) different. Happy to stay away from them in future, but these issues need to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I closed it because I thought you wanted it closed. Someone else re-opened it. Fine, whatever. I can't speak to your issues with Medeis, that's between you two. But I can say that I strive to always treat editors with exactly the respect they deserve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird one for me. I'm here because an anon IP who is strangely familiar with WP procedures invited me. I've not been named so far in this thread, although I participated in the recent Reference Desk Talk thread about Bugs and Medeis' behaviour. TRM has been complaining about them both for some time, and I substantially agree with the issues he raises. However, he's been talking about doing something, rather than doing it, for months now, so I'm hardly surprised that one of his targets has called his bluff. Therefore, some observations:

1) Other people being jerks doesn't justify TRM, or me for that matter, being jerks too. 2) One-sided interaction bans are an awful idea. They give licence to the other party in the dispute to have the last word in any discussion, and to exclude the first party from any sub-thread just by showing up. Interaction bans need to be bilateral. 3) Although the wall of text above is mostly heaping opprobrium on TRM, I feel that this thread has the possibility to WP:BOOMERANG. 4) I suspect that Bugs doesn't feel certain users deserve much respect, which hardly helps foster an environment in which people are treated with respect, deserving or not. 5) This isn't limited to RD, although RD is all three users' favourite playground, to the extent that I've largely stopped participating. Both users are also strongly active - often in their respective signature styles - at ITN/R. And Bugs was recently censured ([191]) in the Chelsea Manning arbcom case. 6) I'm quite ill at present, so I can't spare the energy to bring a case here directly. But I would urge as many admins as can spare the time to review the actions of all the main parties in this case.

In short, it all stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that happens here is trivial, compared to life and health. Be good, and get well soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Christian2941 Ban proposal

There is a clear consensus to ban Christian2941. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am proposing ban User:Christian2941 for adding factual errors, hoax information, vandalism, and spam. Because the user was made incorrect information in 2011. The user keeps changing birthdates, creating hoax stations, and a made vandalism articles. blaster talk! see 02:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User is already indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only account. See User:Christian2941. Nothing more to be done. NE Ent 02:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support - Au contrarie, NE Ent, the auto-revert all contribs of merely indef blocked users doesn't hold up, whereas it does for banned users. Given the 2.75 year, hundredish sockpuppet long term abuse case, I agree a ban is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit was May 2011, and vandalism can already be reverted at will -- it's even 3rr exempt (if obvious). NE Ent 03:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last CU confirmed sockpuppet was Dec 10, 2013 ( [192] ), and the reverting at will for banned users covers all edits, even those not immediately obvious as vandalism, which avoids contentious discussions about whether banned users are contributing positively or not. That issue never goes away. Once banned, you just nuke the content, and someone else who wants to take responsibility can re-add it on their own judgement later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ban proposal for a should be add User:Christian2941 at Wikipedia:List of banned users. blaster talk! see 05:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-opening discussion) Support Apologies for closing this so early, but it's quite obvious that because of the high level of sockpuppetry he deserves a ban. Minima © (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't "deserve" anything. Bans are not punishment (see Wikipedia:Banning#Conduct_towards_banned_editors). This remains pointless -- socks can be reverted at all and the edits are still. Perhaps a ban proponent could provide us a link to a single remaining live edit from the account which cannot be reverted as obvious vandalism. NE Ent 12:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the effectively banned bans are turning controversial too often. If it needs to stick, let the community do the real one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was banned already for long-term abuse. In any case, I will support a site ban. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Obviously, anyone with that many socks in the draw doesn't belong here.. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Racist captcha

No need for administrative attention. The admins can't change captcha codes. (non-admin closure) ///EuroCarGT 05:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

While attempting to edit Wikipedia, I was asked to use a Captcha to verify that I was a human. I am a new editor and I understand that this means I need to confirm I am a legitimate user of the website, but I was horrified to find the text I was required to type said 'nigerblew' (I do not think the missing 'g' makes a lot of difference). If you need proof, please see my screenshot: http://snag.gy/JpSUR.jpg Am I correct in assuming that Captchas are made at random? If so, is it possible to prevent this from happening to another user? FirstNewYearAccc2014 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to wipe Niger off the map, then. Sorry, but the "g" is quite important. Words have meaning, and not everything is a hidden racial epithet. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Niger is a country (among other things. Is it racist (even given the missing 'g')? --Onorem (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ah... Although no human being was involved in that, I apologize for you seeing it and thank you for reporting it. That's not right.

Yes, they are made at random, and I recall there is some manual "don't use these" pattern matching before the string is shown to you, but those patterns are only as good as the list of bad words programmed in to avoid. We might well have the two-g's version of that blocked already but not with one-g, for example. But I don't know for sure.

I am going to post this on the wikitech-l email list where the people who do site operations can review and do anything that can be done.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how sensitive we want to be, we might want to block 'niggardly' and 'fag' as well. But do we want to block 'indian', 'pork', 'god', and 'whiskey'? Is it more racist to show 'niger', or to block an important river because some people might think it's racist? — kwami (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, by all means, GWH, lets purge that list. And while we're at it, let's get rid of like, Nike, pike, hike and bike, all of which are one letter off from "kike", and let's do away with spit (too close to "spic"); mop, hop, top, sop, fop, lop, cop and mop (one letter difference from "wop"); nick, wick, hick, lick, sick and kick (which someone might confuse with "mick").

"Niger" is not "nigger", and anyone who confuses them is profoundly uneducated -- or, consider the name they chose for their "new" (hmmmm....) account, perhaps they're just pulling our chain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(eye roll) I am going to make you sit through the manager sensitivity and anti-sexual-harassment training I just did, BMK. No, can't do that, the training literally isn't safe for work... (paw own eyes and brain out)

I would not personally have been offended by "Niger" either, as I know it's a country, but if other people react thinking it's the two-G word, it does not harm the encyclopedia in any way if we take that word off the list of possible words for the captcha. It's not going to affect article space whatsoever. It will not filter anything in contributions, talk, etc. It's purely removing a word some persons feel might be racist from the captcha. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, don't "eye roll" me, my wife works in HR, for a non-profit civil-rights law firm, no less, so I'm more than familiar with all that jazz, but I also live in a real world where terribly ignorant people have much more influence than they should. Wikipedia, as a project to create an encyclopedia is, at least in part, an effort to educate people, and rather that acquiesce to the madness, it's better to inform people why they are mistaken, and not validate their ignorance by giving in to it. So, in that way, it does hurt the encyclopedia, because giving in is antithetical to the underlying purpose of our mission. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, color me confused. Are you not cluing in that this is the outgoing captcha we are talking about, that we show to people under circumstances such as some unconfirmed edits, new account signups, etc? It has nothing - ZERO - to do with content in the encyclopedia. Filtering naughty words or - in this case - nearby to naughty words that some person might mistake for naughty, is just us avoiding accidentally random-number-generator-offending people. It's not content related. It says nothing about content, talk, etc. Us not offending or confusing people is part of the encyclopedic goals... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand exactly what happened, please don't condescend to me. The person came here and reported their ignorant response to the captcha, and you tugged on your forelock and said "Our bad". Well, it's not our bad, we didn't misinterpret "Niger" for "nigger", and we have nothing to apologize for. If we're here to educate, and we are, then explaining why "Niger" isn't "nigger" is the proper response -- maybe even with reference to our encyclopedia articles, do you think? Your taking the responsibility onto ourselves wasn't a good thing to do, as I believe several other people agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfuckingbelievable that you would even consider adding the name of a river to some kind of black list. Eric Corbett 03:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's in our captcha blacklist, but as a rule, there are usually quite significant numbers of place names and dual-use words in such filters, because some people find Fucking, Austria offensive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why "fucking" should be blacklisted, but not "Australia". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Austria and Australia are different places. There's some odd place names here, too. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the list includes small boats, like punts? NE Ent 03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For US people, "punt" is most associated with our version of Football, and is culturally well enough known. Few people remember the boats (sob). I don't recall seeing it on filter lists, but I might have missed it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The adjectival form for someone from the United States is not "US person" it's "American". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the edit FirstNewYearAcc2014 made referenced a non-existant source and added content I'm getting a total blank from google. (I reverted). NE Ent 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any web material suggesting there is a remake of The Avengers in progress, which either means this acct trolled us on that point, or this was a first leak of a brand new TV show. One can make a reasonable guess. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What BMK said, above. Why Georgewilliamherbert thinks it's a good idea to import corporate HR-think even HE finds ridiculous is beyond me. Perhaps we should hide Scunthorpe to avoid offending people who see things within words. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, yes, Scunthorpe vanishes from most random world / captcha generators for this reason. Are you all really so ignorant of real world standard practices with these things? ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user is offended by something that resembles a racist epithet, and several people respond by calling this person an ignorant idiot. Because that always solves things. Perhaps we should have disclaimer on the captcha: "If you're offended by a word here, it's because you're an ignorant idiot. EDUCATE YOURSELF." Problem solved, amiright? *shakes head* Seriously, irrespective of whether "Niger" should be removed from the captcha, I would expect more civil behavior from administrators than this. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Anyone who is offended by "Niger" is ignorant, pretty much by defintion, and if that's it, that's the end of it. If they come here, the proper response, especially from an admin of long experience like GWH, is to explain WHY it's not racist, point them to the relevant articles, and WHAMMO!! we've helped erase some ignorance from the world. The answer is NOT to play into their ignorance, which is what GWH did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's common website practice (I don't know the WMF filters, but do know others) to avoid potential misinterpretations and apply the precautionary principle. Apparently that is not widely known among participants in this discussion. We may have been trolled, but my response is what ops teams on any other website would do. If you thing this is wrong, you're out of touch with normal website practices, and with the HR issues stuff I mentioned and you said you understood. If it can offend people, and it's not part of the site role, you just don't do it. Sure, we could take any mistake and use it as an educational opportunity. Why didn't you, instead focusing on me? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it was YOU who jumped in and publicly blamed US without reference to the OP's error? Could THAT be it, Georgewilliamherbert? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no point in duplicating the "The country of Niger..." comments I ECed with responding, so I didn't. I focused on the thing they had not, the same reaction I'd have as webmaster@ (any commercial site) who would say exactly what I did, because that's standard operating procedure. Again, web SOP, your captcha emits something someone finds offensive, close to a real offensive word, you expand the filter. I am going beyond confused into appalled that this is considered unreasonable here by so many people, even though we (me) do appear likely to have been trolled. Either they spent ten minutes with photoshop, or we emitted that captcha. Either they have some non-public info about a new TV series and leaked it here, or we got trolled on that point. A troll photoshopping a screen snap is not my first reaction, though that may have happened. If you think my reaction was out of line for what a webmaster@ responder would do on another site, you'd get fired from that job anywhere else around day 1. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a first time editor, who is adding a non-existent source, just happened to get a captcha code that sort of looks like a racical epithet if you are ignorant of the actual word and what Niger is? Then runs here and creates a big deal about it? I'm no math whiz, but something doesn't smell right about those odds. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up the point that we only have the OP's word for what the captcha said. Given the edit... Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The non-existent source wasn't evident until NE Ent went and looked, though I can confirm it's nonexistent (and, there's not a whisper on the net of other thins that might confirm what they added). The apparent screenshot would be a lot of effort to go to in order to troll us; in combination with the fake source, though, that's not unreasonable to wonder about or assume. But there is a problem with the reactions above, trolled or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is, and mainly with your own. Eric Corbett 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem is that people are literally getting offended that someone else was offended by mistaking "Niger" for a misspelled racist word. Maybe some folks here are educated enough to discern the difference, but that's little excuse for talking down to someone who may not be. Educate that person? Fine. Berate them, and others who are sympathetic to them? Uncivil. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not talking down to someone to say "You're mistaken." This was a potential teaching moment, that Georgewilliamherbert turned into a bit of politically correct cravenness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a potential teaching moment that two other admins had (ec)ed with me over providing, already, so I responded to the (evident, but now apparently trolling) offender user part of it. Again, it's not politically correct to respond this way to an offended user, it's customer service. Heavens, we can't respond to apparently offended users with a first reaction that's sensitive to their complaint. That would be crazy talk, like oh, anywhere in the real world would do. *gasp* It's not PC. It's basic customer-sensitive, customer-service, offended-customer-gets-credible-sympathetic-ear-on-first-contact response. Again, real world web response 101. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GWH is a civility whore. Should we block the word cant as being equally only one one letter away from another word some appear to find offensive? In some accents the two words are indistinguishable. Eric Corbett 04:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that no one got suspicious of the username immediately, as it looks like we were being trolled. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did. See my "Hmmmm....." above, in my very first comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that. New users are unlikely to make their first post about an offensive post here, so I am glad to know that you also share my suspicions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I work in this area professionally. It is common practice to remove candidate words that could generate offense, or that resemble words that could generate offense. Because, why not? We're not for want of words to use. We have quite a lot of them. It doesn't impact anything negatively to remove niger from our candidate list. Nothing. It does, however, eliminate the possibility that we would hint at an idea that might cause unnecessary controversy and drama. Like this whole completely pointless thread. I get that "penis" is just another word, and we should all act like mature adults about it, but do we want to force people to type "penisblew" to edit wikipedia? Why not give captchas like "greenleaf" and save ourselves this kind of ridiculous trouble. The hostility generated by this completely standard suggestion is mind boggling. We're not AfDing Niger. And yes, the user might be a troll. That's no reason not to fix a problem. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is true: When I was in the US army, stationed in Europe, the black shoe polish displayed four or five different languages for "black". At a gathering of bilingual, (or better), "locals", and American soldiers, (barely speaking English well), some locals took to joking, and having innocent fun; regarding the other languages on the tin—until one of my colleagues assaulted the person he was sure was directing racial slurs at him.
Young people got hurt with fat lips and abrasions; but did heal quickly, for their youth.
I say Tarc had it exactly right in his immediate response! It is exponentially more important, and correct, to say what it is, and to say it isn't healthy succumbing to a mentality of: "it must be see racially". And if FirstNewYearAccc2014 did just learn of one of the other countries that share our world, well; truly nothing bad has happened at all. I am glad that he show enough character to ask; to speak of his discontent—and I hope, a like measure; seeing that Tarc nailed it right then when he answered.—John Cline (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your colleague needed thicker skin, some education and anger management classes. Not only is the word for black "negro" in other languages, but it's still used on the US Census to describe black Americans. Maybe he should go punch out someone at the United Negro College Fund offices too. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: account has been checkuser blocked. NE Ent 11:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing by user ANTONI20

ANTONI20 has been removing sourced material from articles on U.S. District Courts. He does not leave any explanation for these removals, either in an edit summary or on the appropriate talk pages. See:

See his contribution history for more examples, [200].

ANTONI20 was questioned here about blanket changes to an article and here about changes without discussion. He was warned here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This has been discussed here, here, and here in addition to the warnings on his talkpage.

Based on the number of changes, deletions, and warnings, I believe that a one week block might be appropriate to get his attention so that he will stop removing sourced material. I will notify him on posting this and will post a diff to the notification in a minute. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANTONI20 was notified of this discussion here. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theparties and Philippine-related BLPs

Closing discussion as I decided to settle with Theparies on the issue. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've sent a message on his talk page concerning what he did to talk pages for Filipino actors and other notables. I tried to reason him as to why he shouldn't elevate the importance from low or medium to high, but now he's playing the racist or irrationally-proud nationalist card when he told me this:

The reason why Judy Ann Santos is less notable than Julia Roberts is because world history has a tendency to give bias towards the wealthy so obviously brown-skinned people are less 'notable' than Westerners. There is no article in Britannica for Ai-Ai de las Alas even if she is one of the most successful comedienes in the country but there is one for Julia Roberts or Meryl Streep.

Any thoughts on how to deal with him in a civil, reasonable manner? Blake Gripling (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be dealt with an in-project discussion. I perceive that there is a bias against Filipino actors because Dolphy's fifty-something year career gives him a little more than a high-assessment in terms importance yet he basically established the foundations of Cinema in the Philippines. As far as the 'racism' goes, it's an allegory on the lack of scholarly articles about the film industry of the Philippines. I apologize for being harsh but sometimes the truth hurts.--Theparties (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~FYI a certain Jasmine B. Lee is rated as a Top-importance article yet barely any Filipino may have any knowledge of her.-Theparties (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've decided not to make a bigger issue out of this and apologize and promise not to use any racist rhetoric again.-Theparties (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, dude, didn't really intend or mean to get ticked off at you in the first place. :) And you're right about Jasmine, too. It seemed like the mainstream (read: masa) likes to give more weight to the likes of celebrities than those who went into more noble pursuits. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you willing to retract this because I am really scared right now.--Theparties (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be scared, though I'm sorry if it seemed like as if I brought this issue a little overboard. So, yes, I say we move on and settle with improving things. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please Help

Huon took care of it. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please can an Admin PLEASE Look at this .... we are getting nowere all we want is someone Blocked and its not getting done ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Destructive_editing Jena (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing by Samizambak

WP:RSN is that way. A little coaching of Samizambak might go a long way, Omnipaedista. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This editor keeps copypasting/spamming the same unreliably sourced text (claims about the Sumerian origins of certain Balkan musical instruments) to various music-related articles. When I reverted their edits and asked for a reliable source on their talk-page they started spamming my talk page with nonsense posts. Among the sources they cited were http://www.nikosmanias.gr/index.php?laouto_en and http://www.shlomomusic.com/luteorigins.htm. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samizambak Samizambak (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did write that musical instruments were those of pandur origin.Samizambak (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I've added resourcesSamizambak (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources add that I was able to find from google. I own opinion pages are not changed according to scientific and historical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samizambak (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lute&action=history The changes I made were deleted why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samizambak (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

user:Lgcsmasamiya

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Lgcsmasamiya's patrolling, user:Lgcsmasamiya was banned from patrolling the new pages feed. Well a look at [[201]] shows that he is still doing so. I cannot see how he is doing it properly at that speed. Is he still banned? Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lgcsmasamiya was banned from page patrolling, and it looks like he is still doing it haphazardly. As someone who has had to clean up some of his messes, I think it's time to prevent him from further violating the ban.- Mr X 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: It looks like he is not adding any cleanup tags to any of these articles. I'm going through them now to make sure there are not any copyvios or WP:BLP vios.- Mr X 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lgcsmasamiya blocked until they can demonstrate an understanding of, and a willingness to comply with, the guidelines and conventions involved with new page patrol. Tiderolls 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ban is not listed at WP:EDR yet. Should the topic ban on Lgcsmasamiya be put up there? Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have added it. - Mr X 7:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

User:TheoneIlookupto -- block requested

Blocked by Mark Arsten due to WP:DUCK. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:TheoneIlookupto (no user page) appeared today and is edit warring various music articles, apparently replicating edits by indef-blocked sockpuppeteer User:Stiarts erid. The DUCK test seems clearly satisfied, and even if it's not the editor is apparently unwilling to edit constructively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've blocked per the duck test. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't revert Talk:Leader of the Opposition (Thailand)

Done by Darkness Shines. Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A false positive with the auto filter is preventing me from reverting the addition of irrelevant spam/soapboxing content at Talk:Leader of the Opposition (Thailand)[202]. I've filed a report re the false positive, but the page still needs to be fixed. --101.109.234.32 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editor who was disinvited from my user talk page ...

SUPERCEDED

See follow on discussion below NE Ent 23:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now inn full harassment mode.

I asked User:MilesMoney not to post on my UT page on 29 December at 6:23 He posted after that on my UT page at 6:49 [203] I iterated my request at 6:53 [204]

His response is now to simply keep "thanking" me for edits for which there is no rational basis for his "thanks" whatsoever: Giving me "notifications" which are actually quite annoying, and appear to be the result of following my contributions:

Today

MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 2 hours ago | View edit

MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 5 hours ago | View edit

MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 6 hours ago | View edit

MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:BD2412. 19 hours ago | View edit

The cumulative effect sought appears to be harassment at this point, and I ask whether others also would view this "thanking" in order to make the "red notification" thingie keep appearing at the top of every page as in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines for editor behaviour.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilesMoney&diff=588721389&oldid=588717594[ Editor notified of discussion.

If this is not harassment, then what is it? Collect (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. Anyone who plays that kind of game should read WP:DICK, just to make sure they're not making the grade ES &L 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESL, could you please show me the policy against thanking editors? MilesMoney (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vis-à-vis WP:DICK, I believe the pièce de résistance is this response from Miles when he was asked to knock it off.[205] Seems to me that a simple, "Oh, you don't like that? I'll stop it then," would have been much more appropriate. Roccodrift (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of that policy says not to thank editors? MilesMoney (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you're looking for is WP:HARASS. You need to consider yourself unofficially on a 1-way interaction ban with Collect before it actually becomes official. When someone says "leave me alone", thanking them 5 times in one day is not leaving them alone. ES &L 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What he said was to stay off his talk page, which I have done. You know, WP:ANI is supposed to be for serious violations of policy, not for complaints about being thanked too much. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, if you continue to deliberately piss off Collect, I will block you. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that were my intent, I'd block me, too. But it's not. Strange that nobody -- including Collect -- bothered asking me what I was doing or why. MilesMoney (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: A full log of MilesMoney's "Thanks" can be found here. Regards, Ross HillTalk to me! 22:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of playing 20 questions, let me make this simple:

It wasn't my intent to annoy Collect. I'm sorry if I annoyed him.
If I had known it was annoying him, I'd have stopped.
He really ought to have told me, since it's not obvious that thanking is a bad thing.
Now that I know, I won't thank him ever again. Promise.
So, uhm, why was this in ANI instead of a polite request from him that I'd have immediately honored?

There we go. MilesMoney (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One minor problem: You "thanked" me for edits where my edit summary was yeppers -- either he is stalking my edits or he is extraordinarily adept at ESP and I doubt you "thanked" an edit where the gist was that I was being stalked. He "thanked" a post which stated The editor has recently been editing a number of articles very closely related to that article, and involving BLPs. (expect a stalker to comment imminently. He "thanked" a post which stated And again. I think at the fourth "thank" for this sort of edit he should be rewarded on a noticeboard? and he avers that it was not his "intent" to harass me. I waited until. his fifth "thank" lest he not notice what my post stated clearly. And I trust he actually read the posts for which he "thanked" me else the behaviour is even less honourable on his part. Cheers -- but I find his comments that he was really thanking me to be less than credible. Collect (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want me to thank you, all you had to do was ask on my talk page. Sometimes a thank you is a sign of deep gratitude, other times, it's more like a nod or a wave to acknowledge that the post was noticed. As for the red notification box, triggering that is no more annoying than saying User:Collect, and there's no policy against that, either. On the other hand, WP:AGF is definitely a policy. MilesMoney (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course by deliberately wikilinking me, you guaranteed yet another red Notifications flag when I suspect you knew I was already following this discussion. 6 strikes (deliberate acts calculated to get me that red flag as often as possible - solely from you) better mean someone says "Out!" folks -- this last link was deliberate, calculated, and quite frankly untenable as "thanking" anyone, but is pure harassment without even the need to ask anyone. Cheers ... Collect (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's obvious that this new year has found you very low on patience and good faith, but this is the wrong way to deal with your unhappiness. Why didn't you just ask me to stop if it was bothering you? Why did you assume I could read your mind? What possible recourse is there now? I can't unthank you. MilesMoney (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no salient human who thinks it's appropriate to randomly thank someone 5 times in one day. I know I'm prepared to propose a 1-way interaction ban of Miles from Collect, which would include everything from thanks to talkpages, to echo links, you name it ... Miles is either being intentionally obnoxious or wholly clueless ... neither are beneficial to the project ES &L 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't randomly thank him, so I'm not sure how that applies. MilesMoney (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse interaction ban. I'd personally give Miles a few months off from editing, given the sheer number of threads here recently about his behaviour, whether intentional or not, his presence is not conducive to the harmonious operation of the project. Nick (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse boomerang. Collect has been trying to stir up trouble with me all day. The first diff he was thanked for was his attempt to get me blocked by misinterpreting an article ban, and this report is nonsense that could have been averted by assuming good faith and simply asking. MilesMoney (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse one-way interaction ban. Miles' comment immediately above is an eminently clear demonstration of his intent to be annoying if not undeniably disruptive, and his other comments in this discussion only pile up the evidence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse one-way interaction ban. Miles' comment just above Hullaballoo's demonstrates clear intent to abuse the "thank" tool. Miles keeps going back to "all he had to do is ask," but Collect did ask [206] and he was ignored. It's time to draw a line in the sand against the nonstop disruption. Roccodrift (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked MilesMoney for 48 hours for abusing the thanks function as well as the other notification function. Compare this conversation on Someguy's page and MM's comment above: "If I had known it was annoying him, I'd have stopped." Really? Why didn't you stop after this, then? That's nice that you undertake not to thank Collect again. Please don't replace it with any other ~~puerile~~ clever breaching experiments for annoying him or others again, either. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse block. MilesMoney was obviously being deliberately obnoxious with all these childish thank you notifications and anyone that has been paying attention knows that the relationship between Collect and MilesMoney has been less than cordial. All these tedious thanks after being asked by Collect to leave him alone can't be construed as anything other than harassment.--MONGO 01:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussions about bans not appropriate at the time. Collect came, Bish blocked ... the next logical step is to wait and observe MM's post block behavior before considering further sanctions. NE Ent 01:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Miles' behaviour in this thread alone, it's obvious the block isn't enough - the block merely prevented continued issues while the IB discussion is underway ES &L 01:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the discussion regarding an I-ban was only just beginning and I see no reason at all that one could not still be imposed. Roccodrift (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue Is there an option to disable MilesMoney's thanks (i.e. no thanks button for this editor)? Epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can blocked editors thank anyway? You can turn off the red facebook alert number thing in preferences --> notifications. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block (thank you!) and knowing the long,long, long story of MilesMoney I fully endorse a one-way interaction ban for them versus Collect. With MilesMoney disruption is a feature, not a bug; and Collect appears to be one of the prime targets for the moment. Iselilja (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse one way interaction ban. I recognise one way bans can be problematic, but I see no other choice. If you know another editors has problems with you, you have to be very clueless to not realise following them thanking them may be unwelcome. But even if we WP:AGF that MilesMoney was really that clueless, which isn't a good thing, they should have realised they were bothering Collect when Collect made it clear in their edit summaries and posts that they felt they were being stalked by the 'thanks'. (If MilesMoney is not even reading what they're thanking, that sounds like an even worse problem, particularly since the only credible justification they've offered was that their thanks was intended as an indication the posts were read.) And if that wasn't enough, if I'm reading the logs right, MilesMoney continued to thank Collect after Collect had made it clear in an article talk page [207] that such thanking was unwelcome and after MilesMoney had replied to said post [208]. MilesMoney then comes to this page and reading the complaint, instead of promising to stop they then start arguing about what policy there is forbidding people from thanking, even though the issue of harassment was mentioned (albeit not wikilinked but it sounds like MilesMoney has been around long enough they should know it) in the original complaint and in the request to stop from before the complaint. When it becomes clear things aren't going their way, they finally promise to stop while in the same post claiming it would have stopped if they knew they were being annoying or received a polite request and that they didn't know they were being annoying, despite the fact they didn't stop for either (okay we can debate whether the request was polite, but you don't continue just because a request was insufficiently polite) and received amply notification some of which they read that they were being annoying but continued anyway. MilesMoney clearly has a decent command of English so either MilesMoney is so clueless that I'm not sure if they should be welcome on wikipedia, or they purposely being obtuse. Whatever is really the case, I see no choice but to impose a onesided interaction ban since Collect's frustration with them is completely understandable. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread could perhaps be closed as superseded by Apparent Battleground/POV editing below. If anybody wants to take issue with my 48-hour block, that can conveniently be done on User talk:MilesMoney, where the editor can also take part himself. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The only issue I have is that MM hasn't been blocked indefinitely for being WP:NOTHERE, but I'm not surprised you didn't opt to dive in that deeply. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pool at the Full Harassment Inn[209] is rather shallow. Diving is prohibited. Bish, can I get you a another fruity drink with one of those little umbrellas? Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sharedupload-desc-here help

Could you please help me on with this?--Carnby (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure what the issue is, can you maybe explain it in 1-2 sentences what you try to do and where exactly you need help? Describe the problem a bit and the place to ask for general help can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questions Prokaryotes (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DMB112

DMB112 (talk · contribs) and I had gotten into an unfortunate content dispute in mid December that resulted in both myself and DMB112 receiving a 2 week long block for edit warring. Apparently, during this time, DMB112 began editing under the account RedPill1785 (talk · contribs) which he used to edit several articles, including two that had been part of the dispute (although he did not edit content that was central to the dispute). Today, RedPill1785 left this comment responding to me at WT:CFB and then DMB112 replaced the signature with his own. DMB112 has admitted that RedPill1785 is an alternate account and has admitted that he will use the account in the future should he be blocked as DMB112 again (SPI case if relevant).

In addition to this sockpuppetry, DMB112 has repeatedly made ad hominem attacks towards me during the dispute and after, calling me "nuts" and using my block log as a reason to discount my opinion (again), saying I need to be removed from Wikipedia, saying I have problems, and today left me this message saying that he had hoped I had gone through with my plan to leave Wikipedia as he believes I am not well suited for it and will pursue an RFCU as at the beginning of the block he had made it clear he wanted to "press more charges" against me. I had hoped that the two weeks wold have allowed him to disengage, as beyond a statement I had made at WT:CFB to act on the new consensus they had reached in our absense I was planning on leaving things be. But his repeated personal attacks, his clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality at WT:CFB (his proposed additions were unwanted but he simply kept them and modified them into what he thought was a lesser version, this is touched upon by editors during the block under WT:CFB#Truly back on topic), and this revelation that he evaded the block and has clearly stated he will evade again are matters that should be dealt with.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also expect that DMB112 will attempt to use this thread as an attempt to follow through with his plans to seek further punishments against me. I know I've not been the best, and I've been nearly Jekyll and Hyde in recent months, but I only mean to improve the encyclopedia. And that unfortunately has resulted in me being somewhat pigheaded, which has caused the many stupid disputes that in better judgement I should avoid. He is obviously free to make his statement, but based on the interactions I've had with him I only expect it to be full of ad hominem attacks against me and be completely misinformed about everything that I have done, simply because I would not allow him to act against consensus and let there be some weird tables about academics on sports pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no energy to deal with this user. I will not awknowledge his existence any further. Goodbye Ryulong. We will no longer be engaged in any form of conversation. DMB112 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked the acknowledged sockpuppet account and I have reset the 14 day block to expire 14 days after the last time he edited using the sockpuppet. I leave the community open to taking further action against DMB112 or any other party involved in the dispute. Nick (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uninvolvededitor Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't an indef-block on DMB112 as well, but it is what it is. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the community wants, I'm happy to do that. I'm mindful that prior to the previous block against DMB112, he had a clean block log and no history of sockpuppetry, the severity of the edit warring warranting a lengthy 14 day block. Nick (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent Battleground/POV editing

Note for potential closing admins - please review WP:CBAN procedure for min duration etc; with blocked user this case especially should be allowed enough time for all relevant parties to contribute and be heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

This user, who began editing in July 2013 has shown a consistent pattern of battleground behaviour on articles about U.S. conservative individuals. He puts in contentious short additions that connect individuals with extremism or perceived extremism, often without sources, then provides lengthy argument on talk pages often spilling into noticeboards, long after it is apparent that he has failed to obtain consensus.

An example is trying to link Murray Rothbard to holocaust denial, "evolution denialism", and falsely claiming that he endorsed a political campaign by former KKK leader David Duke. (See "Revisionism", "Evolution" and "Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable?".)

He added Pamela Geller, which is a "biography of a living person" to Category:Far-right politics in the United States,[210] although the source used does not call her far right or right-wing for that matter.[211] The term far right normally refers to neo-fascist, neo-nazi or similar groups. Most of Talk:Pamela Geller is now devoted to a discussiion about that.

MilesMoney's battleground attitude is evident by his comment, when he moved a discussion thread from AN to ANI: "wrong drama page."[212] He also uses frequent personal attacks, such as accusing other editors of vandalism [213] and tag-teaming.[214]

In his six months here, he has been banned from the article Ludwig von Mises Institute [215] and blocked 48 hours for wikistalking Collect. I therefore request the following:

a community ban,
a topic ban from U.S. libertarian articles, and
a ban on editing biographies of living persons.

TFD (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the topic ban on libertarian articles, as I have in the past. Oppose the other bans. In the matter of Pamela Geller, it's clear to me that MM is far from the only problem. There are half a dozen editors there guilty of behavior ranging from tendentious editing to battleground mentality to personal attacks directed at MM. There are abundance of sources describing Geller as "right" and even "far right", including the newspaper The Guardian, and yet there are editors there instead arguing with a straight face that the US' most famous anti-Islamic blogger is not a right-winger but instead a liberal. To pin all of this on MM would be both inaccurate and also encourage and embolden this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a quick note, the 48 hour block started about 3 hours ago so someone will need to copy MilesMoney's comment here (or alternatively they will need to be unblocked solely to participate in this discussion). Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the BLP ban, at least for now. The Geller article, as Gamaliel said above, has been the subject of severe conservative ownership to prevent her from being characterized as "far-right" or "right-wing" even though it is pitifully easy to find sourcing of the second at least. MM's participation in these struggles has been substandard, and I have been one of a string of editors advising him that he has to play better, but I'm also against rewarding the protectors of Geller's article (among others) for an editing climate in which his sort of reaction is unsurprising if also unwelcome. That said, my patience with him is not infinite and I would agree that he needs to be less combative and more collegial in his interaction with others. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support an indefinite ban from the website. A time wasting POV pushing troll is all he is...time everyone wake up and stop coddling these time wasters.--MONGO 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Complete and total ban. While I originally supported a ban from BLP articles several days ago, a quick perusal of MM's wikipedia activity is reminiscent of a Texas Twister touching down amongst a mega trailer park; He wreaks havoc everywhere he goes. He thrives on disputes, and makes discussing disputes next to impossible. Look at the Geller article at RSN. An impartial editor asked him to cut it out because he was making the discussion difficult to proceed. Note: MM is only one of several participants who share some of his views on Geller. None of those (or anyone else on that page) has even come close to wreaking the discord that MM has. Enough.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those who think TFD is exhibiting "conservative ownership" of anything are in sore need of bifocals <g>. MM has recently edited on a number of libertarian economist BLPs associated with the von Mises Institute, but the topic ban appears to have covered only the Institute, but not people who founded that Institute. He has been the topic of several AN/I discussions and seems unwilling to learn from what his critics have said in them, and his behaviour in denying harassment and denying that I had asked his harassment thrice to cease was sufficiently blatant that my annual season of good will was prematurely spent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE, major battleground mentality and lack of respect for BLP concerns. I have said many harsh words about that editor previously and I don’t regret any of them. Should the community ban not pass, I naturally support the BLP ban and also the Libertarian ban, although I am not so sure banning him from Libertarians without banning him from other right-wing articles will help a lot (the problem will just move). If this thread is closed with a message to "evaluate own actions" before going to ArbCom, I hope someone will take him to ArbCom. Iselilja (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to me the biggest problem is MM's persistent incivility. I have noticed that he tends to comment on other editors, rather than edits. That seems to transcend the types of articles he edits, so I'm not sure any sort of topic or article ban will solve that. He has repeatedly accused me and a wide variety of other editors of being part of a "Conservative Cloud." [216], [217], [218], [219]. I told MM I perceived this as a violation of WP:NPA [220], which he dismissed, calling it a false accusation, and in turn accused me of making a personal attack (by "falsely accusing him of a personal attack"). [221] Yet he has accused others of personal attacks and demanded redaction for behavior that is similar, if not as hostile, as his own behavior. [222] I find his edits to be condescending [223] and adversarial, and they are creating a hostile environment on the articles he edits. He repeatedly admonishes other editors to WP:AGF while superficially complying with the policy himself through apparently clever rhetorical techniques ("some people might say you were lying, while I was more tactful than that.") [224]. He has accused me of trying to "protect" a page from "inconvenient facts." [225]. This, despite the fact that when the issue was taken to the noticeboard, 17 editors disagreed with MM, with MM being the only person arguing his opinion. Despite this consensus, he's persisted in accusing me of lacking good intentions. At Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey, he's accused me of "whitewashing," and when I asked someone to give a WP:3O, MM said to the 3O provider, without explanation, "you're not neutral." [226]. That was, conveniently, after the 3O provider had opined that my suggested version was better than MM's preferred version. There are dozens of diffs that could support MM's noncompliance with WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF, and other policies. But this issue keeps reappearing. How many times does MM's behavior need to be the topic of discussion before the community decides to do something about it? I've decided to just ignore MM, but I worry that his incivility, if unchecked, will do permanent damage to the project by providing a hefty disincentive to participate. It's not terribly rewarding when you're constantly being attacked, and made to feel like we're all a part of a "win" or "lose" battle. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has been hard to avoid MM's relentless push, and MM will be removed sooner or later—sooner would be better for the project as MM is thriving on drama and causing disruption on multiple pages. MM has assumed that maintaining good self control and never going too far would ensure a long Wikipedia life, but this comment from above shows the battleground style ("could you please show me the policy against thanking editors?")—a great way to needle your opponents, but not useful for collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As MilesMoney is currently blocked I'm copying this from their talk page per their request [227] without comment except that it doesn't appear to be a personal attack or anything so bad that it shouldn't be copied Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI report is the sequel to that one. The same people who tried for two weeks to get me banned then are trying again. Here's what TP, the closing admin, wrote:

No consensus for any of the proposals. This topic has been discussed to exhaustion. The next step is an WP:RFC/U or Arbcom request. All participants in the disputes at hand here should evaluate their own behaviors before proceeding down either track.

He's right. ANI is not the place for this. If the community has a problem with my behavior, then we should take this to RFC/U. MilesMoney (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whichever of the restrictions gains community consensus. I have had limited interaction with the editor and no significant conflict myself. However, I have observed the ongoing behavior and read the disturbing diffs. It is clear to me that the editor sees Wikipedia as a political battleground and takes to the fight with gusto. Dealing with the ongoing disruptions is a big time sink. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, because IMO the proposed measures are not optimal. I think a general BLP ban is too broad and a topic ban only on Libertarian articles is too narrow. It would have been better for the topic ban to cover "all politics-related articles, broadly construed". That would have covered BLPs of political figures, which is where the BLP problems are occurring. But, clearly something must be done, so even if this proposal is less than perfect I am still willing to endorse it. Roccodrift (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - multiple personal attacks over an extended period of time (e.g. [228][229][230][231]). If the above is all he has to say in explaining/defending himself, then it is clear that he just doesn't understand civility and harassment policy. Now, it's clear that Miles feels persecuted in some way, and having an ANI thread about his behavior running for two weeks couldn't have been easy. But I think he reacted in the wrong way to people who supported some sort of ban for him. St Anselm (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Wikipedia:POV railroad seems at play, again. In the last discussion it was mentioned of the cloud of conservatism editors, and I think MM brings uncomfortable attention on their efforts. Any banning should take into consideration the many players, who seem to hang around this board a lot, who are also continually causing these issues to erupt causing a need for attention. MM's activities did not occur in a vacuum, and getting him excised will only chip away at the opposition. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed mentioned - by Miles. He flung around the accusation of "POV railroad" and "conservative cloud" without providing any serious evidence or diffs. I suggest you refrain from doing the same. St Anselm (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the archive, I see "POV railroad" was first used by yourself, and then Miles picked it up. Also, User:Mangoe used the phrase "cloud of conservative defenders", and then Miles used it in the ANI discussion a further five times, the last occurrence being "On a gust of foul wind, the Conservative Cloud settles above my head and rains hatred upon me." St Anselm (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "conservative cloud" is not original to him; it was introduced by me as part of this observation about yet another of these conflicts. I've managed on occasion to lay an accurate compromise version in underneath all the shouting, but really only someone who is inclined towards the battlefield or at least bloody-minded has the stamina to keep prosecuting the sanitizing that all these articles are subjected to. And the same not-very-large group of editors appears at all of these conflicts, and they are showing up here as well. It is a useful tactic to pick one source and assail it while ignoring the likelihood, in these political topics, that sources are easy to come by and that therefore the usual neutral solution is to look for more respectable sources saying the same thing instead of arguing as if only one crackpot ever said it. We've seen this in pretty much all of these fights, and it's only when some of the more neutral onlookers get drawn in that we get diverted from this. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you are in "defence mode" consider [232] MilesMoney wrote: you are trying to assassinate your colleagues. See if you can defend accusations of that nature against any editor -- and note this is only one of many, many such posts MM has made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (appending) [233] " TFD has perjured himself shamelessly", "It really comes down to whether the community has the will to oppose them. If not, then it gets what it deserves: more articles owned by the Cloud, fewer editors willing to contribute their free time. If we forcibly recused every member of the Cloud, the report against me would evaporate" indicates, I fear, a real danger to the community from this editor at this point. He views everyone else as being in a "conspiracy" against him, that they commit "perjury" and will "assassinate" foes. Collect (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you have pulled out of context, Collect, is a bit of hyperbole in a passage which accuses you of what you are doing: trying to get rid of MM as an opponent on these subjects. You also tried a (in my opinion quite lame) SPI accusation. The question really is not whether he is being pursued by a group of conservative editors, but whether that pursuit is justified. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that struck me about Miles right away was the focus he had on some editors that Stillstanding had previously had encounters with...I suppose one could say they are part of some Conservative Cloud, but if his intent here was to fight such a hypothetical then that's not what the website is about.--MONGO 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only I brought up StillStanding unless I've missed those conversations where that person was mentioned prior to this ANI. But I was on a hiatus unless you're free to brush me as part of that "cloud". Like I said, the fact is the behavior is both the same where both StillStanding & Miles employs tendentious editing and creates overwhelming discussions even where there is clearly no consensus or is overwhelmingly against them. Then they use another policy to try and get away with their attitudes. That's why I said "The duck test". The fact is he harassed Collect's page despite being told not to. Guess what, StillStanding was told not to harass me by myself and yet he still did it. So pardon me if this hits a bit close to home for me because of the same tactics and burned the hell out of me. My participation dropped off the rock due to this crap. I do sparse editing but I'm in no mood anymore to play "Who can try to outwit the other." ViriiK (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban as preferred outcome; support other proposals if ban is not enacted or upon expiration or lifting of ban. Milesmoney is deliberately personalizing and inflaming editorial disputes in order to discourage other editors who do not share his/her political views from editing particular articles, and thereby introduce political bias into content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been on a hiatus for a while and recently came back seeing all those articles under massive contention that were not contentious before because editors could actually agree and have consensus. The very fact that I've dealt with this kind of person before makes me think of "The duck test" and even if SPI failed to yield anything, there are multiple factors that can hide such track. Now, the harassment behavior is very similar to the StillStanding-247 for the very specific reasons here [234] which I've clearly outlined that the user was prohibited from my talk page but he kept persisting. Then with the intersect tool, I get the following results [235] & [236]. There's a clear pattern here. Now, I don't have much say in this due to my long break (IRL major events). ViriiK (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another info. I was talking with him on his talk page since he accused me of making an SPI accusation. My post and the reply in response to another person is not an SPI accusation but sharing the same kind of pattern and behaviors of how they edit and spar off in discussions against others. However he dropped this line. "how morally bankrupt the Cloud is than anything I could ever say." Honestly, this speaks of a person who does not care to work with other people except those who share his opinions. ViriiK (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this prior discussion between StillStanding-247 and MilesMoney here [237] until I searched for it. If the consensus leads to a site-wide ban for MilesMoney, is it acceptable to re-open a CheckUser case in order to see if the "conspiracy" was true or not? ViriiK (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser was declined in the earlier report because any data related to StillStanding was stale -- a problem that would only be worse three months later. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the process works but if it has something to do with data retention or whatever, then I understand. ViriiK (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support a site-wide ban. The amount of drama and time wasting this user causes isn't worth any positive contributions he might bring to the project. -- John Reaves 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unfortunately, I will have to support a topic ban, and a site ban can even be considered. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)~~ See below.[reply]

Oppose per Mangoe.[238] — goethean 15:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support topic bans and weakly/conditionally support site/community ban I would prefer Miles stretch his legs in an area other than politics, but based on his documented heavy use of technicality (see the prior thanking issue) and skirting the edge of his already existant bans, I think he will find the exact edge of what "libretarian" means and edit in the same controversial manner. If the topic ban were extended to US politics in general (or at least an controversy in US politics) (or the "widely construed" is actually wide), I would remove support for the site/community ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support some kind of ban, maybe from politics and political BLPs ("political" in that broad US sense). The battleground behavior is really intolerable, and I say this knowing that Miles Money is probably in the same "Cloud" I inhabit: their inability to stop painting all opponents on editorial matters with the same broad brush is very, very bothersome. I don't think it should be an indef block or ban at this point; I hope that won't be necessary. Let me note also that they're not the only troublesome editor in these areas, but Miles Money's edits and talk page behavior have only increased the troublesomeness. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support all three restrictions for an indefinite duration. It's doubtful that a workable topic ban can be found given that the previous topic ban merely shifted the problem to different articles; so site ban, and if that fails to achieve consensus, BLP ban, and if that fails to achieve consensus US politics ban (won't really work though.) MilesMoney was topic banned "from Libertarian topics" [239] although that was reduced to just LvM [240] a bit later. It turns out his behavior is the same pretty much anywhere else he edits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Support for Site Ban - Two weeks ago, I privately told MilesMoney "You really need to choose your battles, and if you want to influence decisions at WP you have to build credibility, invest in the project and be factor for positive, incremental change. You have to earn trust. You can do this by limiting yourself to one or two reverts at most, always making well-reasoned arguments, respecting your opponents, being more strategic, offering compromises, staying off of ANI, not reacting to baiting, walking away, and showing some humility now and then." I also told him that if he ignored that advice, he would be ejected from the project again. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, this user has become a net detriment to the project. I'm sorry to say this, but a site ban seems to be the best option for the greater good.- Mr X 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Two kinds of pork, Iselilja and Johnuniq. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Enough is enough per MONGO and so many others. Although I appreciate Bishonen taking a step to resolution, a person like MilesMoney needs an indefinite block. A 48 hour block just puts off the problem for 2 days IMHO. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support a ban on politics-related articles, broadly-construed, per Drmies. Miles' behavior has not really convinced me that their behavior is improving (e.g. Progressive Tax, this thread on Ayn Rand, and more recently, on Talk:Pamela Geller), or that Miles recognizes that there is a problem at all. It's true that in some places (like on Talk:Progressive tax), Miles has had very productive interactions with some editors, and I am not convinced that Miles is a troll or whatever. However, this is not offset at all by combative back-and-forth and incessant bickering with other editors during RfCs I've closed, multiple discussions on AN/I, and talk pages. I agree with Johnuniq that Miles frequently accuses long-time editors of incompetence in various, unconstructive ways. This kind of behavior is not offset by their commitment to article improvement, and more importantly, it is persistent. Miles does not show any signs of minimizing their battleground mentality given recent events on these topics. I would not prefer a site ban, because I believe Miles has shown potential for working well with other editors, but I must admit the community's patience for Miles is wearing thin. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When he holds an attitude of certain people as "morally bankrupt" (his words, not mine), I don't think there's any potential for working well with others in the future. ViriiK (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban, topic ban and BLP ban. Particularly the community ban; this user is WP:NOTHERE. Pure and simple; nothing more, nothing less than that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per I JethroBT. The comment about patience wearing thin reminds me of a winning entry in the annual "Peg Leg Smith Liars' Contest" held at Anza-Borrego Desert State Park one year: The tires on my truck were so thin you could see the air inside. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While MM told me that repeatedly accusing me of being a member of "The Conservative Cloud" was "certainly not meant as an insult", [241] he has described "The Cloud" as a "cabal," [242] and said that it is "morally bankrupt." [243] Since according to MM, I'm in "The Cloud," I don't see how this can't be viewed as a nasty personal attack. Actually, everyone who disagrees with MM's opinions is apparently in "The Conservative Cloud," even self-professed liberals. [244] I'm sick and tired of having these aggressive attacks thrown my way without MM facing any consequences. While many of the things being discussed on this thread and other threads involve content, I think this issue is about conduct. Other users MM has battled against have had content and conduct issues of their own, undoubtedly. That's not a reason to absolve MM's attacks. I've never even visited the Pamela Gellar page, so I don't know what is going on there or who is to blame--but there are plenty of other diffs from a variety of different pages that show poor conduct on MM's part. We can discuss content issues in the appropriate places, and open up additional threads about the conduct of other editors, if necessary. Let's not use legitimate content disputes or the poor behavior of other editors as an excuse for MM to treat other editors poorly. That's fighting fire with fire. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a site ban. I previously supported a topic ban on any subjects related to libertarianism or the Tea Party, and would support a politics topic ban now as well (his problem activity around politics is broader than just "U.S. libertarian articles"). This could either stand alongside a site ban (so the topic ban would continue after a site ban expired or was appealed) or be a second choice if there is not enough support for a site ban. However, at this point I no longer believe a topic ban alone will be adequate. MilesMoney has demonstrated problematic behavior outside of specifically political topics (e.g., Jodie Foster and List of Asian pornographic actors). As User:Someone not using his real name points out above, previous efforts have just shifted his locations without doing much to improve his behavior. When it became clear that uninvolved administrators were going to sit on Ayn Rand to enforce the discretionary sanctions there (imposed years ago by ArbCom), he moved on. When the community put the topic of Austrian economics under general sanctions and he was banned from Ludwig von Mises Institute under those sanctions, his editing migrated away from that area as well. But the net result was just to move his focus to different articles and editors, not an end to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The proposed ban on editing BLPs does not strike me as likely to be helpful since WP:BLP problems can occur in articles that are not themselves BLPs, making the ban either too narrow (if it literally just means not editing BLPs), or too difficult to monitor/enforce fairly (if it covers all the possible BLP issues in any article). I think it would just produce a lot of enforcement drama. Thus my support is for a site ban/topic ban combo, but not the BLP ban. The site ban should be at least six months (either a fixed period or indefinite with the option to appeal after six months). The topic ban should be indefinite. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per RL0919 and Drmies et al. Persistent battleground behavior and what I broadly perceive to be WP:NOTHERE. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support an indef block and a concurrent topic ban, because of WP:NOTHERE and WP:VULGAR. Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - What we seem to have here is a tailgate party of all those with whom Miles has sparred, all those on whom he's called BS, all those against he's done one revert too many, or otherwise offended in his fearless forays into many of the worst articles on WP. Lots of anger, hurt feelings, and blood lust here, beginning with my friend TFD who appears to dislike Miles considerably. That's all well and good, but per WP:CBAN what's needed is discussion among uninvolved editors, with diffs and reasoned arguments for the proposed sanctions. Memo to all those who browse these ANIs Could we have some comments that qualify per what's described in CBAN policy? The stuff in this thread doesn't fit the bill. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we consider your credibility in this "tailgate party", we should review your recent advice to MilesMoney: " "if you keep going to contentious articles all over WP and getting in peoples' face, then eventually everyone on the site will be an "involved editor" and you'll be practically immortal." - Mr X 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you for the irony which you apparently failed to recognize. In the context of my other remarks to MM recently and over the past several months, I'd thought it would be clear I believe and have told him that he doesn't know how to avoid trouble, that he reverts too much, etc. Sorry. I'd appreciate your striking that, lest things become any more confused than is already the case. Why not address the issue I raised here, namely, does this thread meet the test of CBAN policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that is sarcasm, because otherwise that is spectacularly bad advice. Specifico's point here remains, however. Whatever actions are taken against MM should reflect the consensus of the community, not the group of editors MM is in a current disagreement with. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm wp:uninvolved. I don't recall participating in any content disputes with MilesMoney and provably never edited the same articles [245]. As for diffs, I agree with those involved (who have provided diffs in the start of the thread) that they are indeed evidence of continued disruptive behavior, e.g. [246] etc. I realize US politics is a perennial wiki battleground (just like religion), with pretty much the same editors forming editor fan (and anti-fan) clubs here as in the other thread current ANI thread. Is MilesMoney the only editor in this area who should be topic or site banned? Probably not, but WP:OSE... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem. Yes, OSE, but this isn't other stuff, this is the same stuff on the same article, and if you sanction one editor doing it and not the others on the same article, you're essentially rewarding those other editors for their misbehavior. Gamaliel (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then people should put together a case against those users. I don't think I've edited that many articles that MM has also edited; I'm just sick of seeing MM's "activities" on other user's talkpages, and at AN/ANI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are important points for the closing administrator to take into account. My read of the situation - and I believe I am conflicted enough not to be eligible to close, so it's not entirely unbiased - is that about half the SUPPORT editors are those who have been in conflict with MilesMoney. Those should not be discounted entirely, but reading a consensus of all the other editors is better. Similarly, the supports are largely from his "allies", as it were, and should be similarly considered carefully in assessing the close. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of MilesMoney’s sharpest critics, I can safely that the difference between my own constructive and mostly peaceful editing and the constant havoc that is MilesMoney is enourmous. And I can say that without boasting because MilesMoney's record is so abyssmal. I provided comments (1, 2) on the disruptive nature of MM with lots of diffs in the previous ANI thread and chose to link to that thread instead of repeating it all here, for space and time reasons. One thing that bears repeating is the frivolous SPI he filed against Orlady (and Srich), which is the same kind of nonsense as the multiple "thanks" he recently gave Collect. Now, though I take a dim view of the user MilesMoney, it is still not as dim as the views he holds about fellow Wikipedians, as laid out in his post-mortem letter from October 2012 where he alleges that there is a War on Vandalism on Wikipedia that is just as bad as the War on Terror. Furthermore Wikipedia is “a failed state akin to Somalia”, “ it’s a hostile environment controlled by incompetents and sociopaths” , according to papers MM has read Wikipedia mostly consist of “crazed and inbreds”. He concludes that “Try as I might, I can only muster up pity and disgust for the otakus trapped in this web”. It would seem best for both parties if this user and Wikipedia parted for good (though I doubt it will happen, even if this thread results in a siteban). Iselilja (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iselilja, I commend you for stipulating that you are an involved editor with MM on various articles, and I commend you for your constructive and peaceful comportment on WP. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are involved editors allowed to support a ban proposal? I had thought it was common practice - for years I thought only admins were supposed to respond on ANI, and then I realised that plain old editors were allowed to do so as well. Anyway, I have had significant involvement with Miles (though not as much as some) and so I guess am "involved" in some sense. But the closing admin will, I'm sure, assess the arguments made, and so it doesn't matter much who made them. St Anselm (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It takes two to tango. Articles on topics that can be viewed through lenses of opposing political ideologies inevitably attract opposing ideologues who can be quite ruthless in trying to assert whatever influence they desire in their areas of interest. It would be naive to suppose that the strategies attractive to them would not include getting rid of a resilient opponent altogether. In the skirmishes at issue I see a tenacious majority up against a very small and equally tenacious minority, one of whom is extremely resilient and outspoken. Few on either side are without fault (I've noticed TFD, for whom I have great respect, is an honorable exception; doubtless there are others). Although MM's opponents take exception to the "Conservative Cloud" characterization, it's understandable to an outside observer how MM might perceive them that way, deduced from his interactions with them. The most just outcome would be for MM to receive advice here to be more diplomatic and less outspoken in future, and for him to be given a chance to act on it if he wants. He is intelligent and knowledgeable and I think he can be a valuable contributor in his areas of interest. I just want this perspective on record. I'm not fool enough to think for one moment that a voice of moderation here will make any difference to an immoderate outcome. The ducking-stool is at the ready and the crowd gathered round will not be denied. Writegeist (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support all proposed bans, especially site ban. One week after registering this account he was in dispute resolution about rape remarks made by a legislator. A few days later he was under discussion at AN: ["Personal attacks, non-reliable sources and general non-constructive editing."] His battleground mentality was established early and has not stopped. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bink, you've been involved with MilesMoney on many articles. Could you explain to the assembled guests and closing Admin what you believe is demonstrated by the links you've provided above. Much obliged. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the July discussion is significant because it involved a completely different set of editors (User:Arzel, User:JanetteDoe, and User:Matticusmadness). I think Miles in incorrect in making comments like "This is the same bunch as last time up to the same tricks". St Anselm (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I don't believe that July was the most recent preceeding ANI. Several recent noticeboard and ANI threads have involved the same ones -- the ones he calls the Cloud. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. Your defense against MilesMoney's disruptive conduct is point out that there's several more noticeboard and ANI threads regarding his conduct? Seriously? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean my defense "of" MM? Response: I'm not accusing or defending MM in any respect. My statements here are in support of due process and careful application of WP policy regarding CBAN, as cited at the top of this thread. The post to which your snide and unconstructive remark is addressed was not about the number of threads. I was stating that @StAnselm:'s statment that the unexplained July link "is significant because it involved a completely different set of editors" is incorrect because the July link was not, in fact, the "last one" as referenced by the accused MM. QFK, I sincerely hope that you're able to understand the importance of a fact-based discussion here. My comment was intended to correct an erroneous misstatement of fact. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I think you've misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that Miles was referring to the July report when he said "last time". St Anselm (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled in that case, because MM has recently been engaged in disputes with the editors he calls the Cloud who appear to have been involved in the past several Noticeboard actions against him or his views. I don't see that his statement was inaccurate. Sorry for the misunderstanding but are you sure you cited the correct link in your attempt to refute the MM statement? SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had the right link, but I had made two separate statements that weren't particularly connected. "I think the link to the July discussion is significant. I also think Miles is incorrect in making the comment that he did." The reason for my second thought is not the July discussion, but rather the number of editors who have supported bans who did not voice support in earlier discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on libertarianism, Austrian economics and any place else people say he's driving them crazy. It's certainly easy enough to ban him from all Austrian economics articles, including bios, under Austrian economics sanctions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, The CBAN policy specifically says that consensus to ban must be demonstrated among "uninvolved" editors. Question for you: in light of the fact that only "involved" editors could credibly claim that MM is the cause of their insanity, how would your proposal be implemented? As an "involved" editor yourself, how do you reconcile policy with your statement above..."Any place people say..." ? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I see at Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions is that Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, . So I don't know what you are talking about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the several paragraphs in the section to which that links, not just a half-sentence of it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as proposed, broadly construed. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is MilesMoney?

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

Who is this editor who came out of nowhere, started editing immediately, and now appears in new noticeboards treads -- as both subject and commenter -- every week? A very odd trajectory, raising interesting questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the editor is currently blocked for harassment, but this is a pretty damn good indication that the editor, whoever he is (and I don't believe he's new to Wikipedia), is not here to improve the encyclopedia. People with edit patterns such as this ought to be indef blocked just on general principles -- we're not a forum, we're a project to build an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is not the place to throw speculative slime to see if it sticks. (Although it seems to be a popular pastime here.) If your first comments are alleging sock-puppetry, as they appear to be, you know where you can post them. But before you do, please be aware that another user already tried a not entirely dissimilar tactic, lobbing copious quantities of slime without a shred of evidence into SPI, and it failed to gain traction. Writegeist (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks that the intuitions of veteran editors that "Something is rotten in Denmark" aren't worth consideration by the community, even at those times when they cannot be backed up by specific allegations, doesn't have a really good handle on things around here. Some of us spend most of their time here improving the encyclopedia, not contributing primarily to Talk pages and Wikipedia space, as is the case with other editors -- who should refocus their energies into more productive directions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: What's wrong with editing talk pages and Wikipedia space? If anything, talk page feedback seems to be beneficial to the project. Epicgenius (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Um, I'm not here to defend MilesMoney, but it takes all types to run this project -- are you going to look down your nose at me because my pie's the wrong color for you, too? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scs: Well, according to BMK's pie, only 14,197 of his edits are to talk pages. Epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note there already have been two WP:Sockpuppet investigations mentioning MilesMoney, launched by admins.

While it's hard to get definitive evidence someone is a sock, and thus neither proved it, it certainly is telling that these investigations were brought. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty unless proved innocent, right, CMDC? Here's some late nite reading for you: B-O-O-! SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If they're accused, they must be guilty? See Innocence Project. NE Ent 03:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this discussion about possible sockpuppetry is a distraction, and should be closed as inappropriate to this forum. (And I think pie-chart discussions are even less helpful.) However, I think BMK may have a valid point in that excessive participation of a new editor at ANI may be possibly disruptive. St Anselm (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP brings stale complaint about Nick-D

Civility complaint made by a third party after the event. No admin tools involved. Apology offered, which would seem to resolve the matter as the entire incident has been over for a week. No obvious further action suggests itself, therefore closing. Euryalus (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this sort of language and abuse now acceptable behaviour for an admin of Wikipedia? ^[1] User contributions For Nick-D "07:08, 25 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . Australian Labor Party ‎ (Undid revision 587593076 by Adn1990 (talk) provide a reference, or fuck off)"

Someone should really have a word with him about his behaviour.58.7.32.90 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such language should generally be avoided I think, but everyone loses their temper once in a while. We can't reasonably expect everyone to be 100% polite 100% of the time. It looks like this happened over a week ago, is there a reason to be bringing it up now? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His posting was as an editor, not as an administrator. TFD (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before that Edit summary appeared, Nick-D had reverted an unexplained change from that editor with a very polite Edit summary seeking a reference, and made the same request for a reference, very politely, on the user's talk page. For the user to then repeat the unacceptable behaviour without conforming to that request is, to my mind, far less civil than a frustrated "fuck off". HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done. The edit summary isn't right but no further action is needed or possible. Jehochman ^Talk 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done? So telling people to fuck off is now acceptable behaviour on wikipedia, especially by an admin? I didn't read that in the help section. Perhaps whats done, should be warned never to do again?58.7.32.90 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was cranky and fed up with people edit warring supposed ideologies for the Australian Labor Party without bothering to provide anything to support this (which has been going on for some time and is pretty obviously not a good idea). I shouldn't have been cranky in the edit summary, and especially not that cranky, so I do genuinely apologise to Adn1990 for any offence. I'm a bit bemused about this being reported at ANI by someone who isn't Adn1990 (I presume) without them making any attempt to discuss it with me on my talk page first though, which seems rather ...odd. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Montanabw in Rodeo

Discussion has started on the talk page (where it should have been taken right away). Leaving this open is just inviting more heat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi.

I was hoping to avoid this but I feel strangely out of options here. (Perhaps you guys can show something.) Montanabw is engaged in an extreme form of disruptive editing in Rodeo article.

Earlier, I noticed the following issues:

CS1 errors
ISBNs that did not match title
Absence of {{Refbegin}}/{{Refend}}
Forbidden external links ({{Cite book}} must only have links when those links lead to the text of the book; generic Google Books links are forbidden in favor of ISBN links)
Bare links e.g. ref #85 through #96
Inconsistent citation style

So, I fixed the first three and tagged the last two. Only Montanabw reverted them all, stating loss of Alphabetical order as the reason! It was a very irritating to see the result of three hours of work mass-reverted while the alphabetical order fix would take two minutes – which I did]. Yet, Montanabw continues to remove maintenance templates ({{Citation style}} and {{Linkrot}}) claiming that he does not see them.

I am afraid I fail to come up with a good message to send him. When a veteran editor with 55115 edits since 2006 says he sees no linkrot, what should I tell him? That he is blind? (That'd be impolite.) Still, I believe this disruptive editing must stop.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montana has asked you to discuss on the talk page, which is a good start. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, you may be right about CS1 errors etc., but it seems to me like a step has been skipped here. I think this could probably be resolved with a talk page discussion. My advice is to lay out your concerns on the talk page and then ask Montana to comment there. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted on the talk page. Hope this helps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! It is amazing how impossibly hard it is to write it for an elite editor, whereas I have done it a million times for newcomers and IP editors (guests). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor fixed her initial mistakes and was told - MULTIPLE TIMES - to take the rest of this to talk per WP:BRD, which has yet to occur. (I posted a comment about her behavior at her talk while she was apparently filing this) What was just posted here should be posted on the article talk page and discussed; no dispute resolution discussion has occurred, and this is not an appropriate issue for ANI at this time. This user is also failing to understand the difference between guidelines and policy. I would not call any of this an "extreme form of disruptive editing" - this is an article that often attracts controversy and a lot of vandals - any "drive-by" editor who is too bold in their edits (and created confusion) is going to be mass-reverted and then the matter is to be discussed. Condescending edit summaries and accusations of Dickhood (especially given that I am also female, not male) are not a discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

ChrisGualtieri again...(how many times has it been?)

Since my last block, I've been extra careful not trying to make any more issues with another editor. Yet he still bombards me with personal attacks and incivility shown here (and keep in mind to be looking at my answer to see how obscure his responces are):

In fact, i had to forgive this editor, just so i can edit in peace, and this editor not hold any more of the "this editor hates me" crud or any other irrelevant matter that he likes to promote. And even after the showing of peace, this editor continues to make things personal between me and him and i'm simply tired of it.

And again, it doesn't end. This editor makes it so that he can't read my comments, and yet, chooses to target articles I've been involved in such as the reverting of Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden, and Phantasy Star II Text Adventures. Intentionally ignoring every relevant comment needed to get the conversation going for these related articles. Its like an interaction ban, but instead, its affecting the progress of editing articles.

I've attempted to make peace and this editor continues to take everything personally and make the first attack. I know i brought him up in the past, but so have others and he manages not getting any action due to "repenting" right at the last second. i'm doing my best not to even provoke this editor, and yet he continues to make incivil remarks.Lucia Black (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These difs are extremely weak examples. I don't see anything actionable here, all you're proving is that you two are still completely incapable of interacting with one another. I can't help but think your respective WikiProjects and AN/ANI are both very tired of your bickering, but that's a two way street. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find where i'm provoking him, or being directly uncivil, most of this is still his attempts at attacking on his part. And they add up quickly. thats the thing. most of those are from the same conversation, and you can see in my comments that i'm not trying to fight, and yet he continues to do so.

This constant back and forth should end. And I've already paid mine, and i'm making it so i don't come back here again with WP:BOOMERANG. yes the wikiproject and ANI are tired of this. But why not just do what needed to be done in the first place? Issues of him and his incivility still continued even when i wasn't involved. He manages to get saved by repenting, and apologizing, but in the end he continues to do so.

i don't find these weak because he makes it easy to make any situation escalate. and its still related to previous ANI of behavior (and even back then, it was closer to making action). the issue is more out of "response" to neutral comments. I'm doing my best to give him a neutral, and non-personal comment, and he continues to poison things. He calls it spitting in his eye, over something that simply isn't related to him personally. And continues to make accusations and poisoning discussions.

He's been saved before, i gave him peace offering, and he still treats things as its a personal agenda against him. And this should be proof enough that his previous apologies that he made in the past don't mean anything. And whenever he does this, he is the one disrupting the discussion, not me. But worst of all, is when he attempts to hide my comments so he doesn't read them, and yet chooses to get involved in a more debatable issue that i'm involved in. So its more incivility.

Me? i can work well with him, i'm monitoring my own comments so a topic/bully-one-way-interaction ban happens again. But, if he chooses to not lit up over every discussion. If i could bring up an entire case of history with him, i would, but this is what i have, and it should be enough. a lot of attacks being thrown. Incivility is clearly there, and there is alot of it even if you think its "weak"Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of your are really being incivil, it's just the endless arguing between you two that is a problem. Most of those "personal attacks" are just him not agreeing with you, or saying you're wrong, which, true or false, I don't know, but they hardly constitute as an "attack". The only action I'd see as remotely plausible would be an interaction ban between you two, but I don't want to be pulled into this bickering any further, so I won't driving that effort.

I'll let others voice their opinion, but I can't see this going anywhere if those are the difs you're working with... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the personal attacks are constantly making it seem like i know nothing of the subject. and this goes on constantly. If such an interaction ban were to occur, this time i would prefer a two-way interaction.Lucia Black (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is all Lucia's doing I don't think I should be penalized for her abusive behavior that extends to nearly every editor she's ever interacted with. I doubt anyone will read this whole response because it contains so much evidence, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank is indicative of the editor's attitude. She's backing it up on Wikipedia and "another site", because she has no "word pad or memo" on her phone and "... if you don't give me trouble for a long period of time, i do end up deleting the info. but not truly deleted."[247] She made the ANI to justify her userpage that was previously cited as a violation of WP:POLEMIC at her talk. Which her response was to try and make friends, and saidforgive and forget. Than started it again with a perceived slight from Sergecross[248] Though all these issues that are "so bad" are actually based on Lucia's WP:RANDY behavior that infuriated and irritate me to no end, with a deliberate intention to harass and undermine and constantly abuse me. These actions got her the topic ban and interaction ban prior. She broke her interaction and topic ban no less than five times and got blocked for it. I find it inexcusable that an editor will present false issues and announced the intention to fail a GA and altered a previous comment I had already responded to.[249] Lucia misrepresented official sources as "fanbooks" and other issues in the GAN. @Huon: got involved in it and has tried to help, but I walked away from Lucia in that GAN and she keeps finding new ways to start a fight. After Sven's RFC she started another discussion including yet another attempt to override a merge RFC that was closed only a month ago by Armbrust that had a clear consensus to not merge the article. Which @Catalan: also mentioned was WP:GAMING since no one wants to split up a GA. Lucia made the discussion out of the blue because "I boldly split things" and wanted to get consensus to split or not to split One Piece and Naruto, something which no one wants to split. It is a hypothetical "what-if" that goes against the community RFC that Sven made stating it would be on a "case by case" basis and Lucia needs to "test that consensus". She argues with the other Ghibli editor with drama like "you're just picking fights now. one more word of it, and i will delete the ENTIRE thread." Her constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, bad faith accusations, edit warring and general lack of knowledge of the topic area makes it all the more irritating. I mentioned that this is a WP:RANDY situation, I am a scholar in the anime and manga field, but I simply have no patience for an editor who inserts blatantly false material, misrepresents sources and will purposely try to "destabilize" a GAN to feed their need for attention. Lucia Black does more arguing and fighting than actual work and I've said it repeatedly, that I don't have the time to waste on this. I don't think anyone else should either; it's just noise. If anyone needs me, I'll be tending to my GANs until the next time Lucia decides to overturn consensus - a pattern which has been repeated since her first topic ban and interaction ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Chris meant me when he referred to a user "Catalan" in the above comment. Calathan (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, theres a whole mess you are hiding. like the fact that you also played in a part in stalling discussions due to this RfC, now that it didn't go in your favor, you're trying to make it seem like its not relevant. other editors there had no complaints and again, was clarified that its not gaming the system. afterall the RfC was both yours and ryulong's idea and it was indeed the outcome of articles such as bleach and Dragon ball. Huon even recaps to say that the discussion was indeed halted for the sake of the RfC.

ALso, if you noticed, none of my coments toward you are in any way "incivil" but you choose to continue and claiming "battleground" behavior. Even knowledgekid also acknowledges that there was not, and that you are the one throwing the first "jabs"Lucia Black (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys both should realize that they massive blocks of text are probably part of the reason why your issues never get resolved. Why should "volunteer" editors spend their time wading through all of that mass of text? There's no way there is going to be a consensus forming when there's so much info being jumbled together. Which is fine this time, I guess, since I don't believe any action is required, but still, going forward, you both should keep this in mind... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Chris. stop derailing discussions. the oens you jsut sourced shows how much you derail things, and choose to become incivil.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I was referring to both of you, really... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

like i said, i can work with this editor, if he chooses to be civil, and compliant. And he makes a fuss, takes things personally, and chooses to escalate a situation and derail it. if you have any evidence of me doing that after my ban. by all means provide it, but i've been doing from what i believe is my my all to avoid causing any more trouble, and yet, it follows me.Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Option: There are 2 options and 2 options only. The first is to let this perpetual Ryulong-ChrisGualtieri-Lucia Black drama-pot keep simmering and boiling over (thereby granting an ice pick lobotomy to the entire community) or to finally deal with this drama magnet once and for all. If it's not obvious, I advocate for some very heavy handed sanctions to be placed on all 3 users as they can't interact positively with each other or within the same topic space. Recalling, of course, the last time that Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri disputed to ANI they were withing milimeters of topic and interaction bans.Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't drag me into this bullshit Hasteur. Chris and Lucia's dispute with each other predates my (resolved) dispute with Chris.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind not changing other editor's talk page statements M'kay? And you were already dragged in from the statement by Lucia Black at 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC), you were just never notified about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't want any part of it and I've done nothing except remove the link. I've no dog in this fight.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that the ANI's are more consistent with Chris alone more than with Ryulong and I individually. he managed to save himself several times, and its simmers because action should've taken place along time ago. THere is alot more that this editor gets away with, and part of it has to do with thinking he knows best even when a bold edit is reverted, and then only uses BRD rule when its convenient. but if you take action now, i would be serving a second ban when I've already cleaned up most of my act. Ryulong, although made "peace" with ChrisGualtieri, both mutually avoid each other for a time. But i don't have that luxury. every edit i make is considered an attack to this editor, and i'm not the only editor in the wikiproject to think so. And the links provided shows that the majority he's the one picking the fights. and even then you can see in those edits i'm trying to keep it civil.Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable motivation

Was the only reason this was brought up because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank this? Yesterday, an editor nominated her subpage (which hosts all her difs about Chris) for deletion due to it being WP:POLEMIC, and not using the links in a timely manner. The next day, she brings this weak case to ANI? I feel like this discussion was only brought up to justify that page's existence and avoid it being deleted. Its an awfully big coincidence at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you could make arguments about that. but since i already found a site to help me keep track and be able to save them, its of little concern to me whether it gets deleted. The key was to save the recorded incivility in a place where i can keep track. and i did confirm that i was going to use the information quite recently, and that's regardless of the outcome. I've restored the information pretty recently, and that should be taken a sign of me taking action, and Huon just happens to pick up on it the moment i restored it and decides to MfD (and seems to only act when it invovles ChrisGualtieri). So as you can see, it's not that the ANI notice came at a convenient time to protect the Miscellaneous page, its more that when i'm making advances to put it to use, Huon decides to put it up for MfD. and even so, i find it a tad ridiculous to bring these "recent" issues up for the sake of protecting one page.

My issues for ChrisGualtieri are real, and many other editors hae noted it in the past.Lucia Black (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite. Although Chris may be causing a problem, Lucia, you are the one creating a page that violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT and is now going back to the same problem behavior of ranting at ANI's door about Chris. Seriously, Lucia cut the crap unless you want to have an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I request Lucia request speedy delete (post {{db-u1}} on the page). NE Ent 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I am formally proposing based on the diffs above, her constant frivolous AN & AN/I reports, and other WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors that Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until she demonstrates that this behavior will not continue.

Support -- as nom. Enough is enough. ChrisGualtieri doesn't deserve this and neither does anyone else. The fact that she got away with a single 48 hour block when she breached her restrictions daily astonishes me and she is exhausting patience with these games. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsguy17: If you're starting your conversation with "this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite" and admitting Chris is at fault too, then by no means are you having a fair opinion here. You're still admitting that Chris is causing trouble and you're trying to make something not as clear, look like it broke the biggest rule of them all. and quite frankly, thats what bothers me about ANI. that they admit theres an issue, and choose to not act on it for another, and intentionally over-exaggerate. and i will inform you on why its exaggeration at least for this instance:

WP:POLEMIC allows such a page to exist in the chance of it being used in a timely manner, and again i had a system set up so that it would be "timely" or set up to be timely to ones eye (again no number is put and so you can't make this out as a clear violation). if the issues died down, then i would remove them from the list, but if the editor then chooses to continue some time soon, it comes back along with the new incidents that made it come back (obviously, i'm not going to bring up an issue that happened 5 years ago if the same issue comes again. it wouldn't be "timely). The system is simple, can be considered to be used in a timely manner, and one can say "not violating any policies". And i say that because there's no distinction on what can be defined "timely". If the information dies down, i don't use it. simple as that.

if you don't agree, and consensus believe its not timely. then it can be closed. no big deal. banning me "indefinitely" for a policy that makes no clear distinctions and can easily be misinterpret? You have your thoughts set out for restrictions to be "indefinite" from the start and from before, so its not like you're looking for a good reason. you're just looking for a reason in general. Be realistic here, and take the situation for what it is. The Policy makes no clear distinction. but even so, i did my best to keep it timely, and you can't block me indefinitely for even trying. that would just be pretty messed up thing to do.

And no, this isn't WP:POINT. like i said, the use was going to be quite recently, but Huon MfD the page on the same day that i restored information that i intended to use regardless of the MfD within this time frame, so now it looks like i'm making a pointy-edit to keep the link bank (despite making it clear i found a site that allows me to save the information without the hassle of interpreting "timely") rather than this being already taken a course of action and Huon decides to intervene.

Also, i'm not going to dicuss this any further. you want me to nominate it for speedily deleting it, i will. but don't you dare try to make this to cover up what the purpose of all this, and this is to prove someone is being problematic. @Sergecross73: another editor, besides having an agenda of indefinite block over trivial things, just admitted another editor is being troublesome. So you really have to grasp the truths that are being said. if one editor believes he's being troublesome, then why not consider what i provided in a more serious matter.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you also don't believe Chris "doesn't deserve this". lets keep in mind, Chris has also barely and i mean "BARELY" manage to salvage himself from action, several times by choosing to apologize when consensus is against him. here i'm providing information that even after a formal peace offering, the editor does not learn from it. He continues to hassle, makes things personal, and disrupts other discussions.

Again you've had this agenda, for a pretty good while, and your comment shows that you initially wanted this indefinitely from the start.Lucia Black (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suppose if you're going to block one for such behaviors, then you can block the other for the same. KonveyorBelt 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly, i wasn't "barely" saved. unlike Chris here, who manages to get away by merely apologizing, and again this is right when consensus has already agreed to take action. and since my block, i haven't made any uncivil remarks to him, and i try to stay on point and neutral. but again, he continues to be aggressive, and doing the exact same things that cause issues in the first place. We also have to consider that he barely got saved last time merely for the reasons that he repented. But here, it shows that A) i brought a peace offering and B) he's the one throwing it all away. Not only that but this is unavoidable. its not like i'm going to his talk page and harassing him or even provoking him. no, look in the links, and you can see discussions i brought up are being poisoned by his own aggressive and false accusations. Basically since then, he hasn't changed at all, and now he's made it clear he has no patience for me, and will not be changing anytime soon. And again, this is all from receiving pretty general neutral, civil comments.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're far more disruptive Lucia. Your behavior has convinced me that you're WP:NOTHERE. Chris wants peace and the ability to edit without you breathing down his neck all the time. At least Chris tries to come up with a solution, you just constantly abuse him and several other editors. Lucia, you've been nothing but a nuisance for a while. We've tried to come up with other solutions. A topic/interaction ban didn't work, since you violated it almost every day and you were lucky to have only been blocked once. So, Konveyor Belt this proposal is for Lucia only. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're inconsistent Sportzilla, you admit to him being problematic, but then try to paint him off as a saint by simply making up such things. you can see clearly that i am not "breathing down his neck" when you read the links yourself, he is the one making every incivil remark and not only that but he is the one responding to me, or the discussion i began, and rather keeping it on the content, he chooses to talk about the editors. don't believe me? it's right there Sportzilla. Either CHris has helped you in the past and you want to make it look like he's done nothing wrong (even though you've admitted to it) or you're just trying to make simple things look worst. and i challenge you to prove what you're saying is true (that i'm breathing down his neck) by using links. i'm not the one looking for this, afterall i gave a peace offering. But quite recently, he's been looking for me. Heck he even harrassed me on my own talkpage. and if you don't believe me, look at the links.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia, have you thought how Chris feels? He is trying to understand how you feel. I was on IRC with him and he said he was miserable. Lucia, why do you care about Chris at all? His conversation with me on IRC suggests he wants to be away from you. Please leave him alone. He wants to build content, not fight with a nuisance like you who is wearing down patience rapidly. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOw...so if someone just suddenly confides in you, then that means that they must be you're talking with the good guy. and anyone who is making this person feel miserable has to do with

And calling me a nuisance already, shows how one-sided this. There's two sides Sportzilla. if you want to stick with one side, so be it. but just because Chris confide with you in IRC, doesn't mean for a second that he's right in all this. The links says it all Sportzilla. did you actually look at them? He has done the opposite of avoid.

you're just bias Sportzilla, you're sympathizing over him for how he's feeling, not for whether he's right. and yes, maybe he has the right ideals, but everything so far has been against procedure. If you actually knew the stuff he isn't telling you.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

The most valuable asset Wikipedia has are mature editors who are able to contribute to the encyclopedia in a cooperative fashion. CG and LB (listed alphabetically) have demonstrated a chronic inability to do this. It is not the best use of other volunteer's time to mediate their interactions. I'm opposing any interaction bans because it is my believe that, rather than solve the problem, it would just be a matter of time before one is ratting out the other for some alleged violation. (They are much better at seeing the motes in the other eye than the beams in theirs.) If I thought I could get the votes, I'd propose site banning both of them right now. Seriously. Not kidding.
Instead I propose both be placed on community get along and figure it out probation. The next time either complains about, discusses, or mentions the other anywhere on on-wiki, regardless of provocation, any admin may indefinitely block them.NE Ent 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support NE Ent 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But look at where its heading. you simply want to control the situation by making you not hear a thing. That wont solve anything. and i know you're fustrated, but its not right to do it indefinitely. I've been blocked enough, and i taken extra care of my comments, but i'm not the one looking for chrisgualtieri. everything so far has just been thrown at me.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lucia, stop it. You are the one who has WP:BOOMERANGed this right back at yourself, by raising a frivolous ANI based on incredibly weak evidence, just to make a WP:POINT. I think everyone is sick to death of Lucia vs Chris. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just make your vote, and don't start making snippy comments. WP:BOOMERANG over weak situation, is like catching the thief who stole a 100 dollar bill but wont act until its a 1000. HOw about you take a look at each one. the only way you canb ring a relevant WP:BOOMERANG is if i do the same thing Chris is doing. AKA being a hipocrit.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a "boomerang" because you were the one who reported him, but sanctions are now being thrown at you. That's appropriate usage of the term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're admitting there is a bias perspective on who brings it up, not what the editor is doing. so theres a strong loophole here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, all I did was explain to you the concept of boomerang. I said nothing of "bias". Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia, if you keep up this bullshit, then a WP:CIR (not NOTHERE, because I don't think that quite applies) indef block will be dropped on you. You will stop at nothing to attack Chris, or anyone who objects to your attacks. You need to change tack; instead of spending all of your energy on attacking one user, use it to improve your spelling, grammar and syntax, which are sorely lacking. At the very least, please proof-read your comments - doing this may also make you realize just how far out of line you are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As with what NE Ent said above, I don't think a ban would gather support yet, but I do think something very strict is necessary in order to stop this. All they do is clutter up every discussion avenue we have with endless arguing and bickering, and they do it in such as way (large rambling walls of texts) that its virtually impossible to follow along, let alone get any sort of third party input. They clearly can't handle themselves when it comes to calm discussion, so I feel like something like this proposal is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although NE Ent's proposal sounds reasonable, we have to consider the fact that Lucia is always the one that drags Chris by the ears to these drama boards and is the one breathing down Chris's neck. Also, see her rants above. The thing is, Lucia's disruption is all across English Wikipedia. As I said, she is WP:NOTHERE. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this as an example of her causing disruption with someone besides Chris. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but this proposal may be more likely to garner support. Also, if Chris is as tired of dealing with Lucia as you say, then this shouldn't be much of an issue for him, he can happily not interact with her anymore in this proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Chris was as tired as he was to interact with me, he would've simply avoided discussions that he felt were meaningless. On another note, the edits says it all, and you can see it by the links provided. What Chris claims (or what Sportzilla claims he claims) and what he says during a discussion doesn't compute.

That is only one link. agianst me, why not bring an entire ANI case regarding chris? you see, this can work both ways Sportzilla. I can show you what he's done, you can bring merely one link. which i guarantee you, thats all you're gonna find. But when it comes to me and Chris, i've been the civil one. and no one here can deny that. and if you dare try, i challenge you to bring links.Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No one can deny that"? Are you reading the same discussion as everyone else? Not a single person has come to your defense. Everyone's denying that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do i really need number of votes to prove the truth when i already have it in number of evidence (links). The only link you've provided isn't even Chris-related. But I've provided the truth. I've provided that Chris has been an issue. And Sportzilla despite efforts to be one sided openly admits in the beginning that Chris is indeed being problematic. Just imagine if he was nuetral on the subject. how much his opinion would weigh in?

And you know this Serge, look how far its been to not only deny the links, but the very thing they prove (Chris always making the first attack) you say the exact opposite and without proof. I've done my part after my ban. And i'm honestly sick of the harassment by Chris. and yes, if Chris claims he's miserable, than i'm miserable as he is. maybe even more, since he's the one throwing the punches this time. Who's the one coming into my talkpage and making outrageous claims? Who has to humor him for the sake of civility?

Can you deny that? can you deny that Chris hasn't been aggressive and combatant? or do i need to bring editors who i know will vouche for this? that would be considered inappropriate right?Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,you provided some "links", but as I've said, they have garnered zero support. Quite the opposite, they've only lead to a few comments about how "weak" they are, and some BOOMERANG accusations towards you. And yes, WP:CANVASSING would be inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I must add this is not due to bad faith on the part of Chris. I simply don't think sanctions on one side will gain any traction. But, as was mentioned, the diffs provided here don't incriminate Chris and in at least one case they seem to incriminate Lucia. Sucks getting hit by the boomerang but that's how it is, if she is serious about improving the project then this will be a motivation to commit to more productive interactions and I don't imagine Chris will have difficulty with such sanctions anyway but in the event that he does, it will be noticed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They provide "non-insightful comments" on the subject, and continuous choice of making this about me (the editor) over the article (content). That is shown clear as day in these links. and it shows how Also Chris "enjoys" saying such sly remarks everywhere (i say enjoy because these sly remarks are purely "optional" and in no way needed to convey his thoughts). Another thing, is that rather than contributing to the vote, he makes radical accusations right away. Something that had garnered no comments yet, and already Chris classifies things as drama, continues to dismiss things saying he has no part of it, and continues to come back. And again this editor bombards the discussion with his own personal view. And at least one editor editor noticed the disruption during the discussion. i linked that aswell.

Either way, it shows a lot. weak doesn't mean "nothing" it shows that there is something there. even if all of it is considered weak, as a whole it shows something significant. the responce to my talkpage for such harrassment was based of a completely neutral discussion on a certain article. And he chose to flare up on my talkpage and talk about me having the last word, which was not the case.

And its not a complete stretch when you see these links. it would've been more relevant if i was able to link how close these discussions have been and how they relate to his behavior overall, but finding a way to link those and organize them, would be difficult to convey. but keep in mind these are all closely connected.. still, some accusations against me are merely small. and based not entirely on the issues of me and Chris. what you find with me would be small (i'm not even going to say that theres more than 2 out there) isolated events, and even then we are still talking about chris, none of which prove i have been provoking, combatant, or rude to him in the recent past.

But i'm simply tired of discussing this. his behavior will continue to be noted. If only i could bold the problematic areas during a preview so that you cansee what parts to focus on. (edit conflict)21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, Lucia, Chris does not want to interact with you. How about you not follow ChrisGualtieri? On IRC, he was upset, he does not want to be near you or interact with you. And the diff provided by me shows that you attack more editors than only ChrisGualtieri. Also, I proposed an indefinite block, not a ban. The fact that we need to continue to comment shows how Lucia is a time sink and a net negative to the project and keeping her blocked until she understands how to collaborate with others civilly, calmly, and respectfully. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 21:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Sportzilla. She's been arguing with every single person on this thread, posting entire books underneath each comment. The other person doesn't seem to be doing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo:this ANI itself proves nothing, and should not be taken into example. the flaw into WP:BOOMERANG is that even if there is evidence, rather than acting against both, or the one that indeed did the issue, the problem is still that one or both people get scott free. WP:BOOMERANG is an example. but to me it also allows people to ssee everything at face value. like i said, i provided links. and SPortzilla has felt so strongly merely because he had more interaciton with Chris. that's all. And my links do prove a point, and that is that what Sportzilla claims about ChrisGualtieri isn't true.Lucia Black (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Sportzilla, stop it. if you choose to believe chris on whatever he claims, that s on you, but don't force it onto me as if its the truth. the links don't lie. who made clear choices to interact with a certain editor he claims to interact with? the links says it all. even if one claims that it cannot incriminate, what you saying right now, isn't what chris is actually doing.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Admin to open Mediation Request File for India Against Corruption

(NAC) Mediation has started.--Rockfang (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

"India Against Corruption" (IAC) has been attempting to get corrected the text in this article - which disparages and libels IAC movement by confusing it with another movement "Team Anna" which had misused IAC's name briefly and/or inadvertently between Dec.2010 to Jan. 2011.

On 30 November 2013 an editor BOLDLY "merged" Team Anna into India Against Corruption without prior discussion on either page. As a consequence, highly disparaging content about Team Anna (including by painting it as a communal rightwing group) has been brought into the IAC article to disparage the IAC which is a secular and socialist movement from its inception. Information about the IAC movement was also deleted during the merge.

Extensive article Talk page discussion has reached a dead end as the editor who merged the articles is (a) calling upon IAC to state/prove that we are Team Anna - which we are not (b) refusing to acknowledge unimpeachable independent 3rd party proofs submitted by IAC to show that "India Against Corruption" and "Team Anna" are 2 distinct entities, (c) reverting edits by other editors who were trying to build the article.

Accordingly, IAC requests for a Mediator to be appointed to bring about consenus for this article's content. IAC cannot open the Mediation file itself as IAC (as a conflicted party) has no intention of editing at Wikipedia or accepting any obligations connected with opening an account at Wikipedia which may compromise/diminish IAC's further remedies. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are you speaking for yourself individually or are you speaking on behalf of IAC? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home, the editor obliquely referred to above is Sitush, whom the OP really should've notified. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading correctly, the filing party wants to open a request for comment. Over a page merge? Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a)This is an official request from India Against Corruption. This is made clear on the Talk Page of the article (b) All editors (including Sitush) who have partcipated in this dispute have been previously asked on the Talk Page.to assist IAC in opening a Mediation Request (c) IAC is asking for an experienced Mediator (preferably from the WMF) (d) IAC is not asking for RFC. (e) Page merge is the cause of action. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a mediation request. In that case, you can file it right now. No need for anyone from the WMF to get involved just yet—in fact, you can ask a regular administrator or a bureaucrat to comment (although some WMF staff are admins here). Other than that, I think the Mediation Committee can handle this from here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We don't have a Wikipedia Account (for reasons explained above) so the RFM form doesn't work for us, and which is why we need somebody to open the mediation request. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption. Please feel free to edit this. I will not involve myself and take sides there, however. Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstood, but what's the point of opening a mediation request? Per your comment above, it sounds like you don't want to participate in the mediation. Without your participation the mediation will be closed, and even if it isn't closed it would achieve nothing if only one person is participating as there would be nothing to mediate. If there is more than one other party besides you, they are free to request mediation if they want to, I don't see how you opening it for them, or rather asking others to open it, achieves anything particularly as they may not participate. BTW, do you understand the IAC could not open an account on wikipedia even if they wanted to? See WP:Role account. Any account opened would need to belong to one individual, regardless of whether they are representing the IAC or not. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the article talk page, although you said 'has no intention of editing at Wikipedia' here, it sounds like you are in fact quite willing to edit the article talk page so I assume you would be willing to take part in the mediation. If that's the case then opening the mediation may be fine but bear in mind the mediation requests will still need to meet the preconditions which in this case since Sitush is apparently the only other party (at least according to you) will include their consent to the mediation (so I wonder if just waiting for them to open it would have been easier). Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also look at th thread at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 December 18#Article "India Against Corruption etc. for more background on this. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like the mediation is proceeding so good luck. The only thing I would mention is that I hope you (IAC) understand how mediation works. As the page says, it's intended to help editors come to an agreement on the way forward. The mediators are not going to rule on the dispute or dictate changes to the article. Please understand that this means you should be willing to listen to the other side and accept that you may be wrong in some or even many areas. If you are unwilling to do so, it's unlikely mediation will achieve a useful outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can probably be closed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

New attempt to whitewash Lavasa, with an unusual twist

Semi'd by JohnCD. Blackmane (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adityaa.sharmaa is one of several user accounts that along with multiple IPs have repeatedly tried to whitewash the article about Lavasa, removing the properly sourced controversies section. Attempts that have resulted in the article being semi-protected (a protection that expires today BTW). Today the user has made a new attempt at it, but with a for me at least completely new twist, by posting a message on both my talk page, their own user page and Talk:Lavasa, begging me or whoever to let the user remove the controversies section in the article, saying that they own property in Lavasa that they desperately need to sell to raise money for their daughter's wedding, and claiming that they can't sell the property because of the article on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the message, ladies and gentlemen in the admin corps, and make whatever you want of it, because all I can do is reporting it here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not without some sympathy, AGF and all, for the user's plight, this raises a rather prickly ethical dilemma. Removing the material so that they can make their deal would place Wikipedia in some legal jeopardy as, in essence, we're removing verified information, which has real world influence, so that this user can make financial gain? Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When assuming good faith your observations are correct, but it's hard for me to AGF knowing the edit history of the article, and having seen the user's prior contributions, or rather deletions, on it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming good faith, we do not remove sourced information to help someone do a deal which requires concealing it. But I don't believe a word of it - would anyone seriously hoping to base a deal on hiding this information post "please help me hide it so I can do this deal" on the article talk page? JohnCD (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a word of it either, but I wanted uninvolved eyes on it. Plus a new semi-protection for a month or more when the present one expires about two hours from now... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection extended for three months, as this seems to be an ongoing problem. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Cyberaz

BAD-FAITH REPORT

Tátótát failed to attempt to communicate with her/his "adversary" on this content disupute. It appears Tátótát does not intend to respond to the question asked of her/him below. As a result, Tátótát is strongly cautioned to engage others much more constructively, WP:AGF and otherwise change the demeanor of his/her editing. Tátótát may be blocked for further bad-faith actions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User made edits to the Azad Ali article, censoring negative reporting on the subject. By user name, it may may possibly be Ali. It is a single purpose account as well.

Can this page be protected as well? Tátótát (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) No, I don't think so. It's only one user, they are much more likely to be blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic. Tátótát, why haven't you posted something constructive, coaching or otherwise useful on User talk:Cyberaz besides the ANI notice? There is no indication that anyone needs to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr Hall of England

Could someone please explain to User:Mr Hall of England why cut and paste moves are undesirable? I've told him three times and he's just done it again[250][251]. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. How much it it will do remains to be seen. I also reverted the edits. That talk page is a huge mess, and I asked them to do something about it. (My note on their talk page is still trying to be saved.) Drmies (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit, I see what's happening. They're using their talk page and archives (92 of them) as sandboxes for templates and scores and results and tons and tons of flagicons. Ordinarily that stuff ought to be sandboxed and much of it could probably be deleted (via MfD, STALE ARTICLE, etc). I wonder how much server space they're taking up this way. I was on the verge of creating a talk page archive for them when I saw what they were doing, and now I'm not so sure how to proceed. It's possible that the proper thing to do is to move all non-talk page content to sandboxes, re-created the talk page archives if need be, and then start chopping, as J Mascis might say. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered this editor previously, he does not listen and he does not communicate. e.g. here which received no response. Giant Snowman 19:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just checked his talk page history. I'll ask him to respond here, if he doesn't and continues to edit, I am likely to block him. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can remove all this sandbox stuff from the talk page, any guidelines that can be used there? It's obviously causing severe issues when someone wishes to use it as, you know, a talk page. He also has 90+ pages of archived info he's copied from other places. Dear knows how large his talk page collections are in total, most of which are 4+ years old and aren't talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd lose no sleep if the whole lot was to get wiped - though I'm sure others would kick up a stink. Giant Snowman 21:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't all the archives simply be moved, except for the ones that actually are archives? Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was fun. Talk page is cleaned up. I found two messages by GiantSnowman pointing out this talk page as sandbox stuff. I won't stand in the way of a block for uncommunicative and uncollaborative editing. But in all fairness, I'll ping The Rambling Man, who has come to Mr Hall's defense before, and who may break a lance for them. In the meantime I nominated a couple of talk pages for deletion, pages that were clearly nothing but drafts and had no function as a talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Rambling Man - continued

The users involved have been advised to file RFCs to address behavior problems, and to stop archiving/unarchiving threads in which they are participants. No further AN/I threads should be opened about this issue. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite the close in the previous discussion, TRM continues to edit-war at the ref desk talk page. His actions now amount to nothing more than trolling, to try to keep his battle going. Can someone TRM respects, please talk to him and tell him to stop it? Or at least similarly archive that section, so he can't gripe that we're trying to "censor" him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A thread in which multiple editors criticise the behaviour of both Baseball Bugs and Medeis should not be closed by either Baseball Bugs or Medeis. Please, someone remind this comedy duo that they need to stop editing contra to COI and allow others to decide whether they think the matter is closed. There's no "trolling" or "edit warring", just a continual request for someone neutral to look at the thread that both BB and Medeis are so keen to censor. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really blame the admins here for not stepping in and doing anything, as it's not clear what they ought to do -- much less to whom. Nor does anyone else on the RD talk page seem to care much, either. This is basically a three-way shouting match between Baseball Bugs, Medeis, and The Rambling Man -- with no one listening. I'll try making this point at WT:RD, too, and see if (if!) everyone can agree to drop it for now. It's clear it's not going to go anywhere. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fuck, stop it. I've told all three of you to pursue an RFC if you have a problem with others' behavior. This is not for AN/I now, nor was it ever really. Please go about your business or file an RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I just want the flippant behaviour of the comedy duo to cease, and for them to stop censoring pages at their own liberty. I never posted anything to AN/I, unlike these guys. I'll file an RFC in due course. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

70.53.97.28

I have blocked for another week. This should be adequate, as school resumes on Monday in that town. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore my deleted article in my user namespace

Done. This was not the best place for the request, but it didn't cause any problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

My article List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order was deleted 16 December 2013, associated with these discussions:

Please restore it in my user namespace for further external clarification with it. Thank you --MathLine (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Offline harassment

Is there a typical procedure or some good advice for an editor who is being harassed offline by another editor e.g., contacting my employer? ElKevbo (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those pages recommend e-mailing ArbCom so I've done so. ElKevbo (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

I've unarchived to ask if someone could kindly let my friend know that I didn't block him (I'm not even an administrator!). He is continuing to harass me with e-mail messages and phone calls to my employer (!) but I won't engage with him. Maybe if he realizes that his actions are widely viewed as unacceptable he'll move on or at least stop harassing me. ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is he emailing you via Wikipedia's mail interface, or directly?

We can't do anything about the phone calls other than advise you to advise your employer to disregard them, but if he is emailling through the site we can block him from using the email function while he's blocked, and extend the block to indefinite if he keeps harassing you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just turned off their email for the duration of the block, presuming the answer to my own question. They can still edit Their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He just copied me on more e-mails, one to Jimmy Wales and one to the Attorney General of Delaware (because I work at a public university in that state). Sigh... ElKevbo (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor incident (but warning all the same)

User:76.193.170.115 has added, twice, unconstructive material to List of MPs for English constituencies 2010–, once with a fake/misleading edit summary. I have warned them that further such vandalism might lead to their editing rights being restricted or stopped. As they seem to be eager to revert my reversions, I am flagging this up now so we don't end up with a 3RR incident (or worse) doktorb _words^deeds 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lyon

Two editors have worked together to delete this article by blanking the page and replacing it with a redirect. The talk page, which recorded it surviving a speedy delete in 2010, was also replaced with a redirect. I have restored the article and left an edit summary saying it should be put through normal CSD or AFD processes, but the page was blanked a second time. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hold the dramatics for a second? Holy smokes, in the time it took for us to begin threads in discussing the situation, you've already begun an ANI thread. There is nothing here causing administrative attention as we've already started discussing it instead of any kind of continued reverting or edit warring. Breathe, my friend. Gloss • talk 02:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion you reverted my attempts to preserve the article twice. You began discussing it only after that. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was (or is) a misunderstanding about why it was blanked/redirected. None of this is a conversation for ANI. The page is currently back to its original state (unchanged) and discussion has begun. Gloss • talk 02:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenmaven: Just so you'll know, you're acting like we engaged in an edit war. We didn't perform enough reverts for that, so there don't seem to be any violations on our part here. Also, you violated a policy by not even informing us on our talk pages that this discussion was going on. So who's guilty? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these events occurred in close succession. I found you were on my talk page immediately after I started this ANI thread. So by then you were notified, but it was on my talk page rather than on yours. I find your statement, Gloss, "Can we hold the dramatics for a second?" offensive and condescending. Now, I will continue the discussion on my talk page, not here. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Do you have a temper problem or a mood disorder, my buddy? You're very outspoken. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss and @Survivorfan, please acquaint yourselves with the civility code of conduct. I could also invoke the bullying and various other policies and guidelines you are violating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how I was in any way being uncivil. The claim that I was even remotely violating a policy or guideline is outrageous. My apologies Jack, that you found my initial comment offensive. That wasn't my intention. I simply feel you were coming charging out of the gate and seeking administrative attention before even attempting discussing anything with me. Gloss • talk 03:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: could you be more specific about which policies we're both violating? I'm not exactly seeing it on the conduct thing. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss, I suggest that you read your missives to Jack Greenmaven on his user talk page and here again with care. You may find it to be illuminating. @Survivorfan, I am happy to provide you with a list of related policies. If you persist in continuing to address me with statements such as, "I'm not exactly seeing it on the conduct thing." (sic), the list is merely going to continue to grow. Please remember that this is an AN/I into your behaviour. Continuing to be disparaging towards anyone who makes a comment is not going to reflect well on your attitude towards the community. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term issues at Simon Baron-Cohen

I have been trying off and on to get BLP Simon Baron-Cohen correctly cited for almost six years; there have been ongoing problems of either competence, tendentious editing, IDHT, or possible COI.

SPAs inserting POV, original research, and reverting or removing maintenance tags date to at least 2007, with the following chronology of SPAs:

SPA Sb205 (talk · contribs · logs) edited until May 21, 2009 (and also expanded Sam Baron), when
SPA NigelPettersmithHugh questioned on May 21 whether SBC was editing his own article. At that point, Sb205 stopped editing, and one day later,
SPA Minsk606 (talk · contribs · logs) started editing on May 22, 2009 (and also created the unsourced Dan Baron Cohen, [252]). Minsk606 edited until June 2009, with
SPA Minsk101 (talk · contribs · logs) beginning to edit in August 2009 and editing to date. Minsk101 adds original research, text not supported by citations, has edit warred, initially would not respond on talk (but now does), and book reviews critical of Baron-Cohen's work. Minsk101 denies having a COI (Baron-Cohen's grandmother emigrated from Minsk).

See User talk:Minsk101 for notices from myself, Jfdwolff, and Sjö about Minsk101's editing.

Removing cn tags and blanking text critical of SBC,
followed by edit warring[253][254] [255] to reinstate a list of 370 journal publications! [256]

When Minsk finally engaged in talk page discussion, it appeared there might be some improvement, but Minsk101 continues to insert text that is not verified by sources, and original research (diffs detailed on article talk).

Yesterday I rewrote the entire article almost from scratch, incorporating all sources brought forward on talk to date, thinking that Minsk now understood sourcing; same continued today even after multiple warnings and discussions and attempts at getting Minsk to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines and policies.[257]

It doesn't appear that Minsk101 is able to edit this bio neutrally and competently; s/he seems determined to write an original research Curriculum vitae for Baron-Cohen on Wikipedia, with or without sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Nick-D&offset=20131225071310&target=Nick-D

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Nick-D&offset=20131225071310&target=Nick-D

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards