Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pican33 (talk | contribs) at 15:34, 12 July 2014 (→Ryulong is at it again.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    David Horvitz

    A few years ago, I had been part of a group who uncovered a campaign by David Horvitz to have photographs of himself looking at various beaches along the California coast posted on Wikipedia. This culminated in this deletion discussion at the Commons (there may have been a discussion regarding the photos locally but I cannot seem to find it). Horvitz then turned this into an art project when every single photo he had uploaded got deleted, but it turns out that he fully intended to reupload everything.

    Binksternet recently uncovered the disruption had happened once more locally and on the Commons with a slew of sockpuppets that he has been documenting at his talk page. I also uncovered other photographs he had posted across the project and other language projects, as he did in his previous disruption in 2011. This has disruption occuring from the past 2 years, including photographs of similar quality taken of his international journeys including one of a beach in Hong Kong. I also discovered that Horvitz had been contributing to Wikipedia as early as 2006 under the account Rasputinfa, which he had explicitly linked to his own name. There was also some minor disruption late last year when he used an intern to get his article deleted.

    I am proposing that we officially ban David Horvitz from the English Wikipedia. We should also attempt to coordinate bans on other projects, as he has uploaded his photographs for a beach in Hong Kong for which there is only an article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well as constant disruption to the Commons, but I am not as well versed in the means to get that sort of ball rolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Whale Beach (Nevada) has a photo of a naked guy facing, thankfully, away from the viewer, looking out to the water. The camera is not the same model as the ones Horvitz has used (usually a Canon EOS 40D professional or Canon PowerShot consumer model), but the layout of the photos and the physicality of the person is the same. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So he actually created a whole new article just to host a selfie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's a crap selfie at that. Between the dust circles, sharpness, exposure settings, lens choice... while I agree with some of this guy's compositional and subject choices in some of the images displayed at that "art project" page, this is just dreck being passed off as fine photography. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Question I understand people are miffed, but I'm not sure I see the disruption. (I read the discussion at the time, but it's a distant memory.) If he is replacing pictures with worse ones just to have his picture included, then it's disruption, regardless of whether it's art, self promotion, or exhibitionism. If on the other hand the pictures are improving the articles, then we should offer a lukewarm welcome... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
    He's using Wikipedia to promote himself and his work by only uploading photographs of himself at these various locations with his back turned to the camera, forcing editors who want to use the photos to crop them to where the subject is himself absent from the photos. Or his odd artistic photos like the one he had at melancholic depression for 2 years of him fake sobbing into his hands, the photo he posted at solitude of just himself standing on a beach with no one else, or this photo of himself looking at a sculpture. There is no point to any of the photos he has uploaded here or at the commons other than making sure that he is included in them.
    He was not welcome 3 years ago when he was indefinitely blocked. He is not welcome now that he's spent the past 3 years using sockpuppets to discreetly reupload everything that had been deleted and then go out to more locations to take more photos of himself in the same manner and then post them to Wikipedia, making screencaps of them prominent in his artwork and his fame. If he wanted to be welcomed by the community his homepage would not have a screenshot of our article on the Irish coastal town of Howth with a photo of him looking out at Dublin Bay with his back facing the camera to gloat about how he's fooled Wikipedia again. He made it his full intention to disrupt Wikipedia after we gave him the boot, and immortalized our words in his gallery when we realized we had been had.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not clear how we are "fooled", or how anyone is "forced" to crop his images (though go ahead if the results are better, it is a moments work after all). It's rather like saying one has "hacked" Wikipedia when one edits an article to improve it. And maybe someone should tell him about the "preview" feature if he just wants screencaps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
    He had his photos on the project for the past 2 years after we found out about his "Public Access" installation that he was using Wikipedia for and had them all deleted the first time around. Then his first act after whatever automatic block expired was to add back the photo that led to the discovery of his stupid art project in the first place. And no, screencaps aren't what he wants. He wants to have photos of himself on the various Wikipedia articles live by being in the photographs. That's why he added the photo to Howth. That's why when he went to Hong Kong, he took a photo on a beach there and then added it to the Chinese Wikipedia page as the top image on the article. He's not here to contribute. He's here to disrupt and have his backside across Wikimedia projects. The fact that we could not catch this two years ago means that there are an untold number of lovely photographs of beaches across Wikipedia and its sister projects that have the same man looking at the horizon away from the camera just because he wants to make a statement about web 2.0.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Is there a policy reason why he was not notified of this discussion, or was that just an oversight? He should have been notified, and has been. It is important for anyone reporting a disruptive editor to be sure that they follow both the spirit and the letter of our policies and guidelines. Was he not notified for a reason, or by oversight? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Robert; as you saw, I directed his talk page to the conversation, but with the "gaggle of sockpuppets" Modus operandi he uses, creating a whole slew of accounts, often only using the account to upload 3 photos then its never used again, how do you really notify "him", he is Wikipedia:Gaming the system, an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards. talk→ WPPilot  03:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question(s). Ryulong mentioned above that this person has been indefinitely banned. Was that ban lifted at some point? If not, then this discussion really is pointless: using socks to avoid a ban is not permitted (to put it mildly) & they should be blocked on sight & his edits reverted. If his ban was lifted, then what was the rationale? (I'll confess -- my opinion on this issue echoes Rich Farmborough's if he's not banned. However, if he's evading an indefinite ban then all efforts to block him are justified.) Lastly, if he was banned here on en.wikipedia, but not at Commons, wouldn't a more accurate response to be banning any reuse of his images from there without some kind of community approval? -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not say that he has been banned. He was never formally banned. There were simply several sockpuppets that were discovered 3 years ago that were blocked. This discussion exists to formally ban him and coordinate bans on the other projects to ensure that his low quality but artistic photos not end up on every single article on a California beach or some other random articles regarding types of clinical depression or abstract concepts like loneliness.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the consensus established in the discussion below, David Horvitz is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. Tiptoety talk 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ban?

    Just to be clear BMK, Nowa is not Horvitz. Nowa is an editor who has taken an interest in protecting the David Horvitz page, and thus has made constructive edits to that page. The vast majority of Nowa's edits are to other pages, far afield from this topic. So your vote is made on false pretenses.--Theredproject (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I got suspicious too and looked into Nowa's past. But Nowa is a long time editor (over 9 years) with a variety of contributions to Wikipedia, both in article and non-article space, and even earned a few barnstars in appreciation for work done. You can disagree with Nowa's opinions here but don't mistake who they are, this is an editor in good standing. (A couple of copyright concerns years ago and a recent warning about COI but no formal warnings or blocks, which is remarkable to me.) -- Atama頭 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Questions about David Horvitz

    Were his images hoaxes, or did they actually depict the locations they claimed to? Did he remove better photos to make room for his? Did he edit war or insult people? Just trying to get my mind around the nature of the "disruption" here. Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He was violating WP:POINT by abusing Wikipedia's freeness to have his artistic works disseminated whenever someone wanted a photo of Pelican State Beach or something resembling "melancholic depression" by having himself included in every single photo he uploaded, usually center of frame looking out towards the horizon. In one case, he made an article just to host his photo which happened to be of a nude beach. In all cases, he made his photo the top one on the articles, sometimes replacing photos in inoboxes, sometimes adding the sole photo of the location to the project, and then he used the nature of the dissemination of the photos because they were free in his art exhibitions, as well as our reactions to the initial discovery of his disruption in 2011. My screenname is in some PDF relating to the event. Shortly after this (in 2011), he posted on his blog that he would upload everything again, which we have just found out was the case. That's the disruption. The intent to use Wikipedia and abuse Web 2.0 to his own personal gain.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also read more a about the original issues with the Pelican Beach photos in this article : [2] You can see the original deletion discussion here.--Nowa (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Friedrich is my favourite romantic. I once travelled to London just to see an exhibition of his work. I appreciate the homage, David, and the effort all you Wikipedians have put in (and are putting in) to make David's piece the success it is. Well done all concerned. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthony, while most of the images did indeed depict the claimed locations, they were all of extremely low technical quality, and many didn't really even depict anything useful. Some were little more than pictures of a man's clothed backside, buttocks clenched in an almost constipated posture. While I thought some of the images were salvageable, the folks over at Commons disagreed, and I respect the consensus that formed over there. All that's happening here is Horvitz abusing multiple accounts to promote himself, not even his works, and the community is reacting to that. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there's the fact that he is actively socking and adding his shit art to Wikipedia as we speak.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know it's David H?--Nowa (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's a fairly safe thing to assume. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. Be specific.--Nowa (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding? Total rando comes out of the woodwork to upload this dude's hackish art? If it's not a sock, it's a meatpuppet. In light of that it's probably a good idea to do a sleeper check of Horvitz's accounts in case there are others lurking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you agreeing that it's probably not a David H. sockpuppet?--Nowa (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way, the edit wasn’t an upload. Get your facts straight.--Nowa (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the accounts that performed the edits I linked to uploaded the file to the commons with the exact same file name and composition. A sock puppet check was also performed and connected these two new accounts locally to accounts that were involved in the spate of edits prior. Now, Nowa, please kindly stop disrupting this discussion. We know you are not the photographer with whom you share a name so your further disruption of this thread will be seen as a separate act of violating WP:POINT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I checked and you are right. One of those new users did upload another copy of Mooddisorder to Commons.--Nowa (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not this shit again. Is there a formal ban discussion over at Commons? If not, why not? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a formal discussion over at commons. They seem equally skilled at spotting ducks (It's come up that Nowa is another individual named "David Horvitz") What a bunch of idiots.--Nowa (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retract this personal attack.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. Personal attacks don’t belong here. I apologize.--Nowa (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I see Horvitz has "published" a PDF book detailing his adventures, which includes copies of the text of several Wikipedia articles. The only indication I see of compliance with the licensing terms is the vague symbols towards the end, indicating an intent to make it available as CC-BY-SA-NC, with no link to the licensing terms (even presuming that counts as a good enough license to satisfy the share-alike requirement). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And Nowa, please do not refactor my comments again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And don’t post inflammatory and irrelevant material to the discussion.--Nowa (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This item,[3] with Nowa answering as if he were the infamous Horvitz, is sufficiently convincing. As regards these various pictures in which Horvitz has imposed his ugly self, I'm curious whether any of the pictures would be of use if Horvitz wasn't in them. If so, maybe they could be photoshopped to get rid of Horvitz and make it look like a smooth landscape. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking they could be photoshopped to turn Horvitz into a nonentity, but that would be redundant. EEng (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, Bugs. Maybe it's time this went to SPI. Given Nowa's sudden preoccupation with censoring the fact that I noticed Horvitz may have failed to follow the terms of use in reusing Wikipedia material, even to the point of labeling that "irrelevant and inflammatory" (how it is, I have no idea), I think there's good enough behavioral evidence to ask for a CU. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, having taken a quick peek at his edits, I feel pretty convinced that Nowa is not Horvitz (and I don't say that lightly; Nowa's been practically doing everything possible to convince us he's Horvitz). I still think a CU on Horvitz's socks would be appropriate to turn any sleepers, however. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are any of Horvitz's photos still known to be on Wikipedia and/or Commons? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    it is believed that there might be but as of now they all seem to be taken care of unless he posts the photo of himself looking depressed again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's one (at DR). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions about banning

    I was reviewing Wikipedia:Banning policy and I noticed that we appear to talking about a Wikipedia:Ban#Site_ban. To the best of my knowledge, D. Horovitz has only uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons. How will a site ban here affect his activities on Commons? --Nowa (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He also edits this website to add his photographs to articles. Obviously a similar discussion will have to take place at the Commons before he continues to make a mockery of people here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say “adds his photographs to articles”, you technically mean “add links to his photographs Commons” correct? Is adding links to photographs on Commons a bannable offense, even if they are yours? Isn’t it common for a person to take one or more photographs, upload them to Commons and then add links to said photograph to an appropriate Wikipedia articles? --Nowa (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello all, I am a supporter of David's work. From the comments/discussion I can conclude that the worry is that Mr. Horvitz is destablizing the integrity of Wikipedia's purpose/goal of being a reliable source of information. Is there anyway to avoid a ban, but simply restrict his page to being a experimenting ground for his work? Besides Horvitz, are there any other similar violators? If not, why ban him and feed into his already growing reputation on these discussion boards? In this one instance/situation CONCEDE and possibly see something great for contemporary digital art and also for the freedom of information. That is my thought. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but I apologize if this comment doesn't meet all the formatting requirements. Wikipedia is so confusing with it's formatting and coding. --Internjbk (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see, there's discussion above about Horvitz using an intern (named "Joebunkeo") to disrupt discussions before, your name is "Internjbk." I couldn't care less what happens here, but it's pretty hard to not think you're just a sockpuppet or a very meta troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you yourself are this Horwitz guy, or not, your argument amounts to an abuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not originate information, and is most definitely NOT the place to promote "something great for contemporary digital art." If you want to promote your own work, there are many venues where you can do that. Wikipedia is not on that list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let the ban begin, this has now become ridicules, include the intern's in the ban, or the game will just continue. No point in any further discussion IMHO, IANAL but the standard required has been more then established here. talk→ WPPilot  22:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least enough time has passed to consider formal closure (presuming one's even necessary). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Internbjk, allow me to be the first person to respectfully address your questions:

    • Is there any way to avoid a ban, but simply restrict his page to being a experimenting ground for his work? If by “his page” you mean his user page then yes, you can post whatever you want there. Users can also set up a wp:sandbox page for experimenting.
    • Besides Horvitz, are there any other similar violators? I imagine that other users have been banned for similar behavior, but I don’t know who they are or why they’ve been banned.
    • If not, why ban him and feed into his already growing reputation on these discussion boards? A user’s reputation outside of Wikipedia isn’t an issue on a ban. It’s said user’s behavior editing Wikipedia that results in a ban.
    • possibly see something great for contemporary digital art and also for the freedom of information. You know, I think you are right, something great is happening here related to contemporary digital art and the freedom of information.

    --Nowa (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons are not places for Horvitz to be doing anything, anymore. The ban is being made because we have grown tired of his disruption. And whatever he may bring to the world of contemporary digital art has no place on Wikimedia services.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "digital art has no place on Wikimedia" I concur.--Nowa (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't fucking twist my words around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable digital art might. That nobody putting his ugly mug (and other parts) into every shot he uploads does not qualify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet, David Horvitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists, and also its wholesale deletion was allegedly another art project of his.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Naturally...

    This incident is worth mentioning at David Horvitz. EEng (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't navel gaze.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? EEng (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The article space is not for reporting on internal events just because we happen to be discussing the actions of an article subject within the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. We'll wait until secondary sources comment on what a dick he is. EEng (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That probably won't be the case in the world of modern art.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. You're right -- dickish selfpromoting artists are WP:DOGBITESMAN EEng (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Must you gloat while others mourn?--Nowa (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't confuse gloating with ridicule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that this is ridicule. EEng (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Antidiskriminator

    Required reading (sorry):

    This series of unproductive communications between User:Antidiskriminator and myself has crossed the line between annoyingly bizarre and disruptive. After months of discussion, we're clearly not making any substantial progress, because today Antidiskriminator actually explicitly accused me on the article talk page of conspiring with User:Peacemaker67 to molest him, acting against consensus, having no support outside of a purported tag team, etc. To add insult to injury, that's in reply to a discussion where we actually had a new user (User:Roches) post a lengthy critique of Ad's choices that touched on all the issues that I raised earlier, and then some.

    One of the links above is from when I had asked User:EdJohnston, the admin who had last topic-banned Antidiskriminator over unhelpful Talk page behavior, and then unbanned him, to review that decision. He suggested more discussion at the time. In any event, this doesn't have to be adjudicated by a single person, so I'm bringing it up here. With regard to admin involvement, I have to also mention a recent incident where I was blocked by User:JamesBWatson after having imposed blocks in a manner that could have reasonably put my impartiality into question. An unfortunate coincidence is that this story also involved Antidiskriminator, and he's proceeded to use that against me in discussions.

    Yes, it's possible to continue toiling away at this rate, engaging in numerous mind-numbing discussions, !voting in numerous RMs, fixing various unreliable source issues, and trying to make sense of user talk. But it's an unreasonable drain on our collective resources. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity, and we shouldn't waste it on repeating the same errors and error corrections all the time.

    I have no intention of using my admin powers here (despite the myriad slaphappy accusations by Ad of how I'm abusing them...), and instead I'm asking for others to help. Some sort of a topic ban should be imposed that would break this disruptive pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Peacemaker67

    This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston. Since the lifting of his topic ban on 10 January, Antidiskriminator has started over 45 new sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, making over 560 edits on the talk page. In the entire history of the article, he has made only 46 edits in article space. A quick skim of the talk page and its two most recent talk page archives will give you a taste of the behaviour, which includes him placing "Not resolved" tags on threads, and refusing to edit in article space despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been no opposition to material being added. It has recently been extended to Talk:Vojislav Lukačević, where Antidiskriminator has started 19 new talk page sections since 17 June.

    Because of the incredibly frustrating behaviour, circular discussions and constant going off on tangents, my judgement has slipped on a couple of occasions, and I have consequently unilaterally imposed a ban on interacting with Antidiskriminator on both these articles unless he first edits in article space. This appears to have had no effect, but at least now I am not being drawn into more and more discussions that go nowhere, and his WP:IDHT approach. I have also banned him from posting on my user talk page, because he was effectively harassing me there as well. The evidence is that the lifting of the topic ban has only encouraged him to continue with his disruptive behaviour, and that it is getting worse. I consider that a three month topic ban on Yugoslavia in WWII (broadly construed) would be appropriate, and might have the desired effect of getting him to ameliorate his behaviour. If it doesn't have the desired effect, an indefinite ban will probably be necessary. He just isn't making enough of a contribution to the encyclopedia to justify the disruption. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Comments by IJA

    I think it is fair to say that me and Antidiskriminator don't see eye to eye. I'm no angel, but then again Antidiskriminator is certainly no angel either. He isn't the easiest editor to work with, but then again, neither am I. In February he went through a phase of harassing me on my talk page making weird comments, making false accusations (mainly that I was personally attacking people when I hadn't) and just general spamming. [4] and [5] I warned Antidiskriminator back then to stop harassing my talk page [6]. After this, he stopped harassing my talk page. I had previously told him that "Your harassment and spamming on my talk page is irritating. I will be deleting anything you post on here." I just wanted to be left alone and not have a constant barrage of comments from him on my talk page. It is like he has to have the final word on everything.
    I recently spent ages upgrading the history on the "Prizren" article and Antidiskriminator just out of the blue reverted it and he tried justifying it by saying that the history added to the article makes Serbs look "particularly bad". All I was trying to do was upgrade the history section and he wanted to censor bits he didn't like. As a Brit, I know we have one of the darkest histories in the world, but I'd never say we shouldn't include something on Wikipedia because it makes Brits look "particularly bad". This was blatant stonewalling by Antidiskriminator.
    I'm in no position to say whether or not he should be topic banned and I certainly don't think it would be fair of me either as I tend to have disagreements with Antidiskriminator. This is Wikipedia, everyone should be free to edit. I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times. Regards IJA (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    From my own experience with Antidiskriminator, I would second Joy's and Peacemaker's complaints. It's difficult to provide diffs because it's just such a pervasive and diffuse long-term pattern of behaviour, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. I've unfortunately got involved in disagreements with him on a small number of occasions myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved (although I have no involvement in any of the disputes Joy is talking about), but I'd say it's high time somebody pulled the WP:ARBMAC trigger on him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Joy and Peacemaker, but Fut.Perf. has really hit the nail on the head. Antidiskriminator occasionally does something blatant, like adding hoax content, tag-teaming with obvious socks, using fake numbers, creating pov-forks &c.; but really the main problem is the pervasive low-level pov-pushing on Balkan history and geography, and the stonewalling. It's been going on for years. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pm67 proposed a three-month topic ban above. The previous topic ban, narrower in scope, lasted between 2012-11-02 and 2014-01-10, that is, 14 months. If there is consensus that the previous topic ban had no positive effect, I see no point in a new topic ban that is shorter than 14 months, and the scope also has to be wider. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get. IJA (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to be an admin, IJA. WP is run by the community, which empowers admins to do certain tasks on its behalf. They are a bit like the police in that respect, they operate with the consent of the community. If community consent is withdrawn, the mop is taken away. That doesn't mean we are governed by the admins, or that they are the only ones whose opinions matter. For Joy and Bob, I believe a shorter but much wider ban would permit the community to see if Antidiskriminator can edit outside Yugoslavia in WWII without being disruptive. That topic is my concern here, because that is where I deal with his behaviour. However, you and others may be aware of other areas where he is being disruptive, in which case the scope of the ban should be widened further, perhaps to include anything to do with Serbia or Serbs (broadly construed). If he returns to the behaviour demonstrated after the ban ends, then I think the only answer is an indefinite site ban, just as he has on Serbian WP (for similar behaviour). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT the topic area that encompasses the articles where I've noticed Antidiskriminator to have been disruptive would be 20th-century Serbian history, broadly construed. That should cover both the '09 Dedijer book stuff at Talk:Skaramuca and the '90s war stuff at Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. Since we have a pretty clear case of recidivism here, I just don't see a point in a short length ban, but obviously anything is better than nothing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What about Serbia and Serbs from 1900-? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable to me. There are probably some potential conflicts in the 19th century (or in the Ottoman era), but I think your proposal would tackle the most serious problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a more appropriate topic ban would be a ban on topics involving/ relating to "Serbs, Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslavia" 1900 to Present? This way it will stop any topic ban from being loosely interpreted. IJA (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator

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

    • People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, FP, if we don't make some attempt to progress it, it will just get archived as "too hard" by the admins that work here every day, because those admins aren't willing to dip their toes into ARBMAC territory, because that is generally not where they work. I've been here before, and I'm sure you and Joy have seen it too. That is the reality of bringing anything of mild complexity and longevity to this board. Easy stuff gets dealt with quite quickly. That is why I have tried to progress it, given it is already half-way up the current list, with no uninvolved admin comment at all, even from Ed Johnston, who was the one who lifted the ban. Frankly, I think that the admins that were involved in the original ARBMAC discussion, the ban and the lifting of the ban should make some time to at least give it their opinion. Short of pinging them, what else is a non-admin supposed to do? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I reviewed much of the material on the Đurđevdan uprising, which led me to the conclusion that a topic ban is warranted at this time. My previous interaction with Antidiskriminator was at The Holocaust, where my perception was that he intended to block the removal of peripheral content from the article, which meant it would be impossible for the article to reach GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was briefly involved there too, and his behaviour there was classic Antidiskriminator, working every angle to retain POV material. The question of "is the mass killing of Serbs in the NDH part of the Holocaust" is a victim-centred Serb POV issue from the 90's which is well documented by a wide range of scholars. I don't think your involvement there makes you "involved", Diannaa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Starting from tomorrow I will be on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries. I expect to be able to reply to questions with not more than 24-48 hours delay. With all due respect for a group of editors (who were all except Dentalplanlisa involved in disputes with me) I don't think they presented valid arguments for sanctions against me. I still believe that Joy should simply initiate WP:RM as explained to him multiple times, also by another administrator in his replies (diff and diff) to Joy's and Peacemaker67's complaint about my conduct. If in the meantime the consensus is reached that Joy was right that there was something wrong with my editing, I sincerely apologize in advance and promise not to repeat same mistake in future. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping editor evades blocks, disrupts multiple articles, etc.

    There's a disruptive IP editor, currently editing as 90.196.3.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who targets martial arts films, and his edits are becoming increasingly frustrating. He generally engages in edit wars over genre, but he also changes sourced text to incorrect values, removes valid cleanup templates, removes requests to use national variations of English, does whatever the hell he's doing in this edit, and never uses edit summaries. His edits are highly disruptive, and he constantly evades blocks. I'm not quite sure how to demonstrate that last one with a diff, but it's fairly obvious from Puncture Wounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I Come in Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where I have labeled such edits. Short of having every Dolph Lundgren, Sammo Hung, and Jackie Chan article semi-protected, I'd like to investigate the possibility of a range block. Given the wide variety of IP addresses, I guess there probably isn't much chance, but his known IP addresses include:

    Some of his edits are vandalism, some of them are constructive, but the vast majority are edit warring over film genre. See also this sock puppet investigation, which documents disruptive editing since 2011. If a range block is out of the question, should I re-open the SPI? I'm not sure what else to do except file a new report at WP:ANEW or WP:AIV every 72 hours when he changes IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I went through this IP's contributions, only correcting what was blatant vandalism, and the IP reverted me every time. In one of my edit summaries I sad "if you disagree take it to the talk page" and have left two notices on their talk page, yet no communication on their side has been attempted. At least block this IP for a lengthy amount of time, as they are WP:NOTHERE. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 90.196.3.222 for one week, but I don't see how that will stop the hopping tendencies. I think range blocks won't work here because of the broad range of IPs, so does anyone have an idea how to stop this? If there was a specific pattern being applied by this user we might write an edit filter. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I can think of is to either monitor all of their known IPs and block them the instant they vandalize, or semi-protect all of the articles within the IPs interest. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    However, after going through all of the talk pages of these IPs, all of them have multiple warnings about vandalism/disruptive editing and many have been blocked in the past and even recently, although the longest block was only two weeks. I'm in favor of preemptively blocking all of them for at least three months. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that would accomplish anything. They're throwaway IP addresses that he doesn't reuse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying better safe than sorry. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll even cite WP:GAV. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, GAV suggests something that I've considered off-and-on for about a month: reporting the user to his/her ISP as a persistent, block-evading vandal. I'm not sure they'd really care, but it's an option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this guy is so persistent means that something needs to be done. The best I can do is immediately report any IP that edits in his style. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a highly dynamic IP. He is constantly being assigned a new IP, sometimes as many as three times a week. Here's the deal on the IPs in the above list:

    IPs used on which dates
    • 90.200.85.80 - October 17, 2013
    • 90.200.85.196 - October 28, 2013
    • 90.195.176.24 - December 17-20, 2013
    • 2.127.228.78 - January 1-2, 2014
    • 2.216.204.97 - January 23-28, 2014
    • 176.251.46.19 - April 9-14, 2014
    • 2.127.230.64 - April 17-21, 2014
    • 2.124.213.167 - May 3-4, 2014
    • 90.218.116.10 - May 19-21, 2014
    • 94.0.242.227 - May 28-29, 2014
    • 90.211.105.144 - June 4, 2014
    • 2.223.225.29 - June 7-8, 2014
    • 90.197.98.22 - June 8, 2014
    • 90.205.208.98 - June 11-13, 2014
    • 94.2.192.7 - June 14-20, 2014
    • 90.205.210.134 - June 27-28, 2014

    Once an IP has been assigned, the user never seems to get that IP again. Thus blocking the above IPs will not stop the problem or even slow it down. The use will never even notice that the IPs have been blocked, because the next time they fire up their computer, they're assigned a new IP. The service provider seems to have access to several unrelated ranges, which means there's no possibility for any range blocks either. My suggestion is to promptly report vandalistic edits to AIV as soon as they occur, and request page protection on five or ten of his favourite target articles. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How do they change IPs so frequently? And yes, the best thing to do is to protect articles that he usually vandalizes. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is not changing the IP; his internet service provider is assigning him a different IP each time he accesses the internet. This is called a dynamic IP. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Diannaa: Roger that, thanks. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish more of his edits were obvious vandalism. It would make reporting him a lot easier. Many of his edits are disruptive in ways that don't individually break policy. It's tough to convince an admin to block his new IP addresses for longer than 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Metamodernism edit conflict is getting out of hand... again

    This time over at the SPI on User:Festal82. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festal82. I'd appreciate it if someone would just put their foot down already. This nonsense was out of hand almost a week ago and it needs to end here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by user Festal82

    Festal82 is in clear contravention of WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:PERSONAL here [8], making blatant, baseless accusations and personal attacks against myself and others, accusing me of either being someone I am not, or speculating about my location (bafflingly, simply because I'm familiar with a subject he claims almost nobody in the US has heard of--despite the fact that it had an exhibition at a major New York museum devoted to it in 2011, etc.). He has also taken this WP:OUTING to another user's talk page here [9], as well as repeated WP:GAMING behavior on Talk:Metamodernism, attacking other users by repeatedly misrepresenting their edits, and even admitting to playing games such as "reverse psychology" (his words) to get his own way here [10]. Despite the measured responses and numerous warnings from myself and other editors going back weeks, Festal82 has persisted in these attacks, which according to the guidelines at WP:OUTING is "grounds for an immediate block". I agree with Inanygivenhole that this absolutely needs to end here, not least because this personal harassment is extremely unpleasant to have to continually deal with, and is stifling any discussion of the actual content of the Wiki article. Esmeme (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As per some comments he's directed at me on Talk:Metamodernism and my own talk page, he seems to think there is some kind of conspiracy working against him (though quite a few of his posts are too long and vague to decipher any kind of clear point out of them). I would also like to point out that, because Festal82 is a single-purpose account dedicated to POV pushing on Metamodernism, he gives off a general vibe of WP:NOTHERE. felt_friend 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at my wit's end. Any review of the "Talk" page at metamodernism will reveal that the above two users, Inanygivenhole in particular, have been harassing me for weeks as I've tried to make substantive edits to an article they feel passionately about. Esmeme has accused me, in violation of WP:OUTING, of being Seth Abramson; Inanygivenhole has accused me, in violation of WP:OUTING, of being Timotheus Vermeulen. Inanygivenhole has violated WP:HARASS by appending warning tags to all my comments, starting investigations about me on multiple pages that have consistently been shot down by WP administrators, and trying to foment anger against me by other users. Esmeme has maded editing of the metamodernism article a pure misery by insisting that the only usage of a philosophical concept that can be mentioned on Wikipedia is one tied to a single non-WP:N blog run out of England; I have indeed suggested that Esmeme might have special affinity for that blog, as I can't for the life of me figure out any other reason someone who wanted to edit a WP article on metamodernism would delete, en masse, perfectly good and incredibly substantive articles about the topic on WP:N media like Indiewire, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, the Journal of American Studies, The International Journal of African Historical Studies, PMLA, Contemporary Literature, and elsewhere. This is a clear instance of WP:GAMING--these two editors are trying to eliminate the account of an editor with whom they have substantive disagreements, even though those disagreements are based on careless citations of important WP principles like WP:SYNTH (a WP policy these two editors have used to insist that any article on a philosophical concept be about only one reading of or usage of that concept, otherwise the entirety of an article on it violates WP:SYNTH). When I've tried to reason with these editors, for instance by begging them to consider how analagous articles like modernism and postmodernism are handled, Inanygivenhole told me to "stop running my mouth" and repeated more than 10 times (across multiple comments) demands that I stop "straw manning him"--a usage of that idiom that in this context makes no sense to me. The one editor who has no involvement in any of this but has looked into it extensively, Rhododendrites, has concluded that the above two editors are deliberately harassing me, and has told them so, and has asked them to stop. Instead, they've come here to see if they can strike up more mischief. This is exhausting, humiliating, and undeserved--and I'm begging for the assistance of a WP administrator at this point. I thought I could weather this, but as any review of the "Talk" page on metamodernism will reveal, I may at times be long-winded and over-thorough, but I've done nothing to deserve this sort of treatment. My edits to metamodernism have not only been in good faith but neutral, fully sourced, and as much as possible efforts to reflect consensus from the "Talk" page. I beg WP not to let substantive editing disputes become grounds for editors on one side of a debate to terrorize the others. Especially when it devolves, as it has in this instance, to Inanygivenhole alleging that I am fourteen different sock puppet accounts with absolutely no evidence or basis whatsoever. Investigating someone to death over nothing is the worst form of bullying--I know that now. Festal82 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot hide behind personal attacks, incoherent rambling, and vague accusations of "bullying" forever. We're tired of you Festal. We're tired of being met with a wall of text every time we disagree with you in the slightest. We're tired of your page-long, incoherent screeds. We're tired of you thinking you WP:OWN the page. We're tired of you acting like the opinions of other editors don't matter, which you show every time you straw man them. We're tired of your personal attacks. We're tired of your hipocrisy. We're tired of your drama. Most of all, we're tired of YOU Festal. (NB: uninvolved editors, all of Festals attacks and other inappropriate editing patterns take place almost excusively at Talk:Metamodernism.) This ends right here, right now. Put up or shut up Festal. If you're going to publicly accuse me of something, at least have the decency to provide diffs for your baseless accusations. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On edit to address Felt friend, the third person who was warned by Rhododendrites to stop harassing me: Proof that these are simply editors on one side of a dispute trying to vanguish disagreement is that Esmeme, a user Felt friend writes here in support of, is also an SPA working only on metamodernism, a fact Felt friend somehow left out in accusing me, but not Esmeme--whose edits Felt friend prefers to mine--of WP:NOTHERE. Felt friend, like the other two editors above, has been shot down everywhere s/he has attempted to take this unusual form of harassment, and so now s/he is here to cast additional aspersions that don't touch the central fact that all of my edits have been neutral and fully sourced and simply don't meet the approval of these three accounts. Festal82 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing that page frequently lately, but I don't understand how I could be considered an SPA seeing as I have an edit history that predates that page. Also, I don't recall bringing the issue to anywhere else other than this thread on RSN, and that had nothing to do with you on a personal level. I'm sorry that you feel as though you are being attacked, but I will just speak for myself here and make it clear that I have no malicious intentions. felt_friend 14:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again: I very clearly referred (above) to Esmeme as an SPA, not you. In any case, if you're not looking to participate in this any further, beyond the accusation you made...just yesterday...that I'm the account "Metamodernwoman," which I am of course not--just as I wasn't the last 14 accounts I was accused of being--I'm satisfied. Festal82 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again Festal is trying to drag me into some kind of conspiracy here, fabricating stories of me unilaterally deleting things that I have not, but my own edit history, and the blatant WP:HARASS and WP:OUTING found here [11] speaks for itself. To save being dragged into yet another never ending spiral of retaliatory abuse from Festal, I am going to simply leave those links above and rest my case. Esmeme (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement with Esmeme at least as to this much, with one exception: I'm not going to provide a hand-picked link to try to mischaracterize by omission a dispute that's been going on for many weeks now. I urge anyone looking at this to look at the entire "Talk" page on metamodernism, the edit histories of the parties, the appeals made by other parties to various administrators, and so on. Most of all, I hope any WP administrators who do take the time out to do all this will look at the most important thing, the thing all of the above editors tellingly elide from their complaints: the present state of the metamodernism article. An article that between April and May and June received a total of 12 warning tags from the WikiProject:Philosophy Group for the sorts of WP violations the editors above approved (single-sourced article, exclusive use of primary sources, opposition to divergent viewpoints, et cetera) is now in the best shape it has ever been in. Which is what I thought we were all here to do anyway--build an encyclopedia. And if the editors above would put aside these bullying tactics and this persistent harassment, we could get back to it. Festal82 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we get an admin to take a look at this? This is devolving into Festal arguing with everyone again, and we've all seen that plenty of times now. Inanygivenhole (talk)

    My two cents

    As another editor to this article, not in my admin capacity or anything but all sides need to stop with the WP:OUTING and SPA accusations. I'd ask an independent admin to consider reviewing those all and likely closing them all. I'm puzzled that more has been said here than at the talk page (let alone actual revisions to the article). I have no idea how people can write pages about what people intend to do with the article after adding or changing maybe a sentence. It may require more collapsing of off-topic commentary on others than anything. Editing-wise there's not an lot of reversions or edit-warring just contention on the talk page that's entirely unnecessary to me. I think all parties agree that the article is better so I think if people stopped trying to figure out big picture rewriting of the subject and just work sentence by sentence, I think we'll all be better off. I ask everyone to drop all accusations and WP:AGF going forward. Comment on content, not contributors and I'll ask the same I ask of everyone: rather than describing what you think should be done, be bold, try it out and if it's revised/disputed in full, then elaborate on your reasoning. The naval gazing pre-editing discussing is where things tend to devolve, particular given how much is purely an argument about metamodernism itself rather than the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ricky81682, I agree and that sounds good to me. Festal82 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see someone understands (roughly) what is going on and is making an effort to tidy up the article. Would page protection be any help? Deb (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Ricky81682, and it's great to get a independent set of eyes on this Deb, thanks! There has recently been page protection, but it didn't stop the disruptive behavior of Festal on the talk page. I think it's fair to say that progress on the page is being made despite Festal, not because of him, as all other editors (with varying views) seem capable of communicating their improvements sensibly and finding consensus. I hope that an independent admin can take a look at the repeated WP:HARASS abuses I described above and appropriate action can be taken so we can all move on, since the repeated nature of these abuses--despite warnings going back weeks--prevents WP:AGF with this particular user, and the harassment and bizarre mudslinging is personally extremely unpleasant to deal with, and feels like it is designed to somehow intimidate me and others out of having any disagreements with the POV he is pushing. Esmeme (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy.

    As per the extensive discussion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims of paid editing without a smidgeon of proof being provided, and attempts to track down the off-wiki identity of an "opponent" are wholly unacceptable behaviours anywhere. Add to this a) an unwillingness to follow the simplest of Wikipedia procedures, b) extensive WP:BATTLE behaviour, and c) an astounding lack of competence, the community has determined that the severity of the actions and behaviours needs to be stopped to protect the project and its editors. Although it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary the panda ₯’ 22:51, 10 July 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 report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy.

    Extended content

    Diffs of the articles which may possibly have been done while being paid or working in association with several different entities while not disclosing that she was doing paid editing, or editing for and in association with several entities that will be mentioned further down in this posting.

    Also this same user:Daniellagreen has been adding images to these articles here that are hosted at wikipediia commons that are very possibly promo or PR pictures that user:daniellagreen has submitted to wikipedia commons that she has claimed as her own work. The particular files of the pictures suspected of being possible copyright violations have been tagged as possible copyvios on the commons site.

    Flavia C. Gernatt

    After discovering this suspected paid editing at a group of interrelated article subjects, I did nominate one article to be either merged, redirected, or possibly deleted.

    Talk:Flavia C. Gernatt#Deletion nomination?

    After this nomination this user:user:Daniellagreen went to several different user/editors talk page to canvas WP:CANVAS for user/editors to come and to paraphrase look at this article or check it over. Three or more examples of canvassing are as follows:

    After the afd for the article Flavia_C._Gernatt user Daniellagreen started going from talk page to page of the four diffs just previously had canvassed spewing vitriole and making borderline personal attacks and baseless allegations that I had been “stalking” her and “following her around.” The user:Daniellagreen seemed to be quite upset that I had edited “her articles that she created.” WP:OWN I did try to participate at the talk pages of these aforementioned articles, and directly replied to the [user:Daniellagreen]] on the talk page for the article subject Flavia C. Gernatt

    As I said in my response to her there: Talk:Flavia C. Gernatt#Deletion nomination?

    My main purpose, and any agenda I may have are solely for creating, and or maintaining the best and most exquisite online encyclopedia in the world. If I believe that a user or editor, or in fact any contributor has been acting in any way, shape, fashion, or form that might harm the online encyclopedia'a reputation, I do look in to the matter. With that being said, "Do you have any associations of any type with Flavia C. Gernatt, Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., Dan Gernatt Farms, Gallo Blue Chip, Gernatt Family of Companies, Sir Taurus, Dan Gernatt Farms, Gernatt Family of Companies, and the Daniel and or Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation???

    • Please see these diffs:
    • [[12]] --- notice notation above draft article which reads "New
    • Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership"
    • [[13]] --- again notice notation above draft article which reads "New
    • Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership"
    • [[14]] --- again notice notation above draft article which reads "New
    • Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership"
    • [[15]] --- again notice notation above draft article which reads "New
    • Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership"

    "Do you, User:Daniellagreen have any associations with the White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls, and or the Buffalo Niagara Partnership?"

    "Are you, User:Daniellagreen doing paid editing on behalf of any person, association, foundation, partnership, task force and or councils?"

    If you may be possibly being doing paid editing for any of these above-mentioned entities, have you disclosed this as is the policy at wikipedia?"

    I would ask a the very least that user:Daniellagreen

    • be topic banned and not allowed to edit or work with any of the articles regarding the Gernatt family.
    • be asked again if she is or is not doing paid editing without disclosure and or editing for entities with a POV that she is promoting on wikipedia by having an agenda that does not allow her to write and edit articles at wikipedia with a neutral tone.
    • be asked to stop making personal attacks and baseless allegations that I am “stalking” her or following her around.
    • be instructed or perhaps taken in under a mentor in order to continue editing here at the english wikipedia
    • be instructed on how the copyright policies here ar wikipedia work. For example that you cannot take a promo or PR pic that may have been taken by a professional photographer, and claim it as “her own work.”

    ciao!!! please all have a lovely evening! Carriearchdale (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Two points:
    1. WP:TLDR (actually, I did read it, but you can expect few others to subject themselves to this)
    2. I see no diffs here actually indicating paid editing.
    I think you should probably back down from this unless you have proof (which does not involve violation of our outing policy or other policies). Moreover, with all due respect, I really don't even care what's going on here unless there's some indication that Daniellagreen is engaged in disruption. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi user:Mendaliv, I am glad you mentioned that about never wanting to WP:OUTING user:Daniellagreen any user editor in public spaces here at a public part of wikipedia. Where is it that I can turn over the rest of this info that was given to me by another party that is the true and physical evidence of the paid editing? Is it the OTRS? I was not sure of the protocol about who to speak with regarding the other info and "evidence?"

    ciao!!! 03:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Carriearchdale (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say, based on my understanding of WP:OUTING, that it's probably inappropriate for you to be engaging in "opposition research". As to where to send evidence, if you should even do so, I'm going to leave that to my more experienced colleagues here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv: This report can be considered as "digging your own grave".
    I would like to notify that I've reviewed at least 2 - 4 of the articles that were made by Daniellagreen, so I've watched it. Now bigger point is that Carriearchdale is clearly trying to irritate Daniellagreen for no reason. Carriearchdale unreviews the articles of Danniellagreen, sometimes more than 4 times. To Carrierchdale, it is not even a matter that the subject is notable or article has been written per wiki standards or if they have been reviewed again by multiple editors, Carriearchdale would still continue to unreview. Often leave meaningless[16] tags. Also made unfounded allegations of "removing AfD tags", but as usual you won't see any evidence.
    Now you maybe thinking what actually made Carriearchdale do this all.. Well, Carrierarchdale has got problem with me and Fram. What happened was that Carrierchdale used to make horrible edits with Autowikibrowser, such as these [17], [18],[19]. There are like 100s of them that were reverted by Fram. Fram and I tried to tell that AWB is not for these purposes,[20] especially Fram was more concerned.[21] Carrierarchdale ignored his notifications, though he was only providing her useful information.[22] Fram revoked access.[23]
    Since then Carrierarchdale tries to crash any new page or new Afd where Fram or I've been involved. Few pages such as 1704 in Spain, Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement-in-Opposition are notable, but Carriarchdale would 'unreview' them as part of her revenge.
    Let's see, but yes there is no rationale in this malformed report whatsoever. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That was certainly my initial impression. Given there's some significant indication of hounding on Carriearchdale's part, I think we're squarely within WP:BOOMERANG territory. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If this claim is false or unprovable, I think that as a preventative measure to prevent more such, that the complainant receive a considerable block for disruption. We did not ask for this paid editing policy, it was imposed above our heads and is another's hobbyhorse. I personally, as an admin, will take no part in enforcing it. But when people use it to beat others about the head as a way of upping the ante in their petty interpersonal disputes, that can't be tolerated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Carriearchdale's post here is little more than an attempt to trigger a witchhunt. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the multitude above me, this is clearly an attempt at WP:OUTING a user who has no history of paid editing I can see. WP:BOOMERANG clearly applies here, I don't think a block is in order (blocks are preventative not punitive) but a strongly worded warning most certainly is. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that an administrator close this discussion and advise interested parties to take this up somewhere else. Even though we have a new TOS, the community has demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of handling COI cases without violating policy. Funny how that works, isn't it? Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do hate coming to take a look at what is up around here and seeing my own name. Carriearchdale should be made aware that you must notify any editor you mention at ANI. Yes, Daniellagreen did canvas me. I informed her that was inappropriate, and actually !voted against her position at the aforementioned AfD. (Which BTW is an ugly bloody mess. I pity whomever has to close it.) Daniella is an excellent writer, a relative newbie, and does have a bit of trouble handling the drama around here. It appears she got singled out by someone and I do feel a short block is in order under WP:NPA, if only til the AfD closes. Better, until Carriearchdale indicates that he/she understands what it is that is wrong with this complaint. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Carriearchdale has now filed a (malformed) sockpuppet investigation, [24] claiming that User:OccultZone is User:Daniellagreen's sock (or possibly vice versa, it is hard to tell). Given this monumental outbreak of cluelessness, I have to wonder whether an indefinite block on competence grounds might be for the best... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be a copypasta from here. so,
    (Non-administrator comment) At first I was content to give this user a strong warning, but now, given the unsupported WP:OUTING at SPI, I have to concur with John from Idegon ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just like this report was most immature and unbalanced(in terms of title, summary, etc.) on ANI. I think I've seen most immature report on SPI today. No comments on SPI, or any other thing, but lets think that way, even for 5 seconds, you would ask that I've been asking myself to review my own articles,[25] I've been notifying myself that I am going to take a break.[26] Sounds unbelievable? Yes that's why it is senseless. Carriearchdale has shown no remorse for making a series of unfounded allegations about Daniellagreen, it includes COI, removing AfD templates, personal attacks, etc. Now there are more unfounded allegations. Fram had said about Carriearchdale's actions that "They are not targeted at you, but at me, probably as some kind of misguided revenge against my repeated corrections of her sometimes very problematic edits." Apparent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You will probably find novelty in the actions of Carriearchdale, but they are disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The more one investigates, the more this seems far more sinister and disturbing than a mere lack of competence on the accuser's part. Look at this edit summary and edit: [27] -- a bizarre accusation which is repeated time and again in other edits [28] and on the article's Talk page [29]. And that is apparently only the tip of the iceberg. It seems we may have a case not only of lack of competence, but also deliberate harassment and disruption/trolling/vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And what is up with the copycat animated horse under the wiki logo, which Carriearchdale copied on July 6 from Daniellagreen (who had installed it on her userpage on June 27)? Stalkerish much? I have never seen that animation on any user pages except those two. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Montanabw has long had a similar running horse on her user page. Cardamon (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As do dozens of others. 80.43.208.93 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    An extremely minuscule fraction of users, and it's obvious (to me at least) where Carriearchdale copied it from. Plus why are you posting under an IP, which has never posted before? Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As many IPs are dynamic, it's common for the same unregistered user to get different ones at different times - and you can guarantee that at least some of them have never before been used to edit Wikipedia — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've clashed with Carriearchdale a few times recently. I wanted to make sure that the problem was not on my side (or at least not solely), so I stayed out of the recent interactions she had with other editors, essentially ignoring the problems Daniellagreen had, which wasn't nice from me. But the result is that it has become obvious that while Carriearchdale is enthusiastic and wants to edit, she indeed not only lacks the required competence, but also the required interaction skills. As an example, after Occultzone made this edit (which he probably shouldn't have made as a fairly useless edit, but which is essentially harmless), Carriearchdale first made this edit which more or less ruined her own user page, and then reverted her own problematic edit and Occultzone's innocuous one in one go[30], with the edit summary "Do not edit my userpage or my talk page occultzoNe - OccultZone you are hereby banned from my talk page, and banned from my user page. thanks but no thanks... "

    This is typical of her overreactions and poor communication: she usually "archives" her talk page by simply removing everything she doesn't like, routinely banning people as well. A polite question like this one gets removed from her talk page without an answer (there or elsewhere) or a correction of her previous incorrect claims. If nothing happens soon to suggest that she is going to drastically change her approach here, I have to support an indefinite block as well. Fram (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've speedy deleted the SPI. It was nominated as a G3 and I agree, but in any case WP:IAR. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth was this editor (Carriearchdale) granted Reviewer rights in February 2014 [31] only a month after she made her first edit on Wikipedia [32], a blp violation which she edit-warred to keep and for which she was subsequently blocked [33] and without ever having created a single article? Reviewers are allowed to accept pending changes on BLPs. Surely, she did not meet the criteria. Her subsequent behaviour and lack of competence bears that out. A week after she received Reviewer rights, she was receiving BLP violation warnings re another two articles [34], and edit-warring to restore them. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles. At the very least that right should be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more small data point: I looked at the images uploaded by Daniellagreen on Commons that were nominated for deletion by Carriearchdale. Of the 5 images, my opinion was that 1 was clearly deletable (because scanning a drawing does not make it your "own work"), one - of a local public event - might have been previously published, but Tineye couldn't find it, so there was no evidence to support that contention, and the other three should never have been nominated in the first place. To me, the nominations appeared to be intended to harrass Daniellagreen. BMK (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note Carriearchdale's language above concerning these photos: she writes that they "have been tagged as possible copyvios", not "I tagged them as copyvios", thus making it appear that a third party had problems with the images. BMK (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Typical behaviour: in an edit some months ago, she corrected an unclosed "ref" that caused an error, but at the same time removed the single square brackets from around a hyperlink. I readded these single square brackets today, only to get reverted by Carreiarchdale again[35]. This is not the first such occurrence, she often blindly reverts back to her version, no matter if the newer version is an improvement or not. I see no improvement in her approach whatsoever, even in the middle of a discussion like this one. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped a note on her talkpage to make sure that she is aware that the section she started has boomeranged and is now discussing her edits and potential indefinite block: [36]. Fram (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I must agree with User:OccultZone that, on the surface, it appears that the user has something against him since, as soon as he began reviewing articles that I had created in the past one week (the ones related to Gernatt), both he and I, as well as other editors with whom I was communicating, began experiencing stalking and/or harassment from the user, including unfounded allegations. That is the only explanation that I can come up with, as User:OccultZone stated, the user seems to be acting out some vendetta against him, and anyone with whom he communicates. Thus, the user has now become fixated on me, even after my explanations and communications in attempts to dispel her/his beliefs. --- Additionally, I saw the animated horse at the user page of Montanabw and simply added it to mine since I do have an interest in horses - 2 articles that I created in the past week have been on horses. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Block Proposal

    I know myself and others have expressed support for a community generated indefinite block for Carriearchdale's conduct here and prior to this ANI thread, so I'll be bold and do the formal proposal:

    As proposed: Carriearchdale (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia for multiple acts in bad faith in detriment to the project.
    ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    1. Support indef block per the discussion (and diffs) above. Thomas.W talk 10:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Support per my above reasoning (I've unbolded my support in the above section to avoid the appearance of double-voting) Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Oddly enough, support - At first glance, I expected to try a compromise for a shorter period as an indef seems extreme looking at just this report, but the deeper I go down this rabbit hole, the more disturbing it appears. Without question, the reviewer and rollback bits need removing (and shouldn't have been granted....), but I don't think that is sufficient. There is a combativeness that goes beyond simple contrarianism, past WP:HEARing problems and borders on WP:CIR. I don't doubt the editor is intelligent and acts in a way that they think is best, but I don't think they have the ability to collaborate in a cooperative way, in the way that is required in a community project. From what I've seen, we will end up here soon enough, so best to acknowledge now and move forward. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Support indefinite block per all the above - Carriearchdale clearly doesn't have the competence or willingness to contribute productively here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Support Why does this even need to be formally asked given the above? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Indef blocks for patterns of behavior where each individual act doesn't warrant an indef (ie: CIR related), are best decided by the community as a whole. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As usual, you're quite correct. Upon reflection, I may have given too much attention to some of the statements Carriearchdale made, and believed they were obviously block-worthy on their own. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Support. Having looked further into Carriearchdale's behaviour, I can see no way that she is anything but a net liability to the project. Her contributions are frequently of questionable merit, and her battleground mentality is self evident. Some people simply aren't capable of productive work in a cooperative environment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Support - Ran into this...colorful character, to be kind...a few months ago at Talk:Rachel Reilly, where similar text-bomb accusations were being hurled regarding conflict-of-interest editing and such. The less of this type of person running amok around the project, the better. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Support Thank you to all of you who are supporting a block on User:Carriearchdale. Her/his edits have been those that have caused disruption, and which have made Wikipedia and WikiCommons a battleground for me and other editors, including User:OccultZone, User:Piguy101, and User:Pink Bull. This user's disruptive edits and inability to cooperate have caused me to become extremely discouraged. I have attempted to deal with the situation myself as best as I can because this user has been following, stalking, and harassing me on the following articles in the past week: Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Flavia C. Gernatt, Dan Gernatt Farms, Sir Taurus, and Gallo Blue Chip, including with reverting several reviews on some of these articles to being unreviewed, without providing any notification about reasons for doing so. Further, this user has followed me to WikiCommons, and has suggested unnecessary deletions of photos that I, myself, have taken, including in the following articles, Bill Greiner, St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York, Gernatt Family of Companies, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., and Flavia C. Gernatt. User:Carriearchdale's accusations and report are unfounded and unwarranted, unnecessary and offensive to me. I edit and contribute to Wikipedia and WikiCommons as my hobby, and as my hobby and personal interest, only. I have not, nor have ever received one cent, nor have I ever sought or solicitied any type of compensation for my endeavors on Wikipedia. The misjudgments of this editor have been hurtful and harmful to me. I very clearly state on my user page - and bolded it following her/his initial accusations to me - on the Flavia C. Gernatt talk page - after she/he also put it up as an article for deletion - that I do not, nor have ever done any paid editing on Wikipedia. It is ludicrous and ridiculous. Again, I appreciate everyone's support regarding this matter as it has been difficult and upsetting to me, particularly as a Wikipedian who has no other interest than contributing to the organization. By the way, I see that the sock puppet issue has been a hoax; it is untrue and there is absolutely no basis for it. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks to those of you for your follow-up comments, below, too. I have refrained from reporting the user because a couple of other experienced editors recommended not to, so I have been tolerating the situation as best as I can, and many other editors have been going back and trying to un-do the havoc wreaked by the user. I tried to confront the user and let her/him know my thoughts and feelings, and that her/his actions were hurtful, and tried to open up constructive communication, and the user didn't reply to my questions/comments on their talk page, but instead, made more incorrect accusations and misjudgments on the Flavia C. Gernatt talk page. I could have alot of choice words about what I've experienced from this user, though I see that I'm not the only one, and have tried to back off as best as I can so that the situation is not escalated. It appears that the user escalated the situation, themself. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC) For the record, I just made a report at WikiCommons regarding the user's conduct toward me and my work over there, and I have notified them about it. The user sees absolutely nothing wrong with her/his behavior, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Support Remember indef is not infinite. The WP:STANDARDOFFER is always available. Should Carriearchdale ever come to understand what it is about her behavior that is problematic return to the project is always possible. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Support The editor has abhorrent behavior, and hardly discusses disputed edits. I have seen the editor personally harasses Daniellagreen repeatedly, without reason. The editor has accused Daniellagreen of poor behavior [38] when none is apparent. The user should be blocked. Piguy101 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Carriearchdale has noticed this discussion and put an appeal on Jimbo's page. [39] Looking at the appeal, it appears that Carriearchdale lacks the technical competence to edit Wikipedia without a script, such as AWB. Piguy101 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Support. I really didn't want to support an indef for someone who has only had one short block, but the level of vindictiveness I see here is quite appalling - I don't think I've seen anyone as apparently incapable of interacting in a civil and respectful manner as this. Having said that, I'd support leaving a door open for some kind of mentorship, if that is possible. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As an additional thought, should an indef block not be approved by the community, at the very least we should have some sort of serious interaction ban here - we need to prevent people being subjected to this level of harassment. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Support This is the kind of behavior we don't need here. I see nothing redemptive in her behavior, and as I stated above, unless the editor in question comes here and explains herself, I do not see that we have any choice. Without some explanation of her behavior, an idef is appropriate and needed to protect the community. John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Note that she did come here and made no attempt whatsoever to explain her behavior, only continued unjustified and false accusations. Now I am saying unqualified support for an indef, and hopefully soon. This has wasted too much time already. John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Support I was the nominator, but I wanted to add my views here as well. This user's conduct has been extremely disruptive, if not outright hostile. I am a firm believer in WP:AGF and giving every possible opportunity for users to learn the system, the community, and how things run here, but in this particular case, this user is clearly out to be vindictive, disruptive, and otherwise hostile to any users who disagree with her. Given the extremely long and detailed history of such behavior, that is the basis of my proposal for an indef and why I support it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Support Swayed by extension of harrassing behavior to Commons. BMK (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I'm not sure anyone's mentioned these two previous AN/I reports: "Carriearchdale and Rackel Reilly articles" and "Carriearchdale's "copyedit work". BMK (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      More: The Carriearchdale account was created on 21 November 2007, according to the account's logs, but did not make its first edit until 2 January 2014 . That kind of gap is highly unusual, although it's frequently seen in sleeper socks. Certainly it can't have been reticence to edit on Carriearchdale's part, because since that first edit only 6 months ago, the account has made 12,431 edits. BMK (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm. That is pretty damn weird. Seven years a sleeper? And that includes deleted edits. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In her appeal to Jimbo, she writes: "My name on wikipedia is Carriearchdale and I have been a registered member of wikipedia since 2007 contributing globally across some 35 wikipedias", but under this name she has contributed to en.wiki (the bulk), Commons, and the 406 edits to 19 other projects, with meta getting the most (305), and simplewiki (29) and ew.wiktionary (27) following. All other projects received a handful of edits. If she has contributed to "35 wikipedias" (which we'll assume means all WMF projects), there are 14 missing -- so what is the username those edits are under, and was that account active on en.wiki between November 2007 and January 2014? BMK (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken: Well, she posted this wall of text on her talk page, listing all the projects she has "contributed" to - note, however, that the last 17 on the list (she now claims to have contributed to 38 projects) all have a grand total of nil edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Another interesting turn of events: In her appeal on Jimbo's talk page, she writes:

      Another party contacted me about what to do and how to report paid editing which apparently is one of the newer policies at wikipedia. paid editing without disclosure.

      I let the party know that they could probably report it at the ANI board or maybe dispute resolution. THE PARTY LET ME KNOW THAT THEY WERE AFRAID TO REPORT THE POSSIBILITY OF USER Daniellagreen doing paid editing with non disclosure.

      I felt bad for the party, and concerned for wikipedia, so I took a few days and looked over the info I had been given.

      As far as I can tell, the claim that she was doing this for someone else is new - a look at her original report above will show that it is written entirely in the first person. This new claim of helping out someone else looks like an attempt to distant herself from the filing. (Or course, she also proclaims herself on her talk page as a "W H I S T L E B L O W E R" concerning this report.) BMK (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, the more I look into this, the worse it get. Carriearchdale trumpets on her talk page that she's contributed to 38 projects, but it turns out on 17 on them she simply registered and has no contribs. Well, on 11 of the 21 that are left, she's done nothing but make a user page and edit it, and on four others she's done that and made a couple of edits on one or two articles. This is a user who has a rather distant relationship with the truth. By the most liberal possible definition of having "contributed", she's done so on 10 projects, not 38, as she claims. BMK (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Weak support: although I think an indef block is too severe, punishment action is needed here, however, this user should be unblocked when she accepts and learns that what she did is wrong and is ready to contribute positively to Wikipedia again. I will also volunteer to mentor her if she is unblocked. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sturmgewehr88: You may want to change your wording a little bit per the block policy. "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Piguy101 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piguy101: Roger that. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Support. This editor has demonstrated far too much battleground behavior, with no acknowledgement of the damage done. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Support. There has been an extraordinary amount of peculiar, disruptive and abusive behavior associated with the Carriearchdale account. Despite having been discussed on ANI on multiple occasions -- principally at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles, and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Disruptive editor, where Carriearchdale repeatedly made false statements and phony accusations to in a futile attempt to protect rather clear copyright violations -- the editor has been treated remarkably and inexplicably indulgently, to their detriment, to the detriment of the several editors and admins they've regularly abused, to the detriment of article subjects they've targeted for embarrassment, and to the ultimate detriment of Wikipedia itself. As BMK quite correctly points out, there are also quite a few anomalies associated with the account, beginning with the seven-year gap between registration and their first edit and the quite unusual, determined effort to bloat their edit count with extraordinary numbers of inconsequential edits. Their posting on Jimbo's talk page, in lieu of responding here, with its preposterous claims about an anonymous source and organized retaliation, is, quite bluntly, hard to see as anything but a poorly-thought-out pack of lies. And, in addition to hounding daniellagreen at commons, Carriearchdale devotes much of her userpage there to crossposts from enwiki clumsily vilifying myself and User:Fram. Preventive intervention is overdue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Support per above. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Support. Scary, vicious, totally insupportable and unconscionable behavior. I do not support any sort of future reprieve or repeal, even with mentorship. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am glad that this is something that is being taken very seriously because I had already accepted that this user's behavior is something that is accepted on Wikipedia. I had not reported her/him because of several reasons, including that a prior dispute resolution request that I made on another issue was not, to my conclusion, resolved. Further, two editors suggested that I not report, and two others suggested that I do report. What I did was to back off so that the situation was not further escalated, as I could see that, already, in one week's time that no progress was being made in my communications with the user. Not only were the user's actions detrimental to me, but also to other editors, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. The user explained to me that she/he was taking their actions in order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation, however I perceived that the user was actually harming its reputation. So, really, I am relieved and happy that this is being taken seriously, and a strong message should be sent to the user. I believe that if some further investigation is done into the user, it may be seen that at least most of their recent edits have been deletions that have caused further difficulty and that have not at all been in good faith. As for accusations of paid editing, again, I have not received any kind of compensation at all from anyone for my efforts on Wikipedia. Anyone who states otherwise is making fraudulent and libelous accusations, and is a liability to this organization. The user should be stopped before more harm is done to editors and to the organization. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC) To add, I have absolutely NO intentions of taking legal action regarding my prior comment, and am only trying to look out for Wikipedia's benefit. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    20. Support per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. See my comments by my struck vote in the oppose section. Ivanvector (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I just wanted to point out, since this proposal has been opened, this users behavior has not improved whatsoever, and in my view worsened. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    21. Support. At first, I was a bit put off by how quickly this turned into a boomerang, and I thought about opposing it based on the arguments made there. I have no love for Carriearchdale (and I would have strongly opposed giving her any advanced user rights based on what I've seen of her behavior in the past six months), but the matter seemed almost settled before she even logged back in to Wikipedia. However, as others have stated, her behavior has only worsened since this discussion began, and I don't see much hope that she will ever change. She's still inventing wild stories to support her baseless claims. If she had just calmly retracted her accusations, apologized, and asked for a mentor, I'd say, "Lesson learned. No block necessary." This is like the worst possible response imaginable, except maybe threats of a lawsuit. She's too disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Support In addition to this apparently bad-faith filing and the SPI, add forum-shopping here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Striking per this JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @JoeSperrazza: But what is that? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think he meant per this. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, thank you: [40] JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    22. Support Obvious troll is obvious. She should have been indef'd as a result of the first ANI thread about her...the fact that she's made so many edits and is still here indicates either a special talent for trolling, or a serious issue with en:WP's tolerance for trolls. I'd be a little surprised if this doesn't end with a community ban. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    23. Support This sort of stalking has a chilling effect on other editors. Support indefinite block, any reversal of this block should include very clear criteria from the user so that there is no doubt as to if the user is following the standards of the community. Chillum 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    24. Support Carriearchdale is no more a whistleblower than Chelsea Manning is. There are processes for whistleblowing. For Chelsea, it was to go to Congress. For Carriearchdale, it was to go to Arbcom. Carrie didn't follow process, they can't claim to be whistleblowing when they've not followed the process, and we can block them for inappropriate behavior. Note to actual whistleblowers: email Arbcom - it's that simple.--v/r - TP 17:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    Oppose, to be different. User clearly has some troubling behaviours, but has the community genuinely tried to do anything to rehabilitate the user, other than plastering them with talk page warnings? They seem to make constructive edits interspersed with the disruption noted above, and from what I see they have only been previously blocked once, 31 hours for edit warring, and the other discussions linked above did not result in a conclusion that this user was the exclusive problem. I suggest instead revoking their reviewer and rollbacker rights that they are clearly abusing, giving them a few interaction bans, and at least making an attempt to get them up to speed before we launch our strictest sanction at them. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't therapy. Several have engaged, and from what I've seen, have been met with hostility each time. Unless a disruptive editor has admitted they see the problem and has shown a willingness to get mentoring, you are putting off the inevitable and simply pissing off good editors until that time arrives. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that, really, and I've supported community bans before. What I'm not seeing in this case is where we've given the user a "final warning", where they are blocked with an explanation that their behaviour is unacceptable and why, and give them a chance to demonstrate that they understand and can edit cooperatively when the block is up. It seems to me that they've only been warned by users who they are in an active dispute with, and our past action (rather our lack of action) lends credibility to the notion that Carriearchdale isn't actually doing anything very wrong. I think that jumping to the WP:STANDARDOFFER is too big of a jump in this case. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. Carriearchdale is clearly aware of this discussion based on her defensive post on Jimbo's talk page. I'm satisfied that what we're saying here is sufficient warning that her behaviour is unacceptable, yet she continues to defend it. Indef with the standard offer. Ivanvector (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. This leopard has had innumerable opportunities to change its spots, and has not only not done so, but has subverted and thwarted any efforts at dialogue or rehabilitation, and seems extremely unlikely to change at any future date, however distant, IMO. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oppose: I understand this editor is problematic, but to date, has had one 24 hour block, and that's all. To move from that to a ban indefinite block is draconian. She hasn't been mentored, she's received precious little feedback of substance from the admin corps, who to date, have done precious little to solve the problem. In a sense, that she's continued unabated is an indictment on them. At minimum, she should be mentored as well as followed by a neutral editor, with a series of escalating blocks -- in other words the usual treatment -- before she is banned. She's not going to change if she's not taught appropriate behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It is not a ban that is being discussed here. It's an indef block. As noted, indef blocks are not infinite blocks. They can be appealed and appeals will be granted if the issues leading to the block have been addressed. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right - my mistake. And I know the difference! --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Drmargi: Is there any possibility? Have you seen [42], [43]? Just say anything and you are "banned" from the talk page for being "abusive" even when you are not. Doubt what will mentor do. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose per Drmargi. My problem is that simply on the face of it, User:daniellagreen has started and maintained a large number of articles about the Gernatt family largely on her own, so it is not unreasonable for an editor to raise the question of whether some conflict exists. I have not attempted to evaluate User:Carriearchdale's behavior, but to move directly to a full indef block, while pointedly ignoring her offer to provide evidence in private to avoid outing this user, totally fails the sniff test. Whether or not the allegation would be sustained, an abrupt block of the "whistleblower" here would make me doubt that Wikipedia has any serious intent to look into allegations regarding the paid editing TOS. Wnt (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wnt: Not only paid editing, but also unfounded allegations of personal attacks, Afd template removal, sock puppetry, stalking, etc. I don't see any regrets. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the underlying problem here is the use of an official unofficial policy "WP:BOOMERANG" that inherently legitimizes silencing whistleblowers as routine behavior. In every arena, including government and corporate settings, whistleblowers are always problematic people. Normal get-along-go-ahead don't-rock-the-boat people don't blow whistles. So if we want to learn from their experience, we should recognize that coming at the person raising the complaint fast and hard should not be accepted as a way to suppress it. So long as this abrupt jump in penalty serves two purposes I won't be confident of either. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Wnt, take a look at the behavior. Yes, I understand that moving directly to an indef seems extreme, but you really need to look at the behavior. It's unacceptable by any standard. This isn't a situation that can be decided purely as a matter of policy interpretation as to the proposed sanction. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I created a number of articles regarding three members of the Gernatt family and two of their businesses in the belief of them being genuinely notable. I had considerable time during the July 4 holiday weekend, and I used it constructively by adding to Wikipedia. I received some kind support from some editors, and also this "editor from H..." behavior from the user. Again, I have not received any compensation in any form for my endeavors on Wikipedia. When I very clearly (and boldly, I might add) explained that and pointed it out to the user, she archived my comments and didn't respond to them, and instead, she escalated the situation by filing a report here. Keep in mind by reading my above Support comment, this is after stalking and harassing both me and my editing for the past one week on six Wikipedia articles, and now, also some photos that I've added to five Wikipedia articles. The situation was so bad that I reached out to three other editors, User:Piguy101, User:John from Idegon, and User:OccultZone just to ask for suggestions on how to proceed. I was so upset that I took two days completely away from Wikipedia, only to come back and find that she has recommended five of my photos for deletion, without merit. It also appears that the user has harassed and/or attempted to stalk and/or harass these users simply for their involvement in my communications with them and/or editing or reviewing of articles. User:Pink Bull has experienced the same thing regarding her reviews being reverted by the user. So, on the face of it, someone can think what they want, however I became disillusioned in a prior dispute resolution that I had initiated because there really was not resolution, and therefore, I did not report the user here. I was afraid that if I did, I would be further blamed with unfounded reasons. This user's actions have been harmful not only to me, but several other experienced editors who contribute to the organization in good faith. I have seen nothing in the user's actions that constitute any good faith at all, and it had caused me to become even more disillusioned, which is another reason why I didn't report. Again, I appreciate everyone's support as what I have experienced is quite unbelievable to me and is nothing like what I've ever experienced in any online organization or forum before. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose indefinite block, support long-term block: per my response in the "Neutral" section. This user should be blocked for at least three months, and upon returning should be given a mentor. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Carriearchdale has been around long enough that mentorship is silly. Mentors aren't very good if the protégé is unwilling to discuss. In addition, good luck finding someone who will provide the service. Piguy101 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't get why 3 months instead of indef until it's clear there's an understanding of community standards. 3 months just seems punitive: I really think this could be over in a week or two if the editor makes it clear she understands that her behavior was unacceptable. And I don't think mentorship is going to happen. Unless there's someone willing to take the reins who will actually be here and still willing in 3 months, we should presume this will end with the block being lifted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @User:Piguy101 & User:Mendaliv, if no one else is willing to take up mentorship for User:Carriearchdale, I would do it, seeing as WP:RYUKYU gives me plenty of freetime.
      @User:G S Palmer & User:Mendaliv, that makes a lot of sense, and you've convinced me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Oppose - With over 10,000 edits and one, count it, one 24 hour block for edit warring showing on the block log, this is not an acceptable outcome here. This site is built on the premise of warnings and escalating blocks. No opinion of the fundamental competence of the editor, but going straight to the death penalty is unjustifiable here. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      But an indef block is not the "death penalty" because it is indefinite, not infinite. It can be undone at any time that Carriearchdale shows understanding of community editing norms. I can't recall many instance of people receiving the death oenalty who were brought back to life when it was found a mistake had been made. BMK (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally, you and I are on the same side of the argument when it comes to these kinds of issues, Tim, but reading through the history, I find this is an extraordinarily obtuse individual and shocked I haven't heard the name before. The kind of editor that runs off other editors. It isn't infinite, but something needs to shake loose for an epiphany to happen. There is no way a fixed time is guaranteed to make that happen. I hate it, but things are what they are. I respect if you disagree, but it isn't something I do lightly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am glad that this is something that is being taken very seriously because I had already accepted that this user's behavior is something that is accepted on Wikipedia. I had not reported her/him because of several reasons, including that a prior dispute resolution request that I made on another issue was not, to my conclusion, resolved. Further, two editors suggested that I not report, and two others suggested that I do report. What I did was to back off so that the situation was not further escalated, as I could see that, already, in one week's time that no progress was being made in my communications with the user. Not only were the user's actions detrimental to me, but also to other editors, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. The user explained to me that she/he was taking their actions in order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation, however I perceived that the user was actually harming its reputation. So, really, I am relieved and happy that this is being taken seriously, and a strong message should be sent to the user. I believe that if some further investigation is done into the user, it may be seen that at least most of their recent edits have been deletions that have caused further difficulty and that have not at all been in good faith. As for accusations of paid editing, again, I have not received any kind of compensation at all from anyone for my efforts on Wikipedia. Anyone who states otherwise is making fraudulent and libelous accusations, and is a liability to this organization. The user should be stopped before more harm is done to editors and to the organization. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC) To add, I have absolutely NO intentions of taking legal action regarding my prior comment, and am only trying to look out for Wikipedia's benefit. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I made a report about the user's behavior at WikiCommons, which can be seen here [44]. The user commented on my talk page there last night, and reflects that she/he sees no wrong in their actions. This is only continuing over there. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a comment on the 10,000 edits. I've looked back at some copy editing, and I see a lot of changes done one word or punctuation change at a time. So what for most of us might be a single edit of a paragraph or page would become 5 or 10 edits - eg 10 edits for this change. I'm not knocking the work done and doing it like that is fine, I'm just saying that not all 10,000-edits are equal. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral

    From what I understand per the diffs above, it began shortly after the user first started editing Wikipedia ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 09:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sturmgewehr88, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles for summary of the problems from the time she started editing in January 2014 through 3 March 2014, and nothing has improved. In anything, it appears to have got worse. Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The user seems very emotional and lacking self control under criticism. Has anyone tried to mentor her? I think an indef block is too severe, although that stunt at SPI warrants at least a few months-worth of a block. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmgewehr88: Just now you can check, Carrierchdale reverted a edit only because it was made by Fram. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I have any interest in defending Carriearchdale (I definitely don't) but that doesn't seem to be an accurate statement. CA changed a reference, stating that she had "fixed incorrect ref formatting" (which doesn't seem to be the case, CA's edit broke the external link formatting). Fram reverted that change (again, rightly so in my opinion). CA didn't revert Fram because the edit was made by Fram, CA was trying to reinsert her original change. Again, CA's actions were wrong, but I think the motivation you're suggesting here isn't correct. In this particular case, CA's intention was good (in her mind, fixing the reference) even if the action was obviously wrong. -- Atama頭 17:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That explanation would make sense, except that Carriearchdale made the "correction" well over two months ago. Yet, as soon as Fram corrected her error today, she blindly reverted, and I gather that was not an isolated case. Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That timing doesn't make any difference. When Fram reverts Carriearchdale, CA is going to get a notification about it (I know that if someone reverts me, I get a notification). I don't understand what you mean by "blindly reverted", CA was reverting a revert from Fram which itself didn't have an explanation. If anything you could ask why Fram reverted CA months after the fact, without explaining why. Though I still support Fram's revert because it's reasonable to look through CA's contributions to make corrections especially as CA is under this kind of scrutiny; per WP:HOUND, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." And as I said before, CA's edit broke the external link formatting, it was a bad edit to begin with and needed to be undone.
    If you have other examples of Carriearchdale reverting Fram, especially as some kind of retribution, I'd be interested in seeing it. Again, I'm not interested in defending CA. The information presented in this thread makes a pretty good case against CA. I just want to make sure that the evidence presented is accurate out of a sense of fairness. -- Atama頭 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:Atama, you misjudged this edit. Yes it was a bad edit and should've been undone, but Carriearchdale didn't revert Fram just because Fram did it. In fact, User:OccultZone, User:Fram, and any other editor who has an issue with User:Carriearchdale shouldn't be reverting her edits during this discussion, because instigating bad behavior on her part seems like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to me. As I said above, her past behavior, coupled with this thread and the one at SPI, makes her deserving of a long block, but until you provide proof that she's unwilling to change I will be opposed to an indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If she didn't undo it because I made the edit, then she undid it because she thought her version was better, which again is evidence of the WP:CIR issues. Fram (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comments

    I have addressed Daniellagreen about the personal attacks and baseless allegations there at the commons, as well as to her personal attacks, baseless allegations, and now more recently clear and posted by her legal threats against me by her Daniella Green. On at least two occasions other editors here at wikipedia tried to correct Daniellagreen by posting and telling her that that making legal threats using the L word, LIBEL, and variations thereof is considered a legal threat which can get you blocked.

    I recount my comments to Daniellagreen that I posted at the commons as quite pertinent, and relative to the debate here about an ANI REPORT of which the subject is: " I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy."


    "For the record I responded to your continued personal attacks against me here at the commons, and I also set the record straight that it is you Daniellagreen that this current debate at ANI on en wikipedia is an ANI report that you are the subject of. You are confusing the the witch hunt, and lynch mob battleground tactics which are being used to try to sway the debate, and report about you being reported and accused of possibly doing paid editing while not disclosing. I also have made notice of two instances where you have made a clear legal threat towards me at the en wikipedia by using the words LIBEL and and variations thereof in statements you made there. Several editors on the pages where you made at least two legal threats against me even agreed with my view that what you posted in your statements would be considered as legal threats. I have never wished you any ill harm or bad wishes. In fact I do think that your motives might be good, but you have been led astray by the contentiousness of others. I wish you well in all your future endeavours. I have done my due diligence here, and have turned over any and all info that was given to me by another party to one of my trusted associates to move forward. Please do govern yourself accordingly!!! and as always please do have a lovely day!!!"

    I do hope everyone will continue to have a fruitful and enjoyable week!!!

    ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Carriearchdale, would you care to tell us (without outing anyone) who it was that gave you 'info', and who it is that you have passed it on to? I suspect that without such information, your claims are unlikely to be taken seriously. So far, you have asserted that evidence of paid editing exists, but provided none. You have claimed that another user was a sock of Daniellagreen, but again provided no evidence. Why should we attach any credence to further unsubstantiated claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have done my due diligence, and as I stated before turned over any info and evidence that was given to me by another party to my trusted advisors to move forward. Please Andythegrump do not cast aspersions on the mere messenger. And, as always, you really all should govern yourselves accordingly!!!

    ciao!!! I hope you have a great rest of the day!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So who are these "trusted advisors"? If they are going to deal with it, they will have to come forward. So you telling us who they are is not going to be breaching a trust. Name names, or drop that line too. This is ludicrous. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Carriearchdale, asking you to provide evidence for your repeated claims is not 'casting aspersions'. You are required to provide evidence when making claims of paid editing or sockpuppetry. I suggest you do so now, or withdraw your claims.Failing that, you will have to accept the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor doesn't seem to think that any rules or procedures we have, such as requiring evidence of malfeasance, apply to her. It's sufficient for her to wave her hands and cite mysterious sources and advisers, and we're supposed to kow-tow and throw Daniellagreen to the lions.

    But that's not all: After six months of editing and 12,000+ edits, she still doesn't know how to properly format a talk page comment -- or, more likely, doesn't care to learn how to, such things are beneath her. She also appears to have a classic case of psychological projection, in which one's own flaws are projected on other people. For instance, she will make an inflammatory statement or act, and then blame a responding party for "battleground behavior". She appears to be incompetent to edit Wikipedia, doe not add appreciable content to the encyclopedia, and looks to be incapable of the collegiality and cooperative spirit required to be a successful editor here. This is more than a net negative, it's almost entirely a complete negative. A few corrected commas can't make up for this amount of disruption. BMK (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (comment moved from above, missed this section earlier) CommentI think it would be worth the time of others to review recent activity at User talk:Jimbo Wales. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it is worth, my comments at the bottom of [45] include six instances where Carriearchdale blindly reverted or deleted polite comments without responding, including the Jimbo-HTML-comment-hiding incident. I am linking to an old revision of her talkpage because she has since removed them. Piguy101 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How long will this take?

    Jimbo's talk page is beginning to get as long as a Tolstoy novel due to Carrie. Can someone do something soon? John Carter (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @John Carter: Now Jimbo has responded and is mad. [46] There is a consensus to close this and block Carriearchdale. Let us be done. Piguy101 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP violation on IPT

    See the following diffs [47] [48]. User:Serialjoepsycho was advised to not restore the offending comment until consensus had been achieved at the BLP noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism, but he skirted the issue by modifying the statement only to make it worse, and added it anyway. He also included the defamatory statement at the BLP noticeboard. The statement included in the IPT article was never made by Steven Emerson, rather it is an inaccurate "interpretation". See the following article in the American Journalism Review regarding what Emerson actually said: [49]. Atsme☯Consult 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That's very interesting. Not really. What's This? Does it tie to this? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How ever it happened, My post here was reverted and removed on this diff.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Such accidental removals happen from time to time. Don't think too much of it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't really expect that it was more than an accident. I posted this while restoring it. It was an accident though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Cite this instead of the press release: Barringer, Felicity (24 September 2001). "A Nation Challenged: The Journalists; Terror Experts Use Lenses of Their Specialties". New York Times. p. C1. That fury escalated when, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, [Emerson] told CBS News, "This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait, and something that has been generally not carried out on this soil until we were rudely awakened to it in 1993" — the year of the first World Trade Center attack. On Saturday, Mr. Emerson said that he was reflecting investigators' first take on that attack. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually here's a better one: Mintz, John (14 November 2001). "The Man Who Gives Terrorism A Name; Expert's Finger-Pointing Troubles Muslim Groups". Washington Post. p. C01. But Emerson has made missteps. A day after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed in 1995, he went on television theorizing -- wrongly -- that the culprits were Arab. Attempting "to inflict as many casualties as possible -- that is a Middle Eastern trait," he said in one interview, one of many statements his enemies call reckless and biased. No opinion on whether the statement belongs in per WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The press release was actually already taken out. The particular source of issue is 48 hrs. Atsme has an issue with the the source saying that he pointed the finger at Muslim terrorists. My posting of a direct quote from that source is the supposed defamatory statement on BLPN. Under the Same logic your comments Mendaliv are a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff where I quote the source represents his claim of defamation on BLPN. And it's not in the lead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IPT was founded in 1995. They personally claim as much [on their website]. This has also been reported by numerous sources. They did not organize in 2006. They incorporated as a non-profit then. I'll let ANI cover everything else you have said. On an interesting note this has went from conduct to content.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and see Mendaliv using Atsme's logic you have violated the BLP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It happened in 1995. This group in the article was founded by him in 1995. A counterterrorism expert, his counterterror think tank, and an incident that happened in 1995. A notable incident. An incident that has not only only followed him til now but also this group. The IP that originally put it in found relevant. I and another editor found it relevant. The only editor to respond on the BLP noticeboard did not see a BLP issue. The entry on the BLP noticeboard is still active awaiting further comment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are clear violations of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH in the IPT article which User:Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge. He continues to revert my attempts to correct them. I made good faith edits, and tried to work things out in a collaborative effort, but he refuses to acknowledge the issues, pushes his POV, and continues to taunt, and be disruptive. See diffs:[50] [51]. He has not made any substantial contributions to the IPT stub, or made any attempts to help make it a good article. His only purpose appears to be in keeping IPT a stub to push his POV, WP:BLP#Attack, against Emerson. Any information about Emerson, including valid criticisms (if the latter can be considered NPOV) belongs in Steven Emerson, especially information relating to something he said or did 20 years earlier, and at least 11 years before the formation of the non-profit foundation. The Talk page and edit history will show my good faith attempts to take the IPT article from a poorly written stub to something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but it has been very difficult to accomplish with Serialjoepsycho's repeated disruptions. The stub itself includes a banner stating This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.
    I recently proposed a merge and delete, but Serialjoepsycho has disrupted that as well. He called for an RFC before the merge discussion was finalized, and while the BLP noticeboard discussion was still taking place. The following links validate my concerns over the WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH issues with the IPT stub, and recently added infobox as it currently exists: [52] under the heading "Unusual arrangement". The following links also validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [53] [54], and also in the closing credits/disclaimer in the article at the self-published IPT.org website [55]. It is with great disappointment that I must conclude the edits and actions of Serialjoepsycho have not been performed in good faith, rather it appears he has made a game out being a "talk-page expert" according to his user contributions. It is very difficult for me to get any meaningful editing done in light of his repeated reverts and other disruptions over my good faith attempts to correct problems. He has actually shown up in my discussions with other editors where he had absolutely no involvement, which leads me to believe he is also violating WP:Hounding. His comments on my Talk page are second only to his own Talk page. Also see the following example: [56] I do hope the problems can be resolved here. Atsme☯Consult 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme is a POVPusher with an unquestionable bias towards the topic of Islamophobia. [57] [58] The conversation is old and the diffs are buried. It's easier to just direct you to the conversations. Atsme's language makes clear a motive to whitewash wikipedia of claims of Islamophobia. There's other conversations if you need them as well. Atsme's current attempt at the IPT article is to Merge it with Steven Emerson, delete it, and create a new article titled the Investigative project on terrorism foundation. Creating that new page is exceptionally puzzling. The current article Investigative Project on Terrorism suggests that it is one in the same as the 2006 foundation that Atsme wishes to create a new page for. His merge rational is original research. He offers one source that suggests IPT was not founded in 1995. It does not mention the 1995 counterterrorism think-tank "The investigative project" that atsme is trying to differentiate from The Investigative project on Terrorism Foundation. The rest of his sources tacked together with that simply amount to original research. Unless exceptional claims no longer require exceptional sources that Tennessean article doesn't cut it. It does not discount IPT's own claim of 1995 founding or that of the other sources. Atsme's claims are subordinate to his/her commentary. All of this with Atsme's unquestionable and purposeful bias really begs the question of what their motives are. I did open a RFC while the BLP was open. To ask the neutrally worded question,"Do you support or oppose the above proposed merger of Investigative Project on Terrorism with Steven Emerson and Why?" I'd rather just speed up Atsme's tiresome effort. As Atmse's claim is groundless it's unlikely that BLPN will respond to it. Further opening this RFC balances out Atsme's previous canvassing effort: here, here, here, and here. But then I also missed the policy that forbids opening an RFC for a merge. Could someone point that one out real quick? Did I mention Atme's Tendentious editing? Removing this template after there was a consensus to keep it and that it was not an NPOV violation. They did nothing that changed the consensus. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be sure what she/he is getting at by the "talkpage expert" bit. Seems like an accusation of Metapedianism. I'm not sure. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The only POV I've been pushing is WP:BLP policy. Following is another link that supports my position regarding a distinct separation of entities between Steven Emerson, The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation which Serialjoespycho wants to lump sum under the IPT article as being one in the same with the common denominator being Steven Emerson, a BLP issue, and why he refuses to respect WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. [59] Last sentence in the 5th para states: He subsequently set up the Investigative Project, an earlier, for-profit predecessor of the IPTF that evolved into a robust operation devoted to tracking and documenting alleged connections of American Muslims to international terror groups. He is also a frequent commentator on Fox News. If other sources understand that The Investigative Project was Emerson's "for-profit" think tank, shouldn't Wikipedia at least try to get it right without violating WP:SYNTH in the existing IPT stub? Will an administrator please stop Serialjoepsycho's disruptive behavior so I can get back to working collaboratively with good faith editors? Something needs to be done about his policy violations, his relentless false allegations against me, his WP:hounding, and recent threats about what he plans to do if I create a new, correct article for IPTF under the proper name, making it worthy of inclusion via accuracy without all the WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. I have already started the article, and would like some assurance that I will not have to keep dealing with this disruptive behavior. Atsme☯Consult 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    The only POV? Lol I linked two of your conversations above. Let's see what you have to say about Islamophobia, "The word can best be summed up rather succinctly by the following quote: "A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons." - Christopher Hitchens" There are many gems in those conversations. Hell there are even some questionable comments that seem rather racist. No I have absolute respect for policy. I just have no respect for you. You've already made your soapbox clear. This has been on BLPN since the first and no editor as of yet has endorsed your position. Oh you found another source. I'm sure that you could cherry pick more given time. I'm surprised that you haven't yet. Again I don't see that you have offered a compelling reason to ignore IPT's own claim and the claim of many other sources that IPT was founded in 1995. With your previous history there's no good common sense reason to assume even the remotest glimmer of good faith on your part. Commenting that I would put the islamophobia template up before nominating it for deletion was smarmy comment. I wouldn't waste the time. I would simply nominate it for deletion. This conversation between me and you is over... And that's not because I don't have anything to say but that you have consistently proven you do not have anything to say. This seems curiously similar to forum shopping. You imply that opening an RFC before a Merger discussion has taken place for 30 days is forum shopping. I disagree but that is your position. While that Merger discussion is going you take it to BLPN. Then you take it to ANI. It's almost as if you are hedging your bet. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comments really show Serialjoepsycho's true colors, and why I had to bring this incident to ANI. While he is busy WP:Hounding me, and no telling how many other editors he has been harassing on various other Talk pages and noticeboards, I've been working on correcting the inaccuracies, and blatant WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYNCH violations that he refuses to acknowledge in the pathetic stub, Investigative Project on Terrorism. The article I'm working on now is nowhere near being complete, so please don't review it judgmentally. There is quite a bit more verifiability that needs to be done, and more information that needs to be added. [60] If nothing else, my work should speak to Serialjoepsycho's ridiculous allegations which are nothing more than a smoke screen to turn the focus away from his own behavior, and repeated policy violations. Atsme☯Consult 02:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your work speaks for itself. The writing is on wall clearly in black and white. You are a POVpusher. You already announced your soapbox. It doesn't get more simple than that. You're unquestionably bias. I notice in your new article has alot of the material comes from the current article. I notice the Islamophobia template is missing. The people that developed some of that article don't get the history attribution and you may be able to remove the template without bothering to get a consensus on it, even though one already exists. This seems similar to wp:game Gaming the system. The article is bad. Alot of which I would attribute to you personally, but the article will get better eventually. If I recall that's the deadline on the articles completion. There's nothing blatant. Except for you, a bad faith editor, everyone's concerns have been met so far. There's no smoke screen. If I have done something wrong I do hope that it's addressed so I can adjust accordingly. I'm not really going to pay much mind to your position. No reasonable person in my position would. Hell they can go to the IPT talk page Second topic. They will see you arguing from authority based off your strange assumption that I was an admin. They will see you misrepresenting a policy argument of mine to another editor. They will see you break your back to paint that editor in a bad light. The same editor that you canvassed here. It's interesting that at your last time here at ANI that same editor was listed as your mentor. But then in that same ANI You're kissing my butt at the beginning and then switching to accusations half way thru. Should I even mention where in the current BLP where you break your back to discredit Sepsis II because they got a temporary block in an unrelated article due to discretionary sanctions in an active arbitration case? I wonder if they dug thru your interactions how many times they would find you accusing someone of something because you're trying to win an argument? I can find quite a few that don't involve me rather easily. I actually have evidence. Smoke Screen? Let's quit bickering back and forth here as well so don't waste everyones time. Just comment enough to keep this active. That's once every 36 hours. There's really no point in me and you saying anything else.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian IP hopping vandal

    Prosecreator listed these in March:

    The changes are often superficially plausible; human and bot patrollers are prone to miss them. In addition, the target articles are often unsourced, requiring a google search to identify vandalism. Trivial and seemingly constructive edits are mixed in. The IP hopping often has the effect of burying old vandalism.

    There are so many of these IPs -- the above is just a sample -- and so many music-related pages have been affected. Looking at the history of any affected article will usually reveal more of them. It's not clear whether range-blocking or massive page protections (or both) is in order. vzaak 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Do be careful with allegations of deliberate IP hopping. Unfortunately, Telstra, Australia's biggest ISP, and the ISP which seems to be mostly involved here, gives its customers new IP addresses every time they reconnect. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether it is deliberate or not. This is behavior-based, with IPs editing the same music-related articles and making the same kinds vandalism edits. See here for precedent. vzaak 01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the behaviour is what needs to be discussed. I'm just pointing out that the "IP hopping", two of the four words in the heading, is probably not part of the user's behaviour. Maybe the heading should change to reflect just the problem with the edits. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there are many IPs, otherwise I would post to AIV and be done with it. The behavior is IP hopping, whether purposefully done or not. I don't care about hurting the vandal's feelings with the possible insinuation that the hopping may be deliberate. vzaak 01:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've missed my point. The problem created by the user is the vandalism. That we don't have an easy solution because the editor's ISP changes his IP address frequently is OUR problem. They are two entirely separate issues, only one of which is part of the (alleged) unacceptable behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they be reconnecting multiple times a day? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make the assumption that dial-up services have disappeared. I'm willing to bet that once you get 100 kilometers from the coast, that and satellite service will be all you find in Australia. Both services would tend to reconnect far more often than the DSL and cable services that dominate in the US and Europe.—Kww(talk) 03:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have a static IP, but my router goes down on the average of every couple of days (gotta get a new one). If my IP was not static, I assume that every time it reconnected it would be a new number. BMK (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. Many DHCP servers will not return an IP address to the pool of assignables for some period of time after a disconnection. This can be hours or even days during which a reconnect from the same MAC will result in assignment of the same address. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although having a lengthy lease time makes sense in an intranet, unused IPs are wasted money for ISPs. It's in the ISP's financial interests to recycle IPs as quickly as they can in order to maximise their (customers):(size of IP pool) ratio. There's no advantage to an ISP in having long leases. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, this issue was discussed on Discospinster's page a few weeks ago: [61].

    Examples of pages affected:

    The last article is an example of how the IP hops have likely caused older vandalism to be missed. Should I list more articles for an admin to protect, or list more IPs for a better understanding of what range blocks might be appropriate, or should I ignore the matter altogether? vzaak 12:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And these moves don't even raise capitalization or any other MOS issues at all; they're pure WP:AT policy. As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I had assumed they they were more of the same based on some of the articles linked at the top. Sorry. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This set of moves looks like the typical fiddling with things that does not help the reader one iota. It's nothing but "busy work". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota. It's nothing but policy-unrelated "noise". Do people seriously have nothing better to do than hang out here and kick good-faith editors in the shins just because we're not doing precisely the same kinds of editing they'd prefer themselves? Is that really why you're here? Is that rewarding for you?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bugs' commentary, while a bit more candid than I would put it myself, is pretty well on-point. I'm looking at some of these pagemoves, and if they're clearly supposed by policy, I'd be surprised. Even then, policy is supposed to be descriptive of practices: If you're finding just that many pages that don't conform to policy (or your understanding of it anyway), your response shouldn't be to ram it down everyone's throat, but to question whether the policy is still an accurate reflection of community consensus. Especially when people are complaining. And I frankly question whether your interpretation of WP:AT (specifically, I think you're referring to the WP:NATURAL subsection) is correct; it seems at odds with WP:COMMONNAME. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's SOP; see WP:AT#Deciding on an article title at "* Naturalness", and search that page throughout for "natural", including in WP:COMMONNAME (and yes, WP:NATURAL of course). If you think that "Hebridean (sheep)" is somehow a more natural or common name that "Hebridean sheep" good luck demonstrating that. Somewhere else. Whether my interpretation of the policy turns out, after some hihgly subjective, nitpicky debate, to not be absolutely 100% perfect, is not an ANI matter, nor any kind of enforcement or disciplinary matter, it would simply be a WT:AT discussion the conclusion of which would be that some wording at AT/DAB needs to be tweaked. Anyway, then see WP:AT#Disambiguation and WP:DAB about not using disambiguators unless necessary to begin with, as in the other kind of move at issue here (see details in longer post below).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've completely missed my point somehow. I don't care what your personal understanding of WP:AT is. When you stumble across a large number of articles that in your view violate that policy, it falls to you to first verify that your understanding of policy isn't wrong. Based simply on your responses here, and your past issue with pagemoves, I don't believe you did that. You made a bunch of controversial pagemoves that you knew or had reason to know would be controversial based on your past issues that were squarely on point with this matter. Attempting to deflect this by arguing that it's not an ANI issue is not addressing the problem, nor is vomiting up the a wall of text below (which, frankly, is curious behavior if you believe there isn't an ANI issue here). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed all this in the "vomit" (nice attitude!) that you apparently won't read (if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia, which mostly consists of paragraphs of text?!) I accept that you're developing a contrary opinion on the fly about what AT really means with regard to such unnecessarily parenthetical page names, but I'm not, and have sat on this and thought about it for a long time. You having a different take on it all of a sudden (one that's gone from tentative to condemnatory in the space of a few hours, perhaps simply because I'm standing up to you and you're looking for an argument?), it does not make for a case of wrongdoing or negligence on my part, and shaking your fists at me about it won't change any of that. If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. BOLD is policy for a reason. Filibusterers would block all action on anything except the most obscure, boring topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. Except that you were on clear and unambiguous notice that your novel interpretation of WP:NATURAL was controversial. And frankly, it's incorrect based on a plain reading of WP:AT. Nothing, I repeat, nothing in that policy puts WP:NATURAL on higher ground than WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue that the contrary is plainly the case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No one ever made an argument in this discussion that NATURAL is "on higher ground" that COMMONNAME. The only notice I was on related - I've told you this, what, three times now? - to capitalization, not parenthetical disambiguation. This is essentially moot now anyway; I have no more breed-related articles to move for these or any similar reasons. Most of these moves have stuck, as they should. I notice now that the dogs project pollstacked an RM in their own back yard to move various dog pages back to parenthetical disambiguation, but oh well. It's not like I'm going to go revert an actual RM decision, bogus as it may be. This question basically needs to be settled in an RfC. That is clear now, but only after I boldly made changes, in good faith compliance with AT, and some of these changes were reverted, so now a discussion is in order, e.g. an RfC. This is WP:BRD in action. Before I did anything, all of these categories were not only inconsistent internally, they were wildly inconsistent with each other. We're now much closer to a standard, which editors and readers will understand. So, please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you. See WP:MASTODON. I don't need to be browbeaten by you any further with your WP:IDHT circular arguments and borderline accusations of bad faith, so good day and please drop it. No one else here is agreeing with your take on this, and I have way better things to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • [EC, and my actual first response; the above is later interpolation]: The American Paint Horse and related moves and disputes about them have nothing to do with this sort of move I was doing earlier today. No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles, so my expectation would be that any that were disputed (on valid bases) were about the same issue as the horse ones, namely perceptions about how to capitalize based on what the alleged "real" or "official" name of the breed is (with or without "[H|h]orse" or "[D|d]og" at the end of it). While I don't agree with the pro-capitalization crowd on that, I chose not to fight with them about it any further, because of the level of bad-faith-assumptive and attacking invective they were engaging in already (for which several of them could have been sanctioned under MOS discretionary sanctions against personalizing style/titles debates), among other reasons, like just being busy off-wiki, the issue probably being moot eventually the way that downcasing is going, and the kangaroo-court nature of the canvassing-stacked RMs).

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

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

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

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

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

    Then again, that was before I saw Justlettersandnumbers's blatant canvassing proposal.[62]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I point out that the report was filed by User:Justlettersandnumbers, not by User:G S Palmer, who was merely the first commenter. BMK (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Right! Fixed. I mis-copy-pasted. D'oh. Apologies to User:G S Palmer! <sheepish grin>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here's my "blatant canvassing proposal", posted on the talk page of G S Palmer:

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

    As it happens, I've only had one answer to that question, and that was from SMcCandlish, whose reply could hardly be taken as dispassionate. I've not notified the WikiProjects affected, nor do I know if it is appropriate to do so. But if it is, would some kind person do it for me? I'd be grateful. Those would seem to include Agriculture, Equine, Dogs, Cats ... and, oh yes, I almost forgot! ... Birds. Thanks either way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disappointing to say the least. I completely fail to understand how you, SMcCandlish, thought after the kerfuffle surrounding the exact same type of moves to dog breed articles, that it would somehow be completely uncontroversial for sheep breeds. Use this process [RM] if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. It is that simple. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And upon further review, I'm reasonably certain the moves were against policy. The claims that they were in line with WP:AT are little more than VAGUEWAVEs. That parenthetical disambiguators should not be used where any other title is possible seems to directly contravene the policy that we should use the common name rather than something made up out of whole cloth. Even if the dog breed pagemoves were a reasonable mistake, to turn around and do precisely the same thing with sheep breed articles one month later is inexcusable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision directly applicable here? "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes." SMcCandlish does exactly what that says not to, moves first, discusses later (with lengthy posts full of alphabet soup and "personalizing" comments such as on this very page "That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota....if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia?...please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you"etc.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be fair, the arbcom decision you cite appears to be talking about avoiding overly bold edits to guideline pages, not overly bold actions in actual page moves, but other than that, I agree that SMcCandlish's behaviour is exactly what that case was about, and it has to be stopped. From my position as a distant observer, it sure looks like a long-term pattern: SMcCandlish's attitude to these issues is a classical battleground approach; time and time again he gives the impression of perceiving of his actions as a kind of crusade to bring some corner of Wikipedia under the control of the MOS, and if I remember correctly he has quite openly expressed that he conceives of opposition to this – especially when it comes from the corner of some wikiproject – as some kind of insubordination or "insurgence" that needs to be squashed by the legitimate power of the MOS-wielders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment: when it comes to contested page moves, you're only permitted to be bold ONCE. Not once per article, once per species, once per genus ... just once overall per type of move. The first time someone complains about a move, you stop. Then you have to gain consensus for any similar move in the future. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not SMcCandlish's first rodeo, or even his second or third. This is not about what he does, it is about how he does it, and his behavior toward others when challenged. I think SMC needs a restriction from moving articles or posting requested moves for articles. He is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND all over the place. As noted, he led a contentious battle over bird names, then next created a circus over capitalization of a few exceptions in horse breed names. Though his current set of moves constitutes natural disambiguation, which I normally favor, SMcCandlish is returning to a bad habit of making massive page moves without discussion or consensus-seeking and then attacking anyone who disagrees with him, usually referring to policies that he was active in writing, usually by bullying others into submission. Here, JLAN has worked hard on the sheep and other farm animal articles and SMC should have posted at article talk before moving, and particularly before moving and "salting" so they couldn't be moved back. SMC knows full well that the animal articles are contentious; for example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation for breeds, and just had a discussion about the matter reaffirming this concept, while WP:EQUINE has long preferred natural disambiguation for breeds and parenthetical disambiguation for individual named horses. But in other past rodeos, this user wasted endless bandwidth arguing over what constituted a "breed" and at the time, argued for parenthetical disambiguation for quite some time, though after the discussion moved here, he appears to have changed his mind on that issue. Given his history, a restriction of some sort if appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I also believe that it is appropriate to notify wikiprojects where this has been an issue (based on current moves and my past knowledge) and I have taken it upon myself to post neutrally worded notifications at WP farm, mammals, birds, dogs, equine and cats. Montanabw(talk) 19:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Support a page move ban on User:SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish has clearly caused enormous disruption across the project with their non-consensus moves, battleground tactics and personal attacks against those who dispute the moves. IF SMcCandlish believes a page move is necessary, then they need to engage the appropriate WikiProject and file at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dreadstar ☥ 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support move ban, with deference to other discussants as to the terms (i.e., length). The evident battleground mentality and refusal to develop clue after the last controversial set of pagemoves indicates that this individual should not be making pagemove for the foreseeable future. His attitude towards the entire RM process evidenced above is frightening, particularly in light of the refusal to hear that anything could be wrong with his personal interpretation of the article title policy: Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and matters of project-wide importance require stakeholder input. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh - Support - reluctantly. I am not happy with this. I don't LIKE doing this kind of things. But I can't notice any difference in the editor's discussion above. Can't see any I am sorry, it was a mistake. And I don't like moving back a lot of pages either. Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support move ban - Unless he asks first, each time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    But I find that the situation is not so simple. My attention has been drawn to [[63]]. There it appears that SMcCandlish is under warning of Arbritration Enforcement for all pages relating to article titles, broadly construed (which at this point must include this one), and that he has been specifically advised to "to avoid commenting on contributor"; does not, for example, his description of Mendaliv as an "ostentatious firehose" now come under the scope of those sanctions?

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

    While I agree SMC's conduct here has been atrocious, I don't think it's severe enough to merit an indef when a move ban will take care of it. Should he not respect the move ban, or start playing games with RMs so as to impede stakeholder involvement, then we can start talking indefs. I think a temporary indef might be called for as well should SMC come on tonight and go straight back to controversial pagemoves, but I'm going to AGF that he'll try to work things out here first. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support move ban, as it seems that SMcCandlish will not otherwise follow the normal procedure - to request a move first if there is reason to assume that it may be controversial, and SMcCandlish seems not to understand that if a move is contested it has to be reverted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I only went thru a few of the reverted changes. I have to note it seems that more than few while reverted were not reverted to their original. It seems very reasonable that SMcCandlish did not expect any controversy. Over all the effort seemed good faith to me. It seems removing his autoconfirmed status has to be removed to physically ban him from moving articles. This would restrict more than his ability to move pages. If there is an actual need to take any action, I propose... Let's call it probation. SMcCandlish can not move any page for 3 months with out discussion. You can raise the time frame if you like. And if he violates that you can then talk about removing his autoconfirmed rights. There's no need to be unnecessarily punitive. If there actually is a disruption here there is no need to do more than what it would minimally take to end it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Serialjoepsycho, he wouldn't have his autoconfirmed bit removed. Keep in mind that a ban is different from a block. Basically, the move ban would be "Don't move pages." If he moves a page he gets blocked from editing. Honor system and all that. As to whether it's good faith, I have no doubt that it was. That said, there's an evident history of trouble with SMC and pagemoves, and he was on notice that future pagemoves of the same sort would be controversial. Assuming good faith, that means he at least negligently if not recklessly disregarded the existing controversy over his pagemoves. In light of the other matters brought up here, a move ban does not seem unreasonable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was speaking off the basis of the language used early on in this post.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There seems to be a case here of "I didn't hear that", and it doesn't seem likely to change without an official administrative decision. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I missed the limit above. I suggest a limit be set or an appeal right after a certain predetermined tie period.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Whether SMcCandlish is correct or not is immaterial—the point is that without collaboration the community will degenerate as more energy is put into fighting and less into building the encyclopedia. No diff shows sanctionable behavior, but their overall approach is based on a belief that a uniform style (MOS) is of paramount importance, and contributors are to be bludgeoned rather than persuaded. For example, at Editor retention, SMcCandlish says "If some of them are threatening to leave because they are not getting their way, I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL, encourage them to take a WP:WIKIBREAK instead (it's quite refreshing) and come back when their egos have settled back down and they're ready to contribute without fighting for fighting's sake." (under "Itemized response to Tony Wills"). That approach damages the community, as does aggressive page moving. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Enough editors were driven away or put off editing the last time a project was annexed by the MOS battlegroup, we don't need any more, and the "we are right and if you don't like it then you can always leave" sentiments are not acceptable in a collaborative environment either. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't claim to be neutral on this, but SMC's single-minded MoS fiddling is incredibly disruptive. Although his changes to bird articles were done with due process, we have lost several editors as a result. He doesn't care about that, as his comments show, because he only cares about style, and doesn't give a toss if we lose voluntary content creators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per comments of Black Kite (talk),Jimfbleak and others above.Smeat75 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Too much self-righteous disruption, too little cooperative spirit. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the idea of a negotiated close. In spite of all the supports above, it is not clear to me in the absence of a proper sequence of diffs that SMcCandlish has done anything wrong or that we have "lost several editors as a result". I go further and suggest the closer disregard such comments where they are unsupported by diffs. The idea of an indefinite block for this user is quite ludicrous. --John (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • John, I should clarify, I don't think anybody's proposing a block: the proposal is considering a simple pagemove ban. And really, while I would be fine with a negotiated outcome, unless that outcome involves SMC agreeing to use RM for all multipage moves for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's going to be accepted by the emerging consensus here. And frankly, this isn't conduct that can simply be summed up in diffs: it involves too many actions. You have to actually look at the logs and see the sheer number of controversial moves being made. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • John, can you please point out exactly where someone has proposed an indef block on this user? I'd like to see the reasoning and I can't find the comment. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    John neglected to say that he has threatened to block me if I don't apologise to the great leader for my comments above, despite the clear evidence of said leader driving editors away from at least one project (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out). Unfortunately, this is typical MoS bullying as a substitute for reasoned debate. I'll probably be blocked for this post too (or he will remove it, which he has done before when I've criticised his hero) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I ask other admins to look at the threat from John referred to? I have suggested that you will want to provide evidence for the allegation you made here, or else withdraw it and apologise. Will you do so please? Could you also refrain from making similar unsupported allegations in the future, especially in such an area as AN/I; such comments are especially unhelpful and I have been known to block on sight for them. I shall certainly do so if you repeat this behaviour, or if you fail to comply with my request above. I think that is really shocking, such bullying from an admin seems totally unacceptable to me. John is the one who should withdraw his comment and apologise or face a sanction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A negotiated close, an indefinite block?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Blanket removal of multiple references without consensus and replacement with an alternative source

    As per previous discussions in user's talk page in May and most recently in WP:RSN, user:RealDealBillMcNeal has engaged in blanket removal of multiple sources from articles, leaving them unsourced and without replacement with another source.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] (5-6 July), over 70 edits on 13 and 23 May. As explained by various editors, sources should not be removed based on his personal opinion that they are crap sources (as evidenced by weasel terms in edit summaries and replies, and this edit to an article page) nor should they be done without consensus. Despite agreement by other editors that user needs to stop with those edits, user has continued to skirt the issue and fail to engage in sensible discussion. As we could not get a resolution, the issue has been brought over to this board. Can we include any action or outcome with a commitment by user to stop with such edits in future, failing which appropriate action should be taken by administrators? Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RealDealBillMcNeal has been blocked 12 hours by User:Callanecc for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly note this is a different incident from the 3RR incident, of which user is one of two parties involved. The first three links in the OP quite comprehensively describe the nature of this report. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the unblock request. The block is short and reasonable. The blocking admin has made a very generous offer to the editor to unblock if the user agrees to discuss first rather than keep reverting. Chillum 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Point as above, to clear any possible confusion. LRD NO (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been suggested to me that this is not resolved, as such I have removed the archive header/footer. Chillum 00:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by User:Ravishyam Bangalore

    Ravishyam Bangalore is on a POV pushing spree on articles Aadhaar, Permanent account number and Unique Identification Authority of India. He has been reverted several times, but restores the content that he feels is correct citing vandalism. On Aadhar, I had reverted the article to a version before this user edited which redirected to Unique Identification Authority of India until today.
    Diffs:

    After a month long break, he is back with this. — LeoFrank  Talk 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Ravishyam Bangalore has been here twice before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Aadhar and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#User:Ravishyam_Bangalore_issuing_legal_threats_and_disruption. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting increasingly annoying, earlier it was a fight between two groups -- one supporting and another against the Aadhar card. Neither of them seems to care for encyclopaedic writing and are here to just promote an agenda. One side has now been blocked, so the problems are only related to Ravishyam Bangalore now. I've tried some clean up on the articles over the past year, so I'm involved, but this is getting to be a drain on productive editors' time. —SpacemanSpiff 05:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem IP editor on BLP - NAGF, BATTLEGROUND, possible LIBEL

    Very aggressive IP editor (98.100.23.77) on Talk:Jenny_McCarthy#RFC not assuming good faith, attacking every single comment on the RfC they started, and making borderline libelous claims about a BLP (frankly that "body count" website is libelous imho). Same IP editor was edit warring before the page was protected and the RfC initiated. Requesting an admin look over the situation. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    >I never deleted anyone's article or sources or talk page content, but EvergreenFir can't state the same honestly. The problem editor from the beginning has been EvergreenFir, who deleted talk page content and then repeatedly deleted article content that meets wiki standards. I did not start the rfc and merely followed the advice of a wiki editor - EvergreenFir's distortion on this is an easily discoverable fact and is typical of his/her approach on this matter, but I gladly embrace it since EvergreenFir deleted all previous attempts to discuss a key issue. My tenacity in applying and defending wiki standards should not be perceived negatively. The accusation of libel is extreme and unsupported but typical of EvergreeFir's tactics. I also call for a higher authority to defend wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I mean? Not sure what my typical tactics are... and I never said you deleted anything. You did start the RfC (see this edit). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Huffington Post article restates Jenny McCarthy's wrongheaded idea that vaccinations cause autism. Then it goes on to report some stats about kids who weren't vaccinated. The BLP violation is the attempt to essentially blame Jenny McCarthy for it. That's called "connecting the dots" or "original synthesis". Huff Post might be able to get away with it. Wikipedia cannot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting this ANI for the editor's behavior, not the validity of the RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-warring to re-insert original synthesis qualifies as bad behavior. The IP is on a crusade of some kind, trying to blame Jenny McCarthy for 1,000 kids dying. That kind of charge could definitely subject Wikipedia to serious legal trouble, if her attorneys cared to do so. Better safe than sorry. Put the IP crusader on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And then bludgeoning the process in the RFC. I think this dude needs to take a vacation from the article, and if he won't do so voluntarily, then he should be assisted by a friendly admin. You know who this IP editor reminds me of? User:MilesMoney. I hated contributing to talk pages (and especially RFCs) when he was involved, because you knew that you were going to get a tl;dr, POV rant affixed to every comment that he disagreed with. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP became rather more active on January 29, the same day MilesMoney made has last edit. I haven't yet looked to see if they have common interests. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that, too. Miles was more of a political POV warrior than anything else. It's possibly him, but there isn't really enough political POV warring to make a formal accusation. The IP editor has defended the Huffington Post as a reliable source and accused other editors of political censorship, which set off warning bells, but I'd probably want to see some edit warring on Ayn Rand, Austrian School, or Far right politics before I said it was anything close to a duck. This guy skirts the edges of Miles' behavior without ever actually reaching the dizzying levels of disruption that Miles did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see they've got the page fully protected, which is OK, but it's not necessary, as it's only the IP that's pushing for this BLP violation. Semi-protection would be enough. I just wonder why the IP isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to agree with Bugs, but the IP needs to be blocked already. --Malerooster (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling, CIR or warrior? It's hard to tell, but it hardly matters. A block followed by a leash just long enough to hang themselves. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes, the admins will take immediate appropriate action. Other times, they like to sit back and watch the troll trying to hang himself. This appears to be one of the latter situations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior

    Withdrawn before review. A statement saying "withdrawn" is also handy when you strike, so I don't have to search archives and make sure it was you that struck the comment ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Extended content

    Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Jennifer Rubin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This user, who has on his User page this very revealing statement: Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors, chooses edit warring and tendentious comments in talk pages instead of participating in WP:DR (see for example Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist). This is WP:BATTLE behavior and not conducive to collaboration. In this specific article, the user keeps deleting material and does not engage in useful discussions, instead he comes once every other day to delete content. He has deleted the disputed content multiple times over past weeks. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Bgwhite

    Content dispute. After reviewing the diffs, while there is some incivility on both sides, nothing that requires admin action is apparent. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This editor, User talk:Bgwhite, brought to my attention WP:COLOR after his removal of part of the shading that I then reversed. I use in a table to show odd ownership of various Disney Channel. So, I engage in the discussion to find a solution when he just goes and starts stripping the table completely of any color (than lies that he didn't do so), so there isn't a guide for me directly in the source to use another method. Basically he continues to bash me and shows he isn't following the conversion. Basic he went all troll on me (stupid me, I assume I could get back to reality of the discussion, I end up feeding him), lied to me, and made false claims about me. It is highly frustrating when trying to work with this guy, even when (not he has bother to look) I changed it to a non-color notation. Then he starts calling me names - that are more appropriate for him -- and more lies (assumptions) on my talk page AFTER I banned him from it. Some one needs to have a serious chat with this fellow, who indicates that he could care less about people trying to cooperate with him. He has notassume good faith, acted in a rude matter towards my attempt to retain the context that the shading provided. --Spshu (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see diffs for the alleged "stripping" but not for what seem to be the crux of this complaint, ie: calling names, trolling, lying, bashing, "making false claims" etc. What I can say with certainty is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a coloring book and that accessibility is a pretty important issue. You're going to have to provide diffs that support your numerous allegations; the policy issue is not really a concern for ANI because, really, it is a content dispute. Did you try WP:DR, for example? If not, you'll have to substantiate the behavioural concerns that are relevant to this noticeboard otherwise this complaint fails on first principles. Generally, I'd say that the less we use fanciful color schemes in tables etc, the better things will be but it really is not a concern here. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)+[reply]
    Did you bother to read the talk page (do you really want a diff for each of his edits their past his first edit)? If you don't intend to read the crux of the complaint (the talk page discussion) then why even respond or even read and comprehend the above statement? You are acting as rudely as he was by not following the discussion.
    This isn't a content dispute. Why would I go to WP:DR when I was trying to cooperate with bgwhite once he pointed out about the accessibility issue then he edits the page making it harder to retag in some form? --Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you bother to read any thing! Why are you assuming bad faith? I didn't admit to edit warring where in the world did you get that!?!? Where do you get that you can make false accusation against any one? Once he came and point out about the Accessibility issue, I went to the article to change it. Except he already remove the color (even on the key table), which would mean going back and forth between two screens or rolling back the edits which the Wiki software would not allow. --Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But the remove there of made it more work to implement an alternative tagging that bgwhite then hammers me about. But what he left in its place was just as unreadable by making the information read incorrectly as under WP:ACCESSIBILITY. He mangled the table he even stripped out the color on the Key table, thus indicating that all white cells in the table are license or JV when they are not.

    Right here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disney_Channels_Worldwide&diff=616267928&oldid=616265884 diff: ), I implemented Wikipedia:COLOR#Color (post here for the second time). Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. diff showing me ask a question of bgwhite of what tag would work instead of font, thus showing I am willing to work with him to implement WP:COLOR.
    2. diff bgwhite edit of Disney Channels WW that strip out color and as back other incorrect edit (previous names as predecessors, etc.) that I removed
    3. diff continued remove the colors even from the color key table thus marking all channels being licensed
    4. diff I point out that he has infect stripped out the information with out providing an alternative
    5. diff Instead of following the discussion of how to change the table. He states he doesn't care about the content of the article just Accessibility (like some one can not care about both?). He admits that he gets people upset over changing the colors, so what he decides to take an even worst move and obliterate any guide for any one to change to any other markup. In effect, this is clearest effort of the troll like behavior, since there is the direct disregard for the discussion or the article, just to use Accessibility to bash.
    6. diff - I point out the error in his edits in that they didn't not even follow some of his points in the previous post. And that might lead to people yelling at him as he indicated before (using bold to emphasize and some creative censorship).
    7. false claim of yelling (since I didn't use all caps) "First off, stop shouting and yelling.". False claim that I did not read WP:COLOUR: "It is also obvious you haven't read WP:COLOUR." (How can he know.) Again hammers his points which I asked for alternative for font alternative back in diff 1 in two different points. Then claims he did not remove any thing: "I'm not removing anything." when diffs 2 & 3 clearly show he removed the color. If he didn't why did I need to start reversing edits 1 to get back the color mark up (and remove other erroneous information added back) which the software eventual said I couldn't do so.
    8. diff -I give the difference in netiquette between all caps is yelling and bold is for emphasis, so that it is a false claim that I yelled at him. I also point out the rest of his lies then banned him from my talk page.
    9. diff in which bgwhite ignores my ban, claims that have "classic internet moronic troll syndrome" thus in effect calls me a "moronic troll". Really a troll for attempting to cooperate and espressing frustration that he doesn't follow his own advice. Again, claims that I was yelling and that I admitted it (claiming that he should be yelled at is not the same as actually yelling at him). Again not what I said. Then claims I was name calling and that I admitted such. No admission at all on my part; it is clearly censored out. Again twist any logic by stating that I read WP:COLOR but didn't read WP:COLOR!?!?! Read is read, not much variance for that. Multiple false claims that should be obvious by now of me "hurting the article as you don't want to follow accessibility guidelines and the five pillars of Wikipedia." Given Pillar 1 is WP is encyclopedia, one should give a care about the content, which is clearly not true in my case, but clear in his case he doesn't nor cares about any one else that cares. Pillar 2, the information was sourced.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chilean vandal returns

    1 week forced wikibreak handed down by Diannaa. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The long-running, IP-hopping vandal from Chile has got a new IP address: Special:Contributions/190.96.33.70. Please block the millionth IP address of this vandal.

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Vandal 201.239.30.37. I think it may be time to contact the ISPs involved and investigate if it is possible to have this user's internet connection cut on the grounds of disruptive behaviour. I know spammers have been blacklisted and had their connections cut by ISPs. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous discussion is here. Blocked for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problematic IP

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

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

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

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

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

    Where have they asked the same questions over and over? I've only seen you spam all over the place, two users respond to a few of your questions, and no one asking you questions until just now.
    If you do not want to continue discussion, then quit posting and leave the site. Demonstrate that you're not a trolling child and just leave instead of asking to be blocked. I'm sorry if you think you've been insulted, but it's only hypocritical to say that when you've been insulting everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that he reverted your notice about ANI, Ian, but there was a lot of text above it and I wonder if he didn't read that far (no fault of your own). In the interest of good faith, I've placed another notice and invited him to join the discussion. I'm not sure of the utility of participation, but willing to keep an open mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He did try to respond earlier (outright asking to be blocked, and saying he should be blocked), but didn't indent (heck, I had to put in a couple of page breaks to make it not look like an addition to my post). this edit, (not the removal, DGAF about that, but the new message) leaves me convinced he's not here to build an encyclopedia. It's in Turkish, but it's disparate and unrelated sentence fragments:
    "Is the power of the people" (miscopied bit) "my brother will be dealing with you" (miscopied bit) "got the news from our nation's" (miscopied bit) "It appears from the followers of the" (miscopied bit).
    His "bad English" is also inconsistently bad. He occasionally makes posts without any spelling errors. He misspells unscientific as "unscitiphic" and then as "unscientifuic" in the same post. There's going to be some variation in trying to learn a language, but to that degree looks more like someone who knows what they're doing trying to make their English look worse than it is. The ph in "unscitiphic" is a bit telling, being something that many foreign speakers (except certain South east Asian persons) do not easily pick up. I can't find any evidence that PH is used as F in Turkish, and have seen anecdotal evidence suggesting the contrary.
    The hodge-podge Turkish, the inconsistently poor English (which gets worse after I brought up that English doesn't appear to be his first language, perhaps as a cover), and that he's in Virginia makes it harder for me not to believe he's a kid who is trying to troll us. It's possible he's a mentally unstable immigrant he is only quasi-literate in both English and Turkish, but his behavior still outweighs any help he might be. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletions of Ynet poll result from over 150 Israeli articles

    No admin action required, and possible WP:FORUMSHOP. If you want more eyes on it, RfC is the best process. Nothing more to see here. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    A current discussion concerning deletions of Ynet poll result from over 150 Israeli articles requires the input of administrators and experienced editors. At this point, only four editors are discussing the matter -- which includes the primary editor who deleted the material yesterday, as well as a "new" editor who in tag-team fashion appears to have deleted the same text from still other articles yesterday. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place to announce this. If it's that big a deal, list a RfC and put it on T:CENT. There's no admin action needed for this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, "this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." This is such an instance. And the tools needed to revert mass changes of this sort are held only by admins as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If needed, rollback should suffice (if I understand you rightly), and tons of non-admins have that userright. This makes me guess that I've misunderstood you; please explain what tools you're talking about. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a commonplace content dispute that does not belong here. No special tools were used nor are required. Epeefleche is just trying to find support for his/her side of the argument. Zerotalk 08:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    emergency help against attack on wikipedia

    Article userfied, no furthur action required. For reference, if you wish to contest a deletion, WP:DRV and/or WP:UNDEL are thataway. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jet Naked Airlines keeps being deleted every two minutes. This makes it impossible to write an article on this real Canadian airline, founded by the Co-founder of Westjet. I know the naked name is silly but I did not chose that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    another false attack on me. I am not trying to advertise for them. I am not even in Canada. WP is very inhospitable but admins will never admit to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this, there us no such actual airline yet. It, and some others, are merely proposed airlines. That might be why it keeps getting deleted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bugs.....wonder why wow has vandalism...cuz bad people cause trouble like these admins....all of these admins should be demoted...I know naked is silly but that is their name....trying to defend them is like defending the KKK. A good admin would add and then allow time for improvement,. Making me do it in user space is just causing more work...

    Someone should have the balls to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    disruption? That is like the police beating up an innocent person and coming up with an excuse. But you win, you have attacked me and I give up. I know you are not going to improve th e article. A good admin would restore the article and even spend two minutes to help clean it up but once you are voted admin, many stop writing and become bullies. Sorry but true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look like it qualifies for speedy deletion in its current state. Maybe it would be better to work on it in your userspace (see Help:Userspace draft). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No, proposed airlines have had article before they began operating.

    Current state is bad cuz of vandalism, even if unintentional. I am no more energy to fix it today but would have if admins did not stupidly serial delete it. I did give references, which admins should have seen. They should not see the word naked then delete it. If they did, delete Courtney Love, a stupid name for a singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The difference is that Courtney Cox and American Airlines actually exist. You need to find the energy to copy it to your talk page (or I can do it for you, if you're that tired), and then you can develop it in an acceptable way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They rubbed it out already. Someone here could still retrieve it and copy it to your user talk page, or to a subpage as needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to say it, but it certainly looks like it will make GNG. See [73], [74], [75]. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You are one step away from being blocked for disruption. I just deleted the article per A7 and G3 as you had added your own personal views about Wikipedia and Wikipedians to the deleted article. I also saw your attack on the administrator who had deleted the article just before me. The article has also been salted as there was yet a third administrator who deleted the article first.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is way off base with their attacks. The name is not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't exist, and adding an article about it here smacks of trying to create artificial notability in order to help raise money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And considering that the OP seems to lack the ability to reply directly to a given post (nor to sign them), the question arises as to whether it's extreme sleepiness, or competence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever deleted the article needs to post its contents on the OP's user page, to give them at least a possibility of improving it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sock flare-up

    talk page access revoked, however revdel declined. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, can an admin please revdel these edits. The user, Mariootoya30 is a sock of Rodolfootoya12. They should probably have their talk page access revoked since they appear to have sprung up one year after they were blocked apparently to set up for business again. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have revoked talk page access, but I don't believe revdel is called for. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Favonian, I appreciate the help. My concern is that the user is known for submitting hoax content. If he were building this content in his sandbox, we'd typically ask for the page to be speedy deleted for being created by a blocked/banned user. My request for revdel is mean to stymie whatever progress he's made, so there's a lesser chance of Finding Stinky appearing on a Cartoon Network article. But if you don't agree, I understand. No biggie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at this as well, and decided that the user likely has an offline copy of the material, so revdel would be pointless. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template:Infobox OS version post-TFD merge dispute

    User has said they intend to no longer edit in this area, so any action would be punitive. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi.

    I believe the actions of User:Netoholic has reached a scale that merits being reported to this forum. He contends that the long overdue merger of Template:Infobox OS and Template:Infobox OS version must be carried out; so far so good. Only, in doing that, he significantly changes the contents the affected articles to extent of subverting the factual accuracy. He defies everything said in the TfD and Template Talk:Infobox OS § Completing Infobox OS version merge.

    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Codename Lisa: Can you provide the correct diffs because you are talking about multiple pages. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs incoming:
    Dispute in Template:Infobox OS: [77], [78], [79], [80]
    Talk thread: Template Talk:Infobox OS § Completing Infobox OS version merge
    Diffs of hurried edits in article space:
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this is fun. I was just creating a report about User:Codename Lisa at the edit warring board, but we can have the discussion here. I work often to help clear the backlog of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. In this case, I started working on the Template:Infobox OS version > Template:Infobox OS merge which was decided at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 24#Template:Infobox OS version (yes, closed by User:Plastikspork almost a full year ago). As you can see, User:Codename Lisa is the only dissenting vote in an otherwise unanimous vote to merge. Skip ahead to yesterday: I spent about half a day testing in the Infobox_OS sandbox, then implemented the change. Several hours later (after making sure nothing negative happened by checking a rather large set of the current articles), I began working on the migration, which required individual editing of each article using Infobox_OS_version. Codename_Lisa reverted every single edit. I posted on Template:Infobox OS asking what the problems were, got some feedback (including a boatload of even more work, but ok). I tested today and implemented the feedback, and began the manual conversion process again (which is much slower, but thorough). And now Codename_Lisa reverted every single edit again, and posted here.

    So, TLDR; - the single dissenting vote on a TFD, after almost an entire year of letting the merge go unfinished and resisting it at every step, is now reverting every edit made to actually close the TFD merge. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC) (removed AFK notice) --Netoholic @ 20:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet Jeh and Czarkoff and also disagreeing with you on Template talk:Infobox OS; and you did nearly enter an edit war with Czarkoff on Template:Infobox OS. ([95], [96], [97], [98])
    The problem with you is that you are in a big hurry, one that has the potential to hurt many articles. The wisest course of action at this time is a 30-days edit protection on Template:Infobox OS and Template:Infobox OS version, so that you can calm down and talk to us, no just threaten us and ignore us.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    (Edit conflict; I have placed this paragraph where it would have gone had the conflict not occurred, as I had not seen Netoholic's paragraph below (of 10:29) when I composed this; similarly, Netoholic had not seen this comment when he wrote his of 10:29. This was a follow-on to Codename Lisa's comment of 10:22, so here is where it belongs.)
    (Threaten, ignore, AND issue ultimatums to us.) Netoholic: I'd have reverted your extremely WP:POINTy edits to several OS pages this evening if Codename Lisa hadn't. There is clearly no longer consensus for this "merge", not with the template in its present form, perhaps not ever. In insisting on your changes to article pages after you've been reverted once, you are violating WP:BRD. Consensus achieved over a year ago at TfD is ancient history now. Jeh (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Its laughable to say I am in a big hurry when this merge has been pending for about a year. I am just a worker bee, and the feedback (that I've been able to understand from you guys) has been incorporated. I've never encountered this kind of uncooperative attitude while addressing TFD closes before. This feels like just a tactic to stop the consensus merge. I am not involved with the vote, I don't really care, I just implement the decision. --Netoholic @ 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me show you something, "worker bee". Look at this diff in the holding cell: I cleared out Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction after 2.5 years which spun 7000 article but I didn't use swear words, didn't hurry and didn't do a sloppy job as to raise contention.
    This template wasn't there for a year; it was there for ten years. Spending a couple more days discussing and planning is in everyone's best interest. Ruining articles just to enforce what you think is correct, without having the input of field editors, is not.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in a big hurry? Just a worker bee? Don't really care? Diff: [99]
    Here's the text (emphasis added):

    I will give editors a day to implement a version which both implements the Infobox_OS_version parameters and addresses any specific concerns raised above (re: layout, etc.). If no version is live, I will re-implement mine and continue the article work. If editors here continue to act in violation of the consensus decision after that time, I will escalate. There is simply no option to continue to pushback efforts to implement a near-unanimous decision on TFD. -- Netoholic @ 4:53 pm, 9 July 2014, last Wednesday (1 day ago) (UTC−7)

    Does this read as if it came from someone who doesn't really care? The bolded phrases show ultimatum and threat, respectively. "Simply no option" to change consensus? Are you really that unaware that consensus can change? ...A point which I raised TWICE on the template talk page. After the second time you simply went ahead with your second batch of WP:POINTy, edits. And there's one count—no, two—on the "ignore" charge. Jeh (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I almost forgot:
    This feels like just a tactic to stop the consensus merge. --Netoholic @ 3:29 am, Today (UTC−7)
    And here we have a gross failure to WP:AGF. Honestly, Netoholic, I suggest you apply the first rule of holes. Jeh (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I second Codename Lisa's assessment here. Netoholic is pushing his view of how this merge should be performed, disgusing it under an urgent necessity to complete the merge, which apparently didn't exist 24 hours ago. The particular problems are:

    1. from conduct standpoint: rush towards implementation of Netoholic's changes, no respect to consensus about the way merge should be implemented;
    2. from content standpoint: his changes to the template that are not connected to the merge, as well as some problematic merge decisions.

    I suggest warning Netoholic about consequences of disruptive editing and applying full protection for template:infobox OS until talk page of this templates demonstrates rough consensus in favor of particular implementation (RPP request). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I just want to not waste any more personal time on this particular merge. I'll go back to merging things like nebulae templates - much less vitriol. I think that we editors who volunteer technical effort to help close items at WP:TFD/HC should be given a little latitude in how its accomplished. The goal is to orphan Template:Infobox OS version, that's all. None of my efforts damaged the data integrity of any articles--I would never be satisfied if that had happened. The complaints are more about visual problems, which can be solved post-merge and are decisions I care nothing about. I incorporated as much feedback as was given and related to the merge, the rest is left to these OS template "owners" to decide upon later. --Netoholic @ 20:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose that no action is taken. While I could see a suggestion that Netoholic made an error in his communication, It seems that would apply to everyone in the conversation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Review of User:Walter Görlitz's behaviour

    I've never done this before...

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

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

    I will put this caveat on this whole report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Blocked on 5th of July for 72 hours

    Julian Green 3rd - 5th of July

    10th July

    • Another editor who was attempting to put in information Walter Goriltz did not agree with did follow procedure and use the talk page, where editors did engage with each other to form consensus. The following exchange took place:
    "I am encouraged to use the talk page, but get no answer. What does that mean? 64.203.182.106) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well, you didn't see what I wrote above in the Change of nationality section.
    I have fixed those now. Any others? User:Walter Görlitz] 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and the fact that you didn't immediately get a response is that most wikipedia editors are not paid to do so and so you have to deal with others who may be be living life at Roanoke speed. User:Walter Görlitz 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

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

    Cem Özdemir 7th June

    9th June

    12th June

    10th July

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

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

    Rookie Blue (season 5) 2nd July

    3rd July

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks for bringing this up, but first some clarification.
    The anon editing on Thomas Dooley is the same as Julian Green.
    The anon editing on Rookie Blues season 5 is the same who has been removing referenced material on the Murdoch Mysteries episodes article and has been blocked for that behaviour.
    In both cases, I was not dealing with new editors.
    In all of the cases listed here, it was my "always on" nature that caused the edit wars. Now that I have a new, full-time job, I'm not always on and have taken the last block to heart. Notice the action on Cem Özdemir. The first revert was based on the discussion and was after several days. Second revert was out of frustration. I brought the discussion to RfC and the first editor to respond resoundingly supported my actions.
    In short, more discussion is needed. More civility is needed. If a block is the outcome, I'll live with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Panyd: I have to agree that Walter Görlitz just came off from a 3 days block and has started edit warring again. While he was blocked he made 2 unblock request, first one was like "I'm not the only editor doing so" and other one was more of a parody.[100] In short words, no remorse.
    On Cem Özdemir, he was edit warring for the same senseless edit that he used to make before the full protection. He was warned.[101] Something he regarded as "lies".[102] I haven't checked his other recent contributions yet, but his behavior is inappropriate and having a look at his block history, a bigger block shall be imposed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per Walter's comment above, he knows what he did, he's repentant, and it seems to me that at the end of the day he has the best interests of the project at heart. My only experience with Walter was on a footy blp RfC and he seemed to handle it very well IMHO. I took the issue to be more of a blp question without realizing it was really a WP:FOOTY issue. He showed great patience in trying to explain the situation but few were hearing him. It finally got sorted. On this matter, I've not read through all that is posted above. I trust the admin's accuracy. But unless Walter is edit warring right now, I'd say this is all moot. Blocks aren't meant to punish, they are meant to stop disruptive behaviour in the moment. If he's not demonstrating that at the moment, then this should be closed. The whole thing can be addressed with a longer block if and when he does edit war again. If it does happen, then I would trust that the blocking admin will take note of the behaviour at that time, plus review the recent past behaviours and make the appropriate block length. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is that this behaviour repeats every time he is unblocked. That suggests that the behaviour is never going to stop, and short blocks are in vein as in 3 days it'll all start again. The majority of Walter's reverts are done for very good reasons, but having a good reason doesn't mean you can continuously ignore the rules. His engagement with other editors and lack of co-operation are also very worrying, especially when it comes to his talk page. Again, he's perfectly within his rights to delete things that are there, but he does so in lieu of discussion. If another participant in an edit war wishes to discuss an issue with him, or if anybody wishes to give him a warning, it vanishes shortly thereafter. These are not the hallmarks of somebody willing to engage productively with the community. Continuous edit warring is disruptive. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Two years ago, I had to warn Walter Görlitz off from edit warring (in that case, upload warring) on Commons. While he didn't take the conversation well (admittedly, out of a lack of patience at the mess he and others were causing, I was more curt than I should have been), he did stop edit warring on Commons. Seeing that he's edit warred on two projects now, and on this one for some time, leads me to believe that it's an engrained behavior that he can't or won't break. Seeing that he's stopped edit warring on Commons, however, gives me a faint hope that he can change. I think his next block for edit warring should be a few months long, but I'm fine with giving him one last chance before that block. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A "review of behaviour" us the purview of WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First to address Sven Manguard. My first known exposure to the commons was a case of an image of one of the 2010 World Cup venues in South Africa. The image was provided for use on the commons. It was taken by a private citizen however, there is some copyright law that makes such an image a copyright violation, but only in South Africa. The image was removed from the commons and was not permitted to be uploaded to any project for use there. My takeaway from that event was that the Wikicommons operated on the most restrictive set of copyright laws across all projects and all nations where commons material may be seen. That may have been an incorrect take-away, but that was my impression. So two years ago, I discovered that there were copyrighted logos and crests present on football kits, primarily jerseys, and they were displayed in English Wikipedia. I proceeded to replace those images with versions that didn't break the English Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law. An editor from another project reverted and didn't explain. I was eventually blocked for my behaviour but the other editor wasn't. Seems about par for me. Now, what a good editor would have done is discussed it with me. No such discussion was entered. What a good editor would have done is uploaded the other image separately and asked me to use that image. As an aside here, having two images, one with copyrighted material and the other without, has caused edit wars on the English project as non-English editors or those with little understanding of the interpretation elect to use "the more accurate" version. What a good amin would have done is recognized my edit summaries and opened a discussion with me and filled-in my gap. But none of that happened. That tells me that the commons is a law unto itself and I avoid it. I have also been uploading alternate versions of images there and asking other editors to approach the problem that way, something Sven Manguard has failed to mention. I also have spent a great deal of time sourcing images that are clear copyright violations and nominating them for deletion. I find a great deal of irony in that process since one image that is a copyright violation on English wikipedia is immediately deleted while another one (the jersey) isn't, even though it's a copyright violation on English wikipedia.
    As for "engrained behavior", the only ingrained behaviour I have is one to literal interpretation. I believe that any violation of a policy or guideline is disruptive behaviour at best and vandalism at worst. So when I revert, I explain which policy, guideline, MoS or consensus is being violated and revert without fear of breaking 3RR. Apparently no all editors agree with that. In that case, let's get rid of all guidelines, MoSes and the idea of consensus so we can have even more edit wars. If following them is wrong, I'll stop. If I revert and cite the reason and the other editor, usually a new editor or anon, reverts that, at what point do I say fuck it? That's a serious question and I want a serious answer.
    Now to address OccultZone: What you perceive as a "senseless edit" is not one to me. Based on what I wrote in the previous paragraph, do you think that editing to maintain guidelines, MoSes and consensus decisions are pointless? Do you even understand that without them the project would look like crap and contain even more outrageous material than it already does? Very few of my edits are pointless, and I certainly don't revert those who change the ones that are pointless.
    Finally, my second unblock request was not a parody. It was a sincere effort to be unblocked by listing, point by point, that I understood why my previous request was denied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, one more thing. The idea that an editor or admin labels an edit as senseless out of preference is ridiculous. Suppose you thought that golf was senseless would you therefore label any edit to an article on that subject as senseless? Even if it were following every other guideline, etc? Keep your opinions to yourself or go back to the playground where that sort of argument has weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, golf is senseless. EEng (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Block requested for Bwmoll3

    (copied here from WT:CP) I've just listed Desperate Journey as a copyvio [at WP:CP]. The infringing content was added by Bwmoll3, a user who has a huge open CCI, and has another (sandbox) copyvio still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19. With regret, I request a block until we can determine with absolute certainty whether the behaviour that led to the CCI is continuing or not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please close and delete all my accounts. This source of relaxation has now become more trouble than pleasurable Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Justlettersandnumbers is absolutely correct to question the contribution of Bwmmoll3 at Desperate Journey, as the contributed text was taken from Turner Classic Movies, without even a cite. Despite being considered a form of relaxation by Bwmoll3, it shows a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's copyright obligations. Nothing about this kind of editing behavior can be relaxing for the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ram tx

    User:Ram tx, an obvious sock/meat account, is disrupting afds. [103] [104] [105] [106]. Ram tx is supposedly new here but is already using page curation [107], unreviewing [108] and refering to "Wikipedia policy" [109]. Ram tx is part of a larger promotional effort involving socking/meating and advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked one week for disruptive editing, which is long enough for the AFDs to complete. Either they have been here long enough to know not to remove AFD templates, or they haven't been here long enough to know everything else. Whether it is socking, a poorly executed WP:CLEANSTART, or an IP that just signed up, I have no idea, but that should be settled at WP:SPI. I can't fathom a situation where this individual didn't know this was intentionally disruptive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: Ram tx is a sock of Wordcrafters. There's no overlap in editing, however the sock account is editing the same articles as the master, therefore WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply. Unless Wordcrafters has a viable reason for editing via an undisclosed alternative account, they should both be blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone would please indef that sock. I took off to the beach for a few days with only a smartphone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    lose the smart phone too and enjoy the beach :) this crap will still be here when you get back, just saying, --Malerooster (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User Binksternet - proposal of ban of topic

    A while back, I made an edit to the Robert Palmer page and was immediately contacted by Binksternet about "perpetuating hoaxes" and "vandalism". After a few rounds with him, I was sent a message from 174.77.220.178 on my talk page. It is still there. Apparently, Binksternet believes that this person and I are one, and that "some group" in San Diego is specifically targeting him for these false statements he makes regarding Geradine Edwards. I made a comment on the TALK page of Robert Palmer quoting what 174 had sent me. I received this from Binksternet:[110] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=616487558

    If you go to Mark_Arsten's (now retired) page, you will see that he apparently made a decision against Binksternet, and when I pointed it out to him, he immediately deleted it from his talk page.
    Personally, I think this guy is crazier than cats in a box, and I would like to see him banned from the topic, as he is violating a whole bunch of rules, the first being "a personal interest". If you could look into it, I'd appreciate it. And I am not, nor have I ever been 174.77.220.178. Zabadu 15:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadu (talk · contribs), 15:02, 11 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Just to correct a misapprehension, I was recently in communication with Mark Arsten. He tells me he may make a few edits from time to time and doesn't consider himself retired, Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, zero evidence has been presented to justify so much as a block, let alone a topic ban...for Binksternet. You are perpetuating a hoax and should be WP:BOOMERANGed immediately. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto that sentiment. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is certainly a boomerang case, if ever there was one. Mark Arsten did not make "a decision against Binksternet", instead, he was intrigued with my analysis of the hoax pattern and he blocked IP 146.244.11.175 who later tried to erase my very damning analysis from Arsten's talk page archives,[111] following the same action from IP 174.77.220.178.[112] Both IPs are from San Diego, California, and both have interjected hoax material about somebody named Geraldine Edwards into articles and talk pages about Cameron Crowe, Robert Palmer, and Eric Clapton.[113][114][115][116][117][118] Another San Diego IP posted on Zabadu's talk page about Geraldine Edwards being the fiancee of Robert Palmer, being a friend of Crowe, and being a backstage groupie to Clapton. These IPs have also tried to chip away at the (well-cited) connection between Palmer and Mary Ambrose, his longtime girlfriend. The same IP said "Mary Ambrose was visiting San Francisco [and there] she met Binksternet",[119] in an attempt to portray me as involved. It's complete BS, all of it, supported by nothing that could possibly be interpreted as a reliable source. Whether or not Zabadu is the same San Diego person, I cannot stand for Zabadu continuing the hoax, let alone throwing insults at me. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just googled [geraldine edwards and robert palmer], and there are contemporary references at the time of his death (2003) to a Geraldine Edwards as his girlfriend or fiancée. I haven't checked the other stuff, but if this is a hoax then it's not a recent one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a link? From a quick look, all I can find is later reader's comments about Geraldine Edwards added to articles from that date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's all reader comments from obvious sockpuppet hoaxer accounts (who all claim to know Palmer personally...that must be why it's mysteriously not in any actual sources!) Someone's trying to seed the claim out there, but it's still not in any real sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying. These references to a Geraldine Edwards seem to start turning up around 2010 and 2011, not 2003 that I can see. At that time there seemed to be someone else that was a girlfriend, who got left out of his estate or something. Is there an authorized biography of Palmer floating around anywhere? If so, and this name doesn't turn up, then the only sources for this Edwards would seem to be rumors or personal recollections, which are insufficient (hoax or true) for inclusion in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, without reliable sources and given the assertions made, they are BLP violations. Binksternet was quite right to remove the material posted by Zabadu on Talk:Robert Palmer (singer). Note that this which remains on User talk:Zabadu is also a BLP violation in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the user talk page entry in your link is a BLP violation and the perpetuation of a hoax. I also agree with Roscelese that somebody, probably this person from San Diego, was seeding the hoax at various online discussion fora, using throwaway names and accounts. There's one the bottom of the MTV obituary from somebody named jo stansfield, posted in 2011. There was some heated discussion about Geraldine Edwards in April 2011 on sing365.com. There was a couple of posts naming Geraldine Edwards on phillipraulsphotolog.blogspot.com, but the posting dates are difficult for me to uncover. There are a bunch of throwaway accounts talking about Geraldine Edwards on contactmusic.com from late 2010 and early 2011. All of these share the rambling writing style of the San Diego IP editor, with 'facts' pulled out of thin air. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: "I think this guy is crazier than cats in a box" should lead to an immediate block for WP:NPA. Can anyone tell what the hell "a personal interest" is when it comes to "rules" that are supposedly being broken? the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang Looking at Zabadu's recent contributions, I am not seeing someone whose primary aim is to improve the project. The last time he made a single edit to the mainspace (not accounting for deleted contributions, which I can't see), was six months ago. Instead, he spends his time being a drama-monger. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Up with Geraldine Edwards and down with Mary Ambrose

    This collection of diffs from San Diego IPs and Zabadu makes me think that Zabadu unwittingly put his faith in some online discussions he saw, then incorrectly believed the San Diego IP posting later on his talk page. I don't think Zabadu is the same person as our San Diego friend, but he perpetuates the hoax, and makes other mistaken assumptions about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Rex kool - stupid welcome messages

    User blocked, and the welcomes replaced. Cookies to Solarra for cleaning up the welcomes. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone have a look at User:Rex kool please? He has "welcomed" loads of new users with a stupid childish version of the welcome template. Please check the links he has substituted. Contribs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rex_kool but they pretty much all seem to be the same thing. Thanks 77.96.249.228 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I wanted to leave a bit of a milder warning on his page, but it looks like someone decided to cut the crap and bring him here. Hope he cuts it out soon. Baconfry (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks FRF for blocking this user. Is there any way of mass-undoing his vandalism and giving his victims a real welcome? I would start doing it by hand but it's a bit daunting. Thanks 77.96.249.228 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them temporarily to prevent them from doing it again (so far I count about a hundred). In the "welcome" they are using there's a link that's supposed to go to the signature guidelines but it's been replaced with a link to this userpage. I might be wrong, but maybe they are they subst'ing something that was vandalized. Going back to July 9, this seems OK (ignoring the badly worded "welcome to the Wikipedia" part), yet the next one has the link to the blocked user. There's still quite a bit that will have to be reversed. I'm not sure yet they're doing this on purpose. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but with the greatest respect you are not right about the ones that "seem OK" - check all the links - it's not just whatsit's fanny, it's most of the links. It would be great if they'd somehow innocently used a vandalized template but I do not think that is what happened. Again, seriously, please check all the links. I see Floquenbeam has started reverting - thanks -[ not sure if it is manual or some process. Cheers 77.96.249.228 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes. Didn't see the other ones. We'll have to revert them all, and they're getting a proper block. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta! Much appreciated. 77.96.249.228 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged this userpage the template being used points to for CSD G3. The linked user is a blocked vandal-only account with a BLP violation username. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. When tagging something by an obvious vandal, you can dispense with the notifications :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that takes care of all of the users he vandalized, went and re-welcomed proper all the users that hadn't already been done. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant - thanks very much for all the work. 77.96.249.228 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Paul Singer (businessman)

    I would like an admin to get involved so we can discuss a pejorative being repeatedly added back to Paul Singer's BLP [124], [125] [126]. It seems other users and I are in discussion gridlock on the issue (on Singer's talk page and on the BLP noticeboard) and need outside input from an admin because a consensus has yet to be reached. User Joe Bodacious continues to add criticism of NML Capital, a hedge fund Singer heads, as a vulture fund. The term vulture fund is a pejorative, is derogatory, and is misleading, with these sources citing it as such Huffington Post, Oxford Reference, and The Law Dictionary. Even on vulture fund's own Wikipedia page, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." A criticism is an opinion, and clear POV. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts", as per WP:YESPOV. Wikipedia is not a venue for attacking a living person.

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

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

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

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

    Shouldn't this report be at, maybe it is already, the BLP board? --Malerooster (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, but a consensus was not met and I wanted to get an admin involved. Meatsgains (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But admins do not get involved in content ... the panda ₯’ 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you want them to do exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To give attention and advice to the issue at hand. Meatsgains (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue at hand has been extensively discused at Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)#.22Remove_POV_content_from_a_BLP.22.3F and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already included the link to Singer's talk page and the BLP noticeboard above in my original post. The issue has been extensively discussed but a consensus has not been met, hence why I'm seeking involvement from an admin. Meatsgains (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help if an uninvolved person formally closed those discussions and determined the level of consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Braveheart5050

    Hi

    Reporting this editor as they are editing against consensus.

    There is consensus at WP:EE that non-important family members are not mentioned in the infobox. The concensus is that they have to have shared a scene. This is to save the infobox becoming cluttered.

    On Mo Harris the editor keeps adding the name Joanne to the infobox. Despite this being against consensus. There is a discussion at user talk: AnemoneProjectors where both AP and myself have tried to explain the consensus. However I've been met with nothing other than attacks and threats of vandalism to my talk page unless I let the editor edit against consensus.

    I'm looking for some third party intervention please 5 albert square (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to have already been blocked for NPA the panda ₯’ 23:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for 48 hours. After that they will be back editing as before 5 albert square (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're supposed to punitively block for further time? WP:DR lays out the processes for situations like this - we're nowhere near ANI territory yet. RFPP, AIV (if the vandalism actually occurs)...all options. If it escalates, we'll be here the panda ₯’ 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Brusselsprouts146

    Could someone block Special:Contributions/Brusselsprouts146 please for their pointy and disruptive WP:NOTHERE editing and multiple 1RR violations at Operation Protective Edge, edits that mainly consist of adding Redirect|Genocide|the crime of|Genocide. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Blocked indef before I saw this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's time to address the problems caused by Nosepea68 (talk · contribs · count) at Anita Sarkeesian and the related Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. He makes no secret that he dislikes Sarkeesian[127] and has been engaging in serious WP:BLP violations at the articles and talk pages off and on for the last 10 months. Among his several disruptive behaviors is introducing unhelpful edits or outright defamatory material to the articles, and he has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He received several "last straw" warnings[128][129][130] about his behavior in March - after resuming his behavior immediately upon returning from a block - before disappearing. These extended breaks are the only reason he's avoided more serious sanctions for disrupting these highly sensitive articles. He returned tonight, making yet another edit that introduced unsourced, disparaging material about Sarkeesian, removed cited material, and made other unhelpful changes,[131] which he has proceeded to revert war over.[132] Enough is enough, administrator action is needed.--Cúchullain t/c 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The last time this editor was brought to ANI (by myself), he was blocked for 9 reverts to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games in 2 hours. Strangely enough, he accuses Sarkeesian of attention seeking and says "I have not made an article about her in wikipedia" even though he created the article. When editors work to keep BLP-infringing material out, they're "white knights". It seems like a mixture of WP:OWN and WP:TE. Woodroar (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban covering Sarkeesian and her work. His first article edit involved falsifying the name of a source, [133] and then some disruption. [134] This year, along with the most recent edits, we have this and this on a talk page. The editor needs to focus on something else. --NeilN talk to me 05:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban per NeilN and the diffs provided above. If user violates, admins can administer appropriate action. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban, per Cúchullain, NeilN and Woodroar. Single purpose account, not here to contribute constructively. Jarkeld (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalised user page | Request for a temporary block

    Simple misunderstandings. Nothing more to do here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Morayman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised the user page of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com with this edit. Unacceptable. Looking on Moraymans talk page the user has done a bit of edits but obviously has not spent time to read WP links and rules for edits, contributions etc. or has not the intention to follow these but the links are to be found on his talk page. A temporary block would give the user the time to read these links and/or learn how to edit wikipedia, especially that there are nearly no reasons to edit another user's page. VINCENZO1492 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A single inappropriate edit that just blanked a bit of a message on a user page and you want the user blocked?! Nobody is going to block for that, unless it's part of a history of inappropriate edits. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I see you did not notify Morayman on their user page as you are required to - perhaps *you* should be blocked until you read and understand the rules? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've reported to AIV as well, FFS?! — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Oh really? It wasn't a user's talk page. And I thought a user page is a user's page and not for other users. Yes I would expect a block. Its a basic to have hands off that, or?
    (2) Your wrong, I did. Not on the user page but on the talk page.
    (3) What is FFS? VINCENZO1492 09:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Item (3) would be "For Freak's Sake" or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Errm, thus I can count that as a WP:PA by Alan / Boing! said Zebedee, who wants me to be blocked as I report vandalism and asking for a reaction? VINCENZO1492 10:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an interjection, not a personal attack. And I think you're overreacting to an edit that wasn't even on your own user page. Do you find any other apparent vandalisms from that user, or is this an isolated incident? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - got it. Interesting that you think I am overreacting. First of all: I am acting - not reacting. And I am acting because regular interacting in WP with users that are using inappropriate ways of behaviour like in this case Boing! said Zebedee (who's a former admin that is overreacting IMO) makes it more than important that user have their own user's page respected as their digital castle in WP (from my home is my castle, y'all know). And I think every user in WP can expect this (User:Boing! would have added a FFS in this sentence to emphasise what he wants to express). And I think that every user is committed (particularly in his own personal interest) to react immediately when it comes to its attention that another user's page is not respected (i.e. vandalised). VINCENZO1492 10:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vincenzo1492: I suggest that you stop digging. If you continue to lash out at users, someone is eventually going to say that you're being disruptive. From what I can see, User:Morayman is not a serial vandal, and his edit may have been an accident. It's way too premature to seek sanctions against him. However, I have left Morayman a message on his talk page which asks him to stop massively bloating cast lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Vincenzo, when WP:CONSENSUS says you're over-reacting, you likely are :-) . When you forced someone to say "FFS" in exasperation, you're likely over-reacting :-) . A single, lone incident of possible vandalism does NOT require either a) a post to WP:AIV, or b) a post to WP:ANI (or both). Indeed, AIV won't touch it unless it's either extremely severe, OR if it has happened multiple times in succession. Although we appreciate you paying close attention, until the matter becomes significant, your best bet is just that: pay close attention. When it then reaches the common sense threshold for reporting, then we'll appreciate it when you report it to the right place. Again, thanks for keeping an eye on things, and let me know if you have questions on how to proceed in the future the panda ₯’ 11:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing this right now!

    • A user made a mistake that looked like vandalism.
    • Another user did the right thing, and reported it.
    • A tiny wee thing escalated into some minor WP:DONOTREDUCEDRAMAGOD. In Australia this kind of thing is called "playing for sheep stations instead of dilligaf."
    • "FFS" means "for fuck's sake". Please proceed in an orderly fashion to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language if you wish to discuss the nuances of cuss words in English and other languages.
    • We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Samsamcat

    The user is adding non-free content to his user page, despite previously being instructed not to do this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#User:Samsamcat. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of speedy deletion tag

    User:PrinceSulaiman marked Reckitt and Sons as reviewed and added an unreliable source tag [135] I remove the tag, leaving a message on the talk page to show that the source has been used by multiple academic sources.

    About 1hr later the same editor returned, now adding a speedy deleltion label. [136]

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

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

    Prof.Haddock, I was never abusing using the speedy deletion tag, As the article you created at Reckitt and Sons didn't provide any reliable source neither the company is significant, I strongly encourage you to create a draft article using the Article Wizard and then submit for the approval to get it published, If not then the users will challenge for speedy deletion as well your article has successfully met the speedy deletion criteria. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the talk page ? - I explained about the source. The company is obviously significant - as anyone could find out by reading the article -you can see a short list of obvious reasons for notability given at Talk:Reckitt and Sons Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the speedy tag and left a note on talk page. @PrinceSulaiman: consider bringing it to AfD if you still want deletion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong is at it again.

    It looks like this editor is up to his old tricks -- getting people banned, accusing other editors of "sockpuppetry" and driving new editors off the site. A quick look at his contribution log will show edit warring with IPs and the like. Pican33 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=616663736"