Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdann52 (talk | contribs) at 06:17, 14 July 2014 (close). 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

    As already established, David Horvitz has been indefinitely site banned from Wikipedia. The rest of the discussion is decending into unconstructive, so no point leaving this open. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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?

    • Support ban. This guy is an outstanding example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He has been socking for years now, with no indication of quitting. Let's get the proper leverage to rush his stuff out the door immediately in the future. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban per Binksternet talk→ WPPilot  20:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. I agree with the two prior users on this question. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Using Wikipedia for pranks or promotion is unhelpful, and it is obvious the user will never voluntarily stop—if they got one selfie on every article, they would then want two. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban as per proposer. Disruptive and narcissistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Has anyone ever been banned from Commons? It's a real question, even although I think I know the answer. I think that Commons is a cesspool, but that is my opinion, and the WMF's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. BMK (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, definitely. A user named Xanderliptak comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That was the name I couldn't come up with!! But I've heard of others as well. One was mentioned recently on AN or AN/I, where it was commented that they were banned for X behavior on Commons and now the editor was doing the same thing here. Can;t remember that name either. BMK (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Has he not figured out Flickr yet ... or even The Yellow Pages ? ... Anyway there's only so much rope one can offer till it runs out!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Ryūlóng and Binksternet. Long term misuse of the project for self promotion and some sort of personal project using Wikipedia as performance art through years of socking.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban Horvitz is not here to improve this encyclopedia, but rather to promote his self-absorbed absurdist art project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I thought this was already done with, long ago. Close the book on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The pictures should be the stars alone on Wikipedia, not be some artist's bizarre opportunity to insert themselves to make unneeded social commentary. Nate • (chatter) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, though only because of the crap images and promotional intent. There were a number of decent images that just happened to have the same person in there. Such an insertion could absolutely be useful to give a sense of scale in landscape photos (and these seem to be the photos that were the focus of the "art project" linked above). In other words, I do not consider landscape images featuring a person standing in them to be disruptive per se, and I would oppose the adoption of a rule of that character. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose reluctant to disagree with esteemed worthies above, but until there is demonstrable (or should I say demonstrated) disruption, I see no reason to ban. The guy is interested in California beaches, we need articles on them which he is prepared to start. Win-win. If we don't like his photo's we can crop or replace. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
      He's not interested in California beaches. He's interested in Web 2.0 and disrupting Wikipedia by having his posterior side on as many pages as possible, or his face in his hands on several articles on depression.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, agressive promoting of own pictures is a big problem on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban - He's obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and we can do without the disruption.- MrX 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban - I found a couple more of his photos just now and started DNs. This user (group of socks on hand of one user) is not here to contribute, but to disrupt and use for self-promotional purposes. I will look at every beach photo from now on for his bum. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support though it will probably have the same effect as banning Putin from your restaurant - in other words, none. Someone who is socking like he is seems unlikely to stop when we throw a ban at them. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, but there's a greater chance of Mr. Horvitz uploading his photos for use on Wikipedia, again, than Putin going to Buffalo and buying a taco.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wry amusement. Great discussion. You made me smile.--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, this user is claiming to be Mr. Horvitz in his recent edits. It is clear that he's just here to gloat and he has more accounts than previously accounted for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The User:Nowa account has been in use for a while now.[1] User_talk:Nowa#Personal_information.3F: in that conversation the user claims that his true ID had already been made public. talk→ WPPilot  08:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Then what's with this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, in that is a admission of his/that users ID. talk→ WPPilot  18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't get it. Is Nowa or is Nowa not another account operated by the photographer David Horvitz?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just another component of his manipulation of Wikipedia. It is safe to accept the admission of Nowa=David Horvitz taking into consideration now the number of admissions, as well as the users history editing the David Horvitz page. talk→ WPPilot  21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nowa is a longstanding Wikipedia contributor, a patent holder and patent attorney who happens to hold the same name as the bothersome photographer. Don't ban Nowa! We don't need collateral damage against good editors. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If he was a good editor he wouldn't be trolling this thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Does it occur to you that what you call "trolling this thread" might be a form of commentary, and maybe the only form of commentary appropriate to the tenor of this thread?--Theredproject (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If he has nothing other than amusement to be had at the discussion at hand then it's not really appropriate behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Rich Farmbrough and per some of the photographs which are absolutely stunning. Caden cool 18:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      They really weren't. Really. None of them were candidates for featured, or even quality pictures. At 100% they all had awful quality problems (typically bad exposure, terrible edge sharpness and chromatic aberrations, indicative of using a kit lens to shoot landscapes, which should be sharp from end-to-end). While I thought some might be retainable, they were almost all duplicative of higher quality work we had elsewhere on Commons. It's essentially the same rationale as COM:PENIS: unless there's some overriding reason, we don't need yet another picture of some random guy's genitals, or some random guy's vacation picture of something we already have plenty of. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And nearly all of the photos are unusable if they are cropped because he places himself in the middle of all of the landscapes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if “stunning” is the right word but some images are museum quality. See Mood Disorder which is currently under consideration for undeletion so it can be included in his bio.--Nowa (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's only under undeletion because you requested it and it's only in a museum because of the disruption of Wikipedia. So are you or are you not Mr. Horvitz who is going to be subject to this ban?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      This is fascinating. If I say nothing, would you ban me?--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's up to the community. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, then I think I'll just wait and see what the community decides.--Nowa (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Bans are applied to people behind accounts, not individual accounts, so whether or not you are the photographer named David Horvitz will have no impact on the result of this discussion to ban him from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with User:Ryulong, User:Nowa is just trolling this thread. If he's just going to continue to make unhelpful comments, that makes him WP:NOTHERE in my book. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support for ban - I was on the fence about this, the "disruption" seemed minimal to me, but based on his behavior in this thread (there's little doubt that Nowa is Horvitz), it's clear that this person's entire purpose is to troll and disrupt Wikipedia for the fun of it - so let's please ban him so getting rid of his "contributions" will be that much easier. BMK (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    • All that being said, it was still dumb to come here and start making comments which might lead others to think that they were the subject of the ban debate. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indefinite Ban This user has repeatedly violated WP:SOCK to push an agenda, evade blocks, and otherwise act in bad faith. Not even counting the commons mischief, that is more than enough for a ban. Put this user in the same category as other notorious socks and close the book as others have said above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ban – I actually admire his ability to turn Wikipedia into an art form. I wish he could do the same thing for patents.--Nowa (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't mean he's allowed to disrupt the website, and others, for the sake of art.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ban: Horvitz is an esteemed and, in my opinion, wonderfully inventive artist who is enriching the Commons by using Wikipedia as a medium for his work, which in turn provokes discussions within and beyond the community of users about the regulation of expression and the circulation of information. Horvitz's work provides great pleasure and gratification to numerous people. The artist also focuses attention on the procedures that govern Wikipedia, on the social mechanisms that enable this site to function (however imperfect); his method of doing so may seem flippant at first glance, but there is more to his photographs than what is actually pictured, i.e. the photographs are a means to an end, a reflection of the Commons. --User:aprovan (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So basically WP:ILIKEIT? Come on. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Aprovan has not edited since April 2007. Perhaps an actual sleeper account. Also, his nature as an artist has no bearing on whether or not we at the English Wikipedia want to keep him around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Aprovan outed himself in his very first edit, announcing he was Anthony Provan, the author of a blog. Aprovan is not David Horvitz. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Wikipedia is not the place for narcissistic self-promotion. Or disruptive sockpuppetry for that matter. Resolute 13:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - his disruptive sock puppetry and self-promotion demonstrates that the community cannot waste anymore time on this individual. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indefinite Ban: David Horvitz is only here to self-promote and advertise, violates WP:SOCK and WP:POINT, and most of the images are no better than what we already have, per COM:PENIS. Indef ban him, indef block his socks, and delete any pictures that can be replaced. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Using sockpuppetry to disrupt the project is unacceptable. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:33, 9 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]
    His alleged "notability" there consists primarily of how he has spammed Wikipedia. Talk about "navel gazing". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 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]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]

    • Support, I tried to work with to three requested moves and Antidiskriminator's "stonewalling" wasted a lot of time and energy in the moves, repeating things which weren't accurate or had be refuted, and it spread to other pages like user talk and move review. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 09:29, 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, it has taken me hours to read the history of Pavle Đurišić and other pages, but that is the problem: The tendentious editing of Antidiskriminator, and always arguing over any little detail for POV. I am not sure about how long the ban should be. I don't think I'm involved, at worst I did give a WP:3O on a different Serbia page, years ago. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:44, 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]
    • Oppose - I disagree with the tendentious editing accusation being levelled at Antidiskriminator. I don't see much wrong with his controbutions overall. Or I should say I don't see anything more wrong with them than with the contributions of the involved editors preparing the groundwork for his ban here. He's clearly got an inherent bias when it comes to Balkan history, as do many of the editors going after him here. Skullduggery and douchery, whether active or passive, that stem from those opposing views and biases have long been the editing norm on those articles and this proposal is basically just another battlefield of a fued that's long crossed over into personal territory.Zvonko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I pretty much expected you to say something like this after how you behaved at Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo - a lot of general claims that just don't hold up to scrutiny. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Antidiskriminator's comment here is the same old misrepresentation. No, Joy isn't the only person to have issues with Antidiskriminator's editing; many editors in the Balkans have. (All of whom are "involved", by Antidiskriminator's definition). It's not just over one article either, but swathes of articles; misrepresenting sources, cherrypicking, and systematically reverting other peoples' work - regardless of how well it's sourced - if it doesn't fit a radical Serb nationalist POV. Strangely, Antidiskriminator's "vacation" means that he can't explain those problems here, but he still has free time to edit-war over POV-forks like this (He originally wrote it as "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", and still talks at length about pogroms, even though it wasn't a pogrom). Some articles have included hoaxes like Serbia's NUTS regions for years - it doesn't matter whether or not these are actual NUTS regions (they aren't); as long as Antidiskriminator is editing, it stays in wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told, reverting those anonymous blankings, which are probably work of some long-time abuser evading a block, was the correct immediate course of action on the face of it. This is why this is not a simple complaint. Perhaps you can invest some time to explain why that "Demonisation of the Serbs" draft is a bad idea - since on the face of it, it looks like a well-referenced article in the making... it's not necessarily immediately obvious in what way it is tendentious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: given you proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted the 2012 ARBMAC topic ban on Antidiskriminator, and he has demonstrably engaged in "further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks", I would like your views on the above proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 14 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]
    In the past, I've been able to dissuade such behaviour by getting the main articles semi-protected. Good luck. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 12 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 have no idea how people can write pages about what people intend to do with the article after adding or changing maybe a sentence." Very keen assessment, Ricky. We've spoken about what to do with the comments a little on my talk and I think it would be good to repeat it here, for I think it suffices as a statement:
    "Those discussions were not done at the time, Festal merely refused to comment on them, explicitly saying that he was ignoring several of us. They still aren't done really (though the new page makes many of them moot points), but I've given up hope of Festal ever responding to them. Several of those comments, however, are still quite relevant to the state of the article.
    I agree, the length is imposing and uneccessary, but since Festal wasn't responding to the issues at hand (and since, when he did respond at all, it was usually a page-long, single-paragraph, semicoherent screed, and it sometimes wasn't even very related to what was being discussed), the conversation went every which way and people restated them elsewhere and in different ways. I'm not sure that there is really any way to determine which parts are still relevant and which aren't." Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violation on IPT

    See the following diffs [12] [13]. 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: [14]. 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:[15] [16]. 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: [17] under the heading "Unusual arrangement". The following links also validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [18] [19], and also in the closing credits/disclaimer in the article at the self-published IPT.org website [20]. 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: [21] 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. [22] [23] 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. [24] 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. [25] 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]

    Have you ever paused long enough to read your incoherent slop before you hit the send key? You really need to stop launching personal attacks against me, and focus on your own policy violations. You have added nothing to enhance either the IPT article or Emerson article. All you're doing is pushing your own POV which is nothing more than consistent criticism, and attempts to discredit others, whether it's in an article, on a Talk page, or about another editor. Your behavior is worse than disruptive. There is no need for you to make further comments to me/about me at the ANI. I have articles that need editing, and will leave this debate in the hands of the appropriate editors/admins. Atsme☯Consult 20:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    Propose a Topic Ban on Atsme

    Unfortunately it seems issue has to be pressed. I'm not sure what wrong you'll find that I've done. I'm not going to say I've done no wrong. It's certainly possible that I have. If y'all don't tell me I certainly can't do anything to change it. With regards to me y'all do what y'all think is appropriate.

    With that said there's plenty of evidence to show bad faith on Atsme's part. I have to propose a topic ban for any articles related to Islamophobia, even in the remotest way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:01, 13 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: [26].

    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]

    Vzaak I am happy to semiprotect or PC popular ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish

    Per consensus below, SMcCandlish is indefinitely banned from moving any page, with a review after 6 months if requested. There is no consensus for a indef block at this stage. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]

    • Is it even possible to revoke the ability to move pages without blocking someone? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe it's possible technically, but that doesn't mean a Move Ban can't be instituted, it's been done before. BMK (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)As far as I can tell, no. Unless you can remove someone's autoconfirmed bit. Which would be kind of cool. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason to take any action. He gave an acceptable reason to move and it doesn't seem he expected any controversy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Struck as I was thinking this was about a different set of moves)Seems like reasonable moves based on existing guidelines and policies. There was recently a large RFC that reinforced MOSCAPS over a very similar issue and these moves seem quite in line with the results of that discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:43, 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.[27]  — 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]
    Which is a strong indication that the answer was corect, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 13 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]
    • For I believe the fifth time, these were not the same type of move. The previously disputed moves were about capitalization, a MOS:CAP matter. These moves were about improper disambiguation, a WP:AT matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:13, 13 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]
    • I agree with editors above - there was a bunch of controversial pagemoves - and not even a note at the Wikiproject page. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 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 [[28]]. 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]
    • Comment, I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the above, but two editors have offered a "negotiated close" on SMcCandlish's talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 21:37, 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]
        • The comment by Justlettersandnumbers at 21:11, 10 July 2014 mentions "I'm suggesting an indefinite block" (after a well-reasoned statement with the suggestion of a wikibreak), however the proposal is for an indefinite page move ban which I think you started at 20:06, 10 July 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not the first time; see diff below. It's part of a long series of attacks against me personally and against MOS/AT regulars in general.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any chance of some self-reflection? Are all the editors recommending a move ban just misguided? On reflection, aren't comments like "I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL" (diff) likely to damage the community? Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was especially concerned by User:leak's unsubstantiated comment. Perhaps this user should provide evidence, withdraw the allegation that we have "lost several editors as a result", or face a sanction of some sort. We don't work like this. --John (talk) 09:15, 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]
    Note that this is Jimfbleak being warned against accusations and other attacks, and repeating the attack in the course of refusing to abide by the warning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this reason for leaving Wikipedia was suppressed by John, who unaccountably can't find any evidence that people have been leaving because of McCandlish... not suprised when he's hiding it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 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]
    It's not a threat, it's a WP:ARBATC warning. ARBCOM has already decided (mulitiple times) that such warnings cannot be undone, since rationally speaking no one can be "unwarned" of something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Smeat75 the issue has been a long-running capitalisation on bird name debate which flared up this year and culminated in a vote here. Scroll down to the "oppose" comments and note how many demands/replies/comments each attracted. Also see Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#So_long.2C_and_thanks_for_all_the_fish and Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#I.27m_out. I can't understand why John says he can't see anything here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @John: This is patent witch-hunt. The "lost several editors as a result" nonsense is an attempt to blame me individually, personally and solely for a couple of editors (User:Sabine's Sunbird and User:NatureGuy1980) from WP:BIRDS loudly declaring an intention to resign as a result of the decapitalization of bird species common names RfC. That RfC was begun by a pro-capitalization admin, and closed (against capitalization) by a pro-capitalization admin. The RfC came about because of RM to de-capitalize bird common names in article titles, an RM in which I did not participate at all, followed by a MR challenging it, in which I was only a late-coming minor commenter. I did participate heavily in the RfC, because this issue had dragged on and on and on for approximately 9 years. So, Jimfbleak's claim is a patently false personal attack, which violates the discretionary sanctions covering MOS/AT disputes. That editor in particular is frequent personal critic of me in particular, and of MOS and its regular editors in general; his statement is essentially wikipolitical activism, and does not address this actually ANI case's facts in any way. Several other respondents here some coming with similar exaggerated claims, false assumption, and accusations of bad faith (User:Montanabw in particular; see his overreactive and exceedingly hostile WP:OWN-laden messages on my talk page last month and last year). The cascade of pro-sanctioning !votes (few of them by admins) includes many editors from wikiprojects that routinely conflict with MOS; they're being led here to dog-pile me. Their posts here are not responsive to the alleged issues raised by the moved-related facts at issue in this discussion, they're "damn we hate MOS and that SMcCandlish guy" demonizing, dragging into this every thing they can think of that vaguely irritated them about me and MOS, ever. I was gone for almost a year, and essentially nothing of note related to any of the disputes mentioned here changed at MOS or with regard to how it's applied. I'm simply being scapegoated now, as I was a year ago when I decided to take a long break, to demonstrate that I'm not some kind of MOS conspiratorial overlord. I have in fact demonstrated that. MOS is written by the editor pool in the community who care to write it; period. I'm happy to consider some kind of negotiated compromise, but it can't have any of this sort of pitchforks and torches stuff in it. Stick to the actual facts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you any proof, such as diffs, to support your serious allegation that people are "being led" here? I suggest that your response here, as well as your response at your user talk page where you agree to a negotiated close... but only if what you agree to has no enforcement mechanism... is evidence that there is indeed a problem with your behavior. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. here is Montanabw from the horse project canvassing the birds project, which he knows is stocked to the ceiling with people who scapegoat me personally for the bird common names decapitalization. That took THIRTY SECONDS to find. Haven't looked further because I'm already running late for meatspace things I have to attend to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called "notification" not canvassing. 'Nuff said. Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support page move ban. Unfortunately this has stepped over into disruptive territory now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support page move ban. Dotting is and crossing ts is lovely - until it becomes an obsession that hurts. If we ever lose a good, expert editor, and their potential contributions because of an arcane clerical argument then the world is mad. This happens far too much here. The world doesn't care how Yoghurt is spelled - it cares whether the article it gets from its Google search is good. This kind of crap is so damaging - and the sad thing is that those causing it genuinely believe they do what they do to improve this place. We need to stop this happening. Begoon talk 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a page move ban, unfortunately. User cannot currently be trusted with this. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite page move ban. In Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves many editors were alarmed about the mass-moves of animal articles, including articles. And Candish says "No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles,"??? Are you kidding me? And don't you remember the discussions about domestic breeds in WT:MOS. This is total blindness to the objections of other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • SMcCandlish discussed dog breeds in a March/April discussion, and I had a discussion with him about dog/goat/sheep breeds back in April. Dog and cat breeds were discussed in WT:MOS Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_127 back in February 2012 while discussing bird capitalization, discussions where SMcCandlish participated actively and talked about dog capitalization. How could he consider uncontroversial to alter the capitalization of all those breed articles, even it was not a full decapitalization. And without warning anyone about his intentions, or discussing the general concept. Now he's moved ~150 sheep articles without any warning or communication with the wikiprojects listed on their talk pages? Didn't he think that all those editors could get a bit upset? Didn't he learn any lesson from the fights with the bird wikiproject? How can I trust him with the ability to make massive page moves, after this sort of things? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's blatant personal attack and bad-faith accusation by Jimfbleak, an exercise is sheer character assassination, made in a talk page populated by plenty of admins, zero of whom ever, ever do anything to rein this sort of thing at that page, which is a quite common occurrence (and most frequently at my expense personally). It's as if all civility, collegiality and other behavioral rules are suspended at WT:BIRDS, as long as it's MOS/AT regulars who are being savaged. Yet we're supposed to take Jimfbleak's !vote here at face value, and all of the "me too" pile-ons that agree with it? Note that this was not some momentary lapse of reason; Jimflbleak massaged this post of his 6 times or so, over the course of more than an hours, and had more than enough opportunity to retract or even moderate it.

      Here's an example of the sort of irrational, anti-MOS hate-and-conspiracy mongering regularly going on without any repercussions for anyone but those being attacked: " I think some of the most zealous style-over-substance supporters may well be long-term detractors of Wikipedia whose main aim is perhaps to destroy the long-term editor-base.". I couldn't make this stuff up. There's a lot more of this stuff, and it has been going on for over two years; this is just what I can copy paste in a couple of minutes befoe I have to get on the road.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update, as I stated below, in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar ☥ 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support page move ban (If I'm voting twice, strike whatever I favored before and keep this vote) Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 13 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]

    • Comment: While this proposal reflects the patience and respect that the best wikipedia editors exhibit, I think it would be impossible to enforce: SMC does whatever he wants no matter who expresses opposition and a move ban would allow him to actually contribute to articles instead of making mass changes. I do think that he needs to be restricted to ONE comment at RfC and RM as well, though; that's a solid idea. If he does acknowledge the above and say he will voluntarily comply, I will be shocked, but anything's possible. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. A move ban is enough. If he violates it or engages in disruption not covered by the move ban, we can talk then. This subthread is frankly the equivalent of spiking the ball. It's ill-considered and unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll consider a negotiated close, of course But the above one-side list is farcical. A move ban is not justifiable under any policy-based rationale, and Justlettersandnumbers and co. are going to have to compromise as well; their demands are self-righteous, CYA, vindictive, and proceed from numerous false bases, and don't even stick to the topic at hand. For starters, the first two of the above bullet points would have to be mutual, and Justlettersandnumbers and various other frequently MOS-conflicting parties here could already have been sanctioned under the MOS/AT discretionary sanctions for their firehose of bad-faith assumptions and personal attacks against me as it is (not just on this page). The third point is absurd. So is the fourth, and has jack to do with page moves. Stop trying to shoe-horn in a laundry list of "censor and impede the editing of that SMcCandlish guy as much as possible" nonsense. You don't seem me actually insisting any longer that you be boomerang sanctioned much less AE discretionary-sanctioned on top of that. I've never taken any of these or similar parties to AE, no matter how nasty and accusatory their commentary gets. That's called taking deep breath and a step toward the collegiality you say you want, while in the same breath you're going on a ridiculously extreme offensive. PS: I'm extremely busy right now; first time I've logged in in days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef block, massive over-reaction. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef block, obviously - "attempting to spike the ball" was a good description of this. For shame. Begoon talk 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar ☥ 20:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef block but strongly support page move ban, and still think a restriction on number of comments should be considered. SMC really doesn't get it. Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The user in question appears to be headed down the same road as Betacommand. The difference, and the sad part, is that Betacommand was warring over something that matters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef block. I'm not sure that this isn't a bit of a red herring at this stage, the move sanction should be sufficient if SMC is prepared to accept it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]
    This IP's actions on the talk page indicates all of the aforementioned three. I have repeatedly told the IP that it was nothing but fancruft and undue, but he/she took it as otherwise. I have identified the IP of having a conflict of interest against McCarthy and her anti-vaccination protest against vaccines causing autism. So absolutely, they may want to reconsider their actions or face a block for edit warring. IPadPerson (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I take issue on a technicality: Posting material that implies the subject is responsible for 1,000 deaths doesn't seem like something a fan of the subject would do, so Wikipedia:Fancruft isn't really the right term. But there's no question it's a BLP violation and can't be allowed. The IP has been silent today, so maybe this will go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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 would like more opinions, but this looks like textbook WP:DE and a slight lack of clue, to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. If I weren't directly involved I would have blocked the IP. And probably reverted most of their posts to Template talk: Islam which have made a mess of the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 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]


    The IP continues to spam Template Talk:Islam, and has accused me of insulting him by calling one of his statements bollocks despite [apparently knowing how to use the term himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There seem to be some very serious issues regarding whether this individual is competent to edit in English, or apparently to understand our principle of NPOV. And unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much to lead me to think any amount of tutoring or other help is likely to improve things. Maybe we just wish him luck before sending him off? John Carter (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that even if he was fluent in English, the only difference would be that he couldn't use that as an excuse for the rest of his behavior. If you mean a good bye block, I'm for it. That'd make five calls for a block (including the IP himself), none opposed, two calls completely uninvolved. Seems like consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Latests post by the IP are in fluent English, indicating that the prior bad English was just an act. He is also accusing me of addressing him with particular racial Turkish racial slurs I wasn't even aware of until he used them. He is a troll, plain and simple, will someone please block him? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block, which seems to be unopposed, even by the troll himself. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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.[29] 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.[30] Something he regarded as "lies".[31] 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]

    @Panyd:, No, sorry. You might not be intending to, but with this ANI action you're coming across as having some issue with Walter personally. The time for this ANI would have been DURING the behaviour, not status post. He might have been edit warring but nothing now rises to the ANI level. And as @DangerousPanda: correctly points out, behaviour is the purview of RfC/U. And I agree with @Sven Manguard:, Walter does stop edit warring and there is hope he will find more contructive ways to cope. This is an editor who has shown patience, who does work to protect the project, as you yourself pointed out in describing his edits. He's not a hooligan looking to make trouble under the radar, and we've all had to deal with those types. So we all well know the difference. He's making a positive contribution. He's created articles and has shown by his efforts that he's a valuable editor here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:48, 12 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]

    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 [32], [33] [34]. 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]
    This request is out of order in that it alleges BLP violation while admitting that the BLP issue has not been closed to consensus to start with. It is difficult to imagine that an editor holding a position which cannot be quickly dismissed by a consensus of BLPN could be violating policy badly enough to require any sanction whatsoever. And I think Wikipedia should be sympathetic to any editor who provides references to multiple well regarded sources. WP:BRD is not policy. If it were, an edit is not "bold" simply because you disagree with it. BRD is worse than useless if it is a license for any editor to lock down an article against any addition so long as he continues to argue. The one valid point the OP has is the one he didn't make - I think we should not say "is regarded as a vulture fund", but "was described in media reports as[x][y][z]" in order to keep a certain narrative distance. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Once a claim has been made (and obviously it has been made) that the term is derogatory, an admin should enforce the content staying out until a consensus to include is formed. That is the backbone of BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite where in the policy it says that? Because the thing about consensus that everyone knows is that there is no consensus a lot of the time. You'd be allowing any editor to cover up anything that sounds derogatory. But Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the actual sources' coverage, not revise it and cover things up. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I could, but you obviously know where this is. I should have said that there is consensus for the well sourced derogatory content to be restored. If it's this much of an issue, remove the material and start an RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several problems with this request. Is it not considered a common courtesy that when forum shopping, you inform the participants at the previous forums that you are going elsewhere? Also, this is hardly a BLP issue unless you subscribe to the view that "corporations are people." But even if it were, the relevant policy would be WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which has been pointed out half a dozen times to Meatsgains and ignored by him every time. "Vulture fund" is almost universally used by reliable sources to describe NML Capital, and as the Argentina crisis continues, the number of such references is increasing almost daily. Finally, I'd like to remind Meatsgains of what it says at WP:CONSENSUS, that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    One bone of contention with your analysis, is that the article is about a person, so BLP does apply. If we said that Heidi Fliess ran a whorehouse instead of a bordello, that would be a BLP issue.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:11, 14 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]
    AIV referred me here. No problem I'll lock the page myself if it carries on 5 albert square (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Nosepea68 and disruptive editing at Anita Sarkeesian-related topics

    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[35] 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[36][37][38] 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,[39] which he has proceeded to revert war over.[40] 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, [41] and then some disruption. [42] 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]
    • I support a ban. It needs to include the talk pages, where a lot of his disruption takes place in the form of TPG and NOTAFORUM guidelines and unsourced disparaging comments about the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This would have the effect of excluding the user from any activity on Wikipedia, Nosepea68 restricting his or her own edits to those introducing assessments critical of Sarkeesian and her video series. Personally, I would welcome the inclusion of well-sourced negative assessments of either subject if such existed. Over and over again, this user (like other SPAs and IPs apparently dedicated to discrediting Sarkeesian and her work) continued to insert unconstructive material and in this last case, introduced original synthesis from a source already applied to the page. By itself, not particularly noteworthy; in the context of the user's previous edits and the lengthy talk page discussions surrounding those edits, the last straw. User has demonstrated he or she is here for a reason unrelated to building an accurate online encyclopedia. Instead the user seems to be here to disparage the subjects. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing some of the user's past edits, I've blocked them for a week for various BLP/other/personal attack/other various edits. This should not be taken as action intended to make this discussion moot, just that I believe the users actions justify an independent week long siteblock Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Woodroar's comment below, I have significantly increased how long I've blocked Nosepea for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given Nosepea's further comments after additional warnings, I have revoked their talkpage access. I'll reconsider the length of the block once this section is closed, or they can of course appeal through WP:UTRS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While blocked, Nosepea68 is continuing with his attacks against other editors and the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am someone who has been critical of Anita Sarkeesian in the past, and that's in spite of agreeing with her basic thesis that sexism in the gaming community is a problem. However, my serious misgivings about Sarkeesian and her methods would never justify infringement of BLP by giving articles pertaining to Feminist Frequency a blatantly negative bias. That's why we have BLP in the first place — everyone deserves be treated with basic human decency, regardless of their beliefs or past actions. Nosepea68 has failed to take this into consideration in his contributions to these articles, and failed to reflect on his approach after being cautioned about it numerous times. I have to support a topic ban in this case. Kurtis (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the block on User:Nosepea68 to indefinite due to their continued disruption and violations of the WP:BLP policy. User can request unblocking with promise to stay away from this particular subject, but since this is virtually the only subject they edit, looks to be a WP:SPA account created specifically to attack Sarkeesian. [43] Naturally, I'll change if the community thinks otherwise. Admins feel free to undo as needed in case I'm not around. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    • Stop vandalizing my page. This is why I respond this way to you people. Ie. Weirth (Betacommander).... If you just stay on your side of the fence I wouldn't have to come over.... I only respond when you guys delete perfectly legal photos that I have rights to. I have provided communication between the Sheldon Chumir foundation affirming premission to use the files. And in my user page I use it for personal archives so I can remember what I worked on so I don't have to duplicate the information by inavertably cloning it. See there are thousands of infibytes of infromation on here how in the hell am I supposed to remember what I wrote years or months ago?
    • Update: this problem has been resolved. I just posted a "non image" as Resolute (likely a sockpuppet alias of Werith, Stefan2,Black Kite) instructed me to. Now watch as further harassment ensues! Oh guess what you sock puppet..... It's all logged now, all the LEGAL and bonified wikirules have been followed. Should you continue to harass me over trivial things... I will start a formal complaint here. This Wikiotter has rabies now.... Thanks to you... You bite. I bite back! Now we can do this the civilized way or we can do this the hard way. You continue to enforce your wikipolicing rules on wiki-law abiding civilians like me, and lose yet ANOTHER year of being banned on wikipedia Weirth-Stefan2-REsolute-Betacommander-Blackkite... It's your choice. You break wikilaws you get banned. It's as simple as that. Since I broken no laws, as I had proper authority (it's documented with an email correspondence, attached to the orginal Sheldon Chumir). I can only assume that you're just trolling and the weakened adminstration of Wikipedia (honest editors, are being beleaguered by trying to track your many Alias down Weirth. That they are ineffective similar to a the government of a 3rd world country. It's fools like you that are causing honest hard working Wikipedia journalists to flee. You and others like you WSBR (Werith-Stephan2 Blackkite, all multiple personalities) willfully break rules, enforcing other rules that the Wikipedia code of ethics speicificaly tell you not to do. Such as biting new comers, but ever worse you arbitraily create new rules that no one here consents to. Now that I have done as you said, can you please just go away? I'm saying this in a non swearing civilized manner.As well you really should seek help for your multiple personalities Werith.
    Please note that I have warned Samsamcat for continued personal attacks and false accusations of sockpuppetry. Tiptoety talk 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also removed a personal attack involving the c-word from their userpage. Samsamcat, please be civil. Also, please sign your posts. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tiptoety: Amusingly, it looks like Samsamcat has named you as the latest sock puppet of Werieth. Apparently, there's an entire Betacommand Cabal that has infiltrated and taken over the normal cabal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I understand this correctly, the user thinks that User:Betacommand, User:Black Kite, User:Tiptoety, User:Werieth and I all are sockpuppets of User:Resolute? Hm... ☺ --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of speedy deletion tag

    User:PrinceSulaiman marked Reckitt and Sons as reviewed and added an unreliable source tag [44] 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. [45]

    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]
    @Prof.Haddock:, I suggest you to move the source to bottom of the contents which is easier to be verified, Please do not put the source on talk page its only for discussion of the article, But next time if you're going to create new article please use the Article Wizard instead of creating them manually. @OccultZone:, If you think its significant please provide a reliable source of Reckitt and Sons. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I had, looks like you haven't read Talk:Reckitt and Sons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @OccultZone: Then you need to move them to the bottom of the main contents not the talk page. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Still speedy tag cannot be justified here. You had to look around before you would tag the article. Sometimes article are written differently and the new editors don't know about the guidelines of wikipedia. Before you add PROD tag to article you have to make sure that the subject lacks notability. You can add a {{refimprove}} tag. I hope you have understood. Next time be more careful whenever you are adding PROD tag to any article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrinceSulaiman: why do you keep saying "move to the bottom of the contents page" (from the talk page)? That's not correct. The cited source is at the foot of the article. What's on the talk page is the claim that the cited source is reliable because it is cited in other sources which are claimed to be reliable. Those other sources are not being cited in the article however. That should not go in the article - the talk page is exactly the right place for it. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    NOthing to see here, if they aren't the user Checkuser will unblock but that's pretty strong evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hell in a Bucket, are you sure you meant the above comment for this section? Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @OccultZone: For new editors who doesn't know about the Guidelines for that reason there is the Article Wizard, A user or editor are permitted to complete the article entirely before pressing save button if it left partly it could led to speedy deletion or challenged by other page patrollers, However providing a reliable source will always slim the chance of speedy deletion like you did at Reckitt and Sons's talk page. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those editors are still not responsible if you have PRODed without any appropriate reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had the same issue with this user today. Initially La Course by Le Tour de France was flagged for speedy deletion, suggesting the given sources were not reliable, this was rejected by Nthep, Prince Sulaiman then re-added the speedy deletion tag, accused myself of removing it then again suggested that sources such as the sports governing body as well as the event organiser were not reliable enough. XyZAn (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prince Sulaiman, your tagging of that article for speedy deletion A7 was patently wrong. That criterion does not apply to an article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I can only believe you didn't read the article at that point or look at the sources—a company nearly 100 years old, and the precursor of another notable company. The second source was a book published by Routledge in 2004 with an entire chapter devoted to it. Kindly read WP:A7, and in fact read WP:SPEEDY in its entirety. You were cautioned by an administrator in late June about your inappropriate speedy deletion tagging and the harm it can do "Please stay away from new page patrol at least until you have studied up on all the rules and guidelines (including the advice not to tag new pages immediately after they are created)". You deleted that post shortly thereafter [46] and appear not to have heeded any of it. In this case, you appear to have tagged the article for speedy deletion in retaliation for the article's creator having removed your unreliable sources tag. The editor explained immediately on the talk page why they were removing it. But you clearly didn't read that either. I find it very concerning that you continue to defend your actions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voceditenore:, With all due to respect i'm not concerned to defend my actions, However i have made many article deletion which were created unnecessarily (you could see the records if you wish) and the few of them were only rejected from being deleted since the user edits the article later after an hour or so with an reliable source. And i strongly understand your point on my deletion nominations, However in some cases the editors make different way of creating article which leaving partly uncompleted without providing a reliable source or a reference of the content and this puts the chances of the article to be deleted if there were not verifiable content or reliable sources included in the article, On each new editors i also have provided them the guidelines of Wikipedia and about creating new article (much better on Article Wizard), I hope you understand and this isn't my first time issue. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But your reply to Voceditenore, leaving partly uncompleted without providing a reliable source or a reference of the content and this puts the chances of the article to be deleted if there were not verifiable content or reliable sources included in the article suggests that you do not understand WP:CCOS: "not including any sources is entirely irrelevant to an assessment under these speedy deletion criteria". And your latest A7 in Xhulio Joka and your subsequent request on Talk:Xhulio Joka for reliable sources and more informations about his career, I find it insignificant director seems to confirm this. Another A7 from today was on Azis Sadikovic, but I happened to see it before it got deleted under G12, and it had lots of credible claim of significance. Your A9 tag here earlier today is wrong, since Jeff Cardoni has an article. Sam Sing! 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, PrinceSulaiman, is a "new account" since he "deleted" his old accounts for "several reasons"? Is that ok or should he disclose his "old" accounts? --Malerooster (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malerooster: My old account wanted to be claimed by another user whom sent me a request to have it claimed, But i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time. However, I'll not able to disclose the username since i had agreed with the new owner that i'll not able to re-claim or mention it on new pages/talk pages the account in future. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not allowed to "give your account" away to someone else - nobody cares what agreements you have between people. If you were editing under a previous account, you're required as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to link to it. the panda ₯’ 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Question -- is he required to do so? Or required except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account? Or is an editor who has multiple accounts for privacy reasons? Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sam Sailor:, I have no idea why you're mixing the topic, This topic was referred to Reckitt and Sons's deletion issue not my account. Therefore please do not mix topics. you could discuss this account issue at my talk page --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As the heading suggests, all topics related to the behaviour can and will be brought up - as you can see, while investigating something somewhat minor, a very major situation arose - that wolverine is out of its cage, and needs to be addressed here the panda ₯’ 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it is a relevant observation that you tried to redirect your user page to red-linked Sulaiman Kuthubdeen, an article that was deleted 5 years ago and partly shares your chosen username. It in turn leads to Sulaiman9 (t c) and Sulaiman7799 (t c), also both partly sharing your username. I now further notice that the latter user declared to be Sri Lankan, and edited in the Real Madrid player Cristiano Ronaldo; you are, according to your user page, a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka and a fan of Spanish football, and edit these areas.
    You're free not to clarify, but be aware that Robert McClenon below has spoken for indefinitely blocking you because of your reluctance to identify the previous account(s). Sam Sing! 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Sailor Its strange that Sulaiman7799 (t c) and Sulaiman9 (t c) was never created by me, But there are lot of people using name “Sulaiman” and i'm not only the one to be here. Actually the fact is that i'm not Sri Lankan. I don't know what kind of investigation is this.
    • PrinceSulaiman, I'm the one who left you that message before about being more careful tagging articles for speedy deletion - including telling you you should not be tagging them immediately they are created precisely because some people create the article first, then add references. I even gave you a possible reason - shaky internet connections. There is no requirement to use the Article Wizard/Articles for Creation; there is a requirement to be civil to other editors, it is one of our pillars, and that includes not biting new editors. I just looked at Xhulio Joka, one of the articles mentioned above by Sam Sailor, and I see you ordering the new editor not to edit the article (diff requires admin-o-vision). Perhaps you meant not to remove the speedy deletion template, but that is not what your edit summary said. Then you dropped a high-level vandalism warning on his talk page. That's contrary to policy - never call it vandalism unless it's clear to you that the person was trying to damage the encyclopedia. If you're going to do new page patrol, you need to be a lot lighter in your touch with new editors. Also - it's very rarely justifiable to say that an article was created "unnecessarily". Perhaps when we already have an article on the topic, but if you look at the remaining speedy deletion criteria, that is not what they are about. I'm very concerned that you have caused some useful articles to be deleted - the Albanian film maker being one possibility - and that you have been very harsh to some inexperienced editors. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban on Speedy Tagging

    In view of the fact that User:PrinceSulaiman has created several articles that have been speedy-deleted, his continuing questionable tagging of other articles for speedy deletion is probably not so much a matter of misunderstanding the policy but of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In any case, I recommend a topic-ban on speedy deletion tagging. This is unrelated to the issue about account use, which appears to be resolving itself as improper but "no harm, no foul". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon I have been warned on adding speedy deletion which i have avoided adding speedy deletion tags from now on. I do not think its right to ban me. I believe that i haven't created “Several Articles” that was nominated for speedy deletion it seems like you haven't read the entire topic that i communicated with reviewers and admins regarding this issue. --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: It is not just about the speedy tag or PROD tag but it is about whole new page patrolling. If you check the recent contributions of PrinceSulaiman to these pages, you will also find considerable amount of drive by tagging. He has been misusing the tags, on Sergei Kazantcev, he has added {{refimprove}} tag but also {{unreferenced}} tag. On Echo, Louisiana, he added {{lead too short}} when the article is geography stub. So a topic ban on New Page Patrolling would be better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @OccultZone: I have been warned for misusing tags on articles by another admin, For now on i decided to avoid page patrolling and speedy deletion tagging on new articles, I believe it would be unfair to have my account banned without giving a second chance after a warning... --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 20:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic ban and Ban are not same words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @OccultZone: but still i will get banned from editing certain articles which is considered to unfair without giving a second chance after a warning. --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Deliberate Compromise of Previous Account

    User:PrinceSulaiman states that he gave his previous account away and agreed with the new owner that he would not reclaim it or mention it. That is deeply troublesome. Recommend an indefinite block of the new account until he identifies the compromised account (knowing that the recipient of the account may have sanctions). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't know if his statement is true. If it is true, it is a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy on user accounts. If it is false, then the statement is trolling. Both are grounds for a block. That is not directly related to disruptive speedy nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The user said My old account wanted to be claimed by another user whom sent me a request to have it claimed, But i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time. By "claimed" he could have meant "usurped" and by "sent me a request" he could have meant "left a message on my talk page." He could have meant that, but maybe he didn't, the user will need to clarify that. Rgrds. --64.85.216.41 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon exactly what 64.85.216.41 said, I haven't used my old account (no edits and page creations were made at that time) it was more of abandoned account. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Prince Sulaiman couldn't have meant "usurped", because here he claims that his old account had 200 edits. An account only qualifies for usurpation if it has no edits or significant log entries. So he either turned over his account and his password to someone else, or he's decided to come back under a new name after using multiple other accounts to create multiple speedily deleted articles all relating to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen, Lukman Kuthubdeen, their various start-ups Apple SK9, Gizmaestro and last but not least Kamil Kuthubdeen (allegedly the father of Sulaiman Kuthubdeen [47]). See Sam Sailor's analysis above. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC) PS And who are all these Kamil Kuthubdeen's? Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, I believe there were communication mistake, I mean “PrinceSulaiman” has over 200 edits, Instead i shortened it by mentioning “Old Account”, I apologize for the miscommunication. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you denying that you gave your account and password to someone else and that instead it was done through the official process of usurpation? In that case there will be a log of the process. There is never a condition placed on usurpation that the previous owner cannot reveal the name of that account, although they are given 7 days in which to object to the usurpation. I'm afraid none of this rings true. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, No sir, I wasn't denying that i had given my account to someone, I only have gave my old account called SLK to my relative and “PrinceSulaiman” is new account, Therefore the old account activities are unused at the time before i handing it over. I hope it doesn't confuse… --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef until user discloses his previous accounts, per WP:SOCK. If they are not willing to reveal them publically, I advise them to contact WP:ARBCOM to disclose, who can verify any other (non-public) issues. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdann52: Maybe that is the only way, there is still some time and PrinceSulaiman can still avoid indef block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @OccultZone: Indef ≠ forever, only until they reveal their other accounts. They have been adked multiple times to do this, and there refusal pushes my good faith (which get's stretched a lot nowadays) too far. Sometimes, you need to use extreme measures when kindness no longer works. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Mdann52, I understand, But alright, I'm able to reveal the account i had only one this SLK it was created back in 2006 which i had never used it, However i have never shared this account with unknown person i handed over to my relative who wish to manage it and for now i do not know overall activities of that account its already given... --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Prince Sulaiman, it is a serious violation of policy to hand over your account and password to anyone whether they are known to you or not. And if what you say is true, that is clearly what you did because there is no log whatsoever for the official usurpation of the SLK account. But if you did hand it over and that you had never used it to edit, then you handed it over on the the day it was registered, 12 May 2006. The SLK account began editing (with all edits either outright vandalism or the insertion of false information in articles) on 12 May 2006 and continued in that vein through September 2009 [48]. I'm sorry, but none of this rings true. Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, It is correct it was the same day i handed over it. I didn't kept holding the account for more than a day. I hope this clears it and i understand it violated the policy but i did never know about this policy back in 2006. As i mentioned that i was never Wikipedia expertise at that time. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I concur with Voceditenore. SLK was created on 12 May 2006, but PrinceSulaiman on his user page states he has been editing since 26 April 2006. It doesn't jive here. Sam Sing! 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Sailor, I edited as anonymous before the month i created my old account SLK and didn't use it, However you're making this very complicated by bring Sulaiman7799 and among of other user accounts which were never created by me. Please do not confuse with that accounts --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sam Sailor: I agree. The SLK account made its first edit 2 minutes after registration. So in the space of 2 minutes after allegedly creating the SLK account, Prince Sulaiman was contacted by his relative requesting him to hand over the account, gave all the assurances requested, handed it over, and then said relative began to edit. PrinceSulaiman, you still haven't explained why one of your first edits in this current account was to redirect your user page to the multiply deleted Sulaiman Kuthubdeen which has close connections with 4 other accounts and to other multiply deleted related articles. As long as you haven't used any other accounts simultaneously with this one or edited in the same areas and stop editing under those accounts, it's probably OK, but if you have been editing under any other accounts, you need need to declare all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, Sir, I haven't made any other account at the moment and only “Prince Sulaiman” is active that i use daily to contribute to wiki articles, About the first edit regarding the redirection to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen i simply wanted to test as sandbox whether a user will able to redirect my user page to any article so i and then linked to test whether its linking and i was happy that it didn't work (i mean the redirection didn't go through it) since i would really be worried if it worked because in case of vandalism (or abusing) user(s) will keep redirecting it to random pages. I hope this explained your required criteria --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, frankly it doesn't really explain things. First of all, the redirect did go through. You simply reverted it with the next edit. And if you "basically picked an article containing 'Sulaiman'" for this test, why out of the dozens of actual articles containing "Sulaiman", did you pick one that was deleted 5 years ago? I also find your assertion "I haven't made any other account at the moment and only “Prince Sulaiman” is active" ambiguous. Perhaps it's a language problem. Are you saying that you have never at any other time created or edited from any other accounts apart from this one and SLK? Voceditenore (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, I didn't want to test the redirection on an article that already exists because i believed that could harm other articles (that already exist) if redirection tag was misplaced, So i used the article that is being deleted or doesn't exist. On editing, Yes, I have never used any other than SLK account since because in 2006 i begin to contribute to few articles (minority edits) under anonymity without an account, But for a history of my edits that i decided to create “PrinceSulaiman” account, Do you believe that i seriously violated wikipedia's policy by putting redirection tag to deleted article? Please educate me if i'm wrong --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore, Could you kindly block my old account User:SLK? I don't want this incident to be happened again in the future. --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 19:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Observations

    Let me recap what PrinceSulaiman (PS) have said:

    1. Prior account: They say they have been a Wikipedian since 26 April 2006 (Diff) and edited anonymously before creating their first account SLK (Diff). Fair enough. User:SLK was created 16 days later on 12 May 2006. They said twice they never used that account (Diff Diff), it was more of [an] abandoned account (Diff), and that their relative (Diff) sent me a request to have it [and] i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time (Diff). And further that I have never used any other than SLK account since (Diff). Very well. But my main objection to this storyline is, as Voceditenore has implied, that their relative makes her/his first disruptive edit 2 minutes later, and while technically all the above and the relative's edit could be accomplished with ~120 seconds, it does not sound as a plausible story.
    2. Edit count: They said to Yngvadottir on 21 June, 5 days after they created the PS account that i've been Wikipedian since 2006 (having over 200 edits) which i basically switched account from my old account (Diff). They clarified earlier today that I mean “PrinceSulaiman” has over 200 edits (Diff). But I did the counting and they actually only had 80 edits under the belt when they replied on 21 June. And as they at that time had not used Twinkle yet, there is no way they could have 120 deleted edits from speedy tagging. In fact they currently have only 55 deleted edits.
    3. Sulaiman Kuthubdeen: They have denied being behind the accounts Sulaiman7799 (t c) and Sulaiman9 (t c) that created Sulaiman Kuthubdeen and Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen in 2009 and 2010, saying there are lot of people using name “Sulaiman” and i'm not only the one to be here. That is true. It is also true that we have many live biographical articles starting with Sulaiman. But we have zero live articles that include "Kuthubdeen" at all in its title. Actually "Kuthubdeen" returns only c. 6000 Google hits. So when they wanted to "test a redirect" (Diff), they did not pick any of the many live articles starting with "Sulaiman", they made the extremely rare combination "Sulaiman Kuthubdeen" that redirected to a deleted article. What are the chances? Let me think aloud: could it be, that "Sulaiman Kuthubdeen" is their real name? Could it be that they redirected to their old (auto)bio?
    4. Likely IP socking: This is not the first time PS's speedy tagging is up for discussion on ANI. That happened on 21 June five days after account creation, archived here, when A.Minkowiski (AM) posted regarding their G7 tag (Diff) of Draft:AR.Freeflight. Obviously G7 did not apply in this case. Their two replies to AM on their talk page are noteworthy, first The article you wrote doesn't find any notable information from A.R Free Flight, I assume it's not necessary to create an article for unpopular application. AM pointed out their mistake (Diff), and since they neither replied nor self-reverted their tagging, AM removed it (Diff) and told them on their talk page (Diff). Instead of admitting their mistake, they recommended expanding the article and adding sources (Diff). Half an hour later IP59.158.247.90 then tags the same draft with G11 (Diff). What are the chances of a draft being speedy tagged twice within 75 minutes? PS have denied being IP59.158.247.90 (Diff). But ... PS's very first edit was on Talk:1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots where they talk about an article edit they made ... that was 6 minutes before (Diff) made by IP59.158.247.90.

    Quack-quack. Sam Sing! 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Sam Sailor:: Just one correction - you missed that AR.Freeflight was created in main space. I counseled the creator to accept the deleting admin's offer to userfy it. See the later history of the draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could block User:SLK as a compromised account, but they haven't edited in almost 5 years so that really isn't preventing anything. As Prince Sulaiman has disclosed this, and we don't see evidence that both used the account at the same time, I don't see a burning need to act on this. It is against the spirit of WP:NOSHARE but the act itself hasn't caused disruption. No comment on the Speedy issue above, but the user name issue seems moot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef block - great research by Voceditenore, we cannot trust this user and so they should not be allowed to edit any further until they start being honest. GiantSnowman 17:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    GiantSnowman, Sir. I'm being serious and i do not want to be dishonest to the admins and the reviewers which i respect their opinions and point of view. I have also provided my old account as required by fellow admins here. --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this is the story. You made an account. You gave it to a relative within two minutes. Then, you decided not to make a new account for yourself; you did not make an account for five years! Despite that, on User:PrinceSulaiman, you claim to have been editing during the time that you say you had given the account to a relative and not made another. You could have been an IP for eight years, but I call BS on that because you did decide to create an account. Origamiteis out right now 19:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Origamite:, the SLK account is my old account and i didn't get used to it so i gave it to my relative which they wished to manage it, However i have not much been involved in editing articles for last 8 years and mostly are made under anonymity for minority edits, However after years i got used to Wikipedia then i had to create new account which is PrinceSulaiman. Please kindly read the above topic i have already mentioned it and i don't wish to repeat this again and again. Note that i don't use a static IP address --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 20:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block - untrustworthy user, the project looses nothing here. Sam Sing! 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to file at WP:SPI, most of the above is pure conjecture and it can get hashed out there. ANI is a bad place to try to determine sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The plot thickens

    Is it my imagination, or is there something odd happening with the series of edits starting here [49]? EEng (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like edit conflicts and ham-fisted attempts to fix them to me.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to hear it. It looked kinda like one of those sockmaster-forgot-who-he-was-for-a-minute things. EEng (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong is at it again

    Pican33 (talk · contribs) and GSS-5377 (talk · contribs) blocked as socks. Thanks Ryulong for being at it again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]

    @Pican33: Have you notified Ryulong on his user talk page about this discussion? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did, and it's not the first time someone had to deal with this. Look at his editing over the past few hours. Pican33 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious about the motivations of the reporter, Ryulong is a damn fine contributor and helps clean up the mess that is left at anime and related articles occasionally this ruffles a few feathers but I'm ok with ruffled feathers if the articles aren't shit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    His reverts have been over posting information on Power_Rangers:_Dino_Charge, a show that will air in 2015. It is confirmed by sources outside of Wikipedia but he continues to revert any mention of "Dino Charge" from article when he see them posted. Yes, Hell in a bucket, he might be a good contributer but he has trouble getting along with other editors. Pican33 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issue is edit warring, as I mentioned on the ANV page yesterday regarding the same user, does it not belong at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Dustin (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He was reported, but he kept kept removing it. Anyone who reports him becomes a "sockpuppet" and the reporter got blocked. Pican33 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 6) The reporter was found to be a sock puppet evading the block imposed on its master from what I can tell. Dustin (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pican33 is another sockpuppet of the banned user with whom I was edit warring with. Not to mention there is no need to have an article on the next season of Power Rangers when it is more than 6 months away from airing and there is only one reference to support its notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    By the looks of things this was already addressed at ANEW and no action was taken i think we have forum shopping and am inclined to believe ryulongs instincts. . Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pican33 saw fit to remove himself and another suspected sockpuppet from an SPI I opened. This just really shows that he is indeed the user in question and should be blocked as soon as possible. Not to mention that this thread should be closed because it was opened by a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough of this noise. Both Pican33 (talk · contribs) and GSS-5377 (talk · contribs) are socks and have been blocked as such. Tiptoety talk 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I do think it is strange that the Pican33 account would have been created so long beforehand, though. If that is all, then no more discussion is necessary? Dustin (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called a sleeper account. CheckUser has  Confirmed both accounts. There is nothing left to discuss. Tiptoety talk 16:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind looking at this investigation? [[50]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mehmett21

    Insistently inappropriate language despite warnings in Talk:Turkic peoples page (1, 2) and edit warring. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ps: User editing that page with a several IPs. I mentioned him in this page.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying the page "looks like shit" really has no action arising from it. They're also not formally edit-warring from what I see - 2 edits today, different areas if I see correctly the panda ₯’ 18:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:DangerousPanda We cannot say whatever we want. This kind an actions are not considered naturel in wikipedia. At least you should be warn him for his actions. By the way, I revert his edit. Please keep an eye on him. If he unrevert again, clearly that means edit-warring.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in any Wikipedia policy that prevents someone from saying "it looks like shit" - heck, it's not even uncivil, based on the policy. We have policies that prevent you calling someone "shit"...but that's not what happened here. Let us know if they do the panda ₯’ 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't say whatever we want, but we can say anything that doesn't directly violate policy. I agree with The Panda, we all are expected to tolerate a degree of language we might personally not like, as long as it isn't a personal attack or a pattern of long term incivility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ezzex

    Sorry to escalate this to this board, but rather than edit war, as we are now, and I apologize for that, can an admin please ask this user Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop using the talk pages as a place to voice his views on the subject matter and the state of this project rather than improving the article per WP:SOAPBOX. I will not revert again, since this goes nothing but annoy me, but see [51] and [52]. It would be nice to have these comments redacted. I will go to this user's talk page and let him know about this thread right now. I also used his talk page to ask him to stop as well with little luck or feedback. I know that this might not seem like a big deal, but I really feel that it does poison the atmosphere of the talk page and is why many folks probably avoid this topic area, as I usually do and will probably do so going forward. Again, I will step aside at this point and defer to others. Thank you in advance, --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have informed the authorities here on Wikipedis about what have been going on here the last days. I will not tolerate that users remove my post on a talk page unless it's clearly offensive.--Ezzex (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ezzex, you can't accuse the project of "being a tool of Israel" or other comments about the ongoing conflict and who is right or wrong ect, just tone it down a notch, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a reaction to all the israeli sources in the article.--Ezzex (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than deleting wrong-headed and biased comments, it's better to simply refute them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ansel Elgort

    There has been a flurry of fan-based activity at Ansel Elgort and Talk:Ansel Elgort. It appears that:-

    "Elgort stated that on, July 11 2014, he would be forever grateful if Wikipedia did not state he is a model just because he has done photo shoots promoting movies."

    The deletions to the article include removing an apparently well referenced section on his modeling career, and inclusion of the quotation above There are also a string of 8 Semi-protected edit requests (all between 17.33 and 17.49) asking for the references to modeling to be removed. These ESPs are still being added, even though the article has been changed.

    I have no idea who Ansel Elgort is, but it seems clear his fans are re-writing this article, to say what he wants it to say. Could I suggest that someone more familiar with the subject looks at this - I suspect it may be a question of reverting and fully protecting the article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the "twitter material" since it isn't covered by non primary sources. --Malerooster (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now ... [53] Andreas JN466 01:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Arjayay states above that the section claiming he has a modeling career is "apparently well referenced", I took time to actually read the references. None describe him as a professional model, he is consistently described as an actor promoting a major upcoming film role, and in one case, a young woman appearing with him is described as a model while he is not. I see no reliable source calling him a professional model and many that call him an actor. The fact that photos of a handsome young actor appear in fashion magazines is not proof of a modeling career. Far from it. The article is now fully protected in a state unjustified by reliable sources. Why? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because sometimes the "wrong" version gets protected by those dam admins j/k? I would agree that the modeling material and label be removed from the article but I am tired of this. Good luck, --Malerooster (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ymblanter, we don't fully protect BLP's in the version that contains contentious poorly-sourced claims. Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Bolding in original.) No credible source describes him as a model.

    • Would an admin please remove the contentious, poorly-sourced claims that the subject is a model or has a modelling career?
    • User:Amortias has been edit-warring to retain contentious, poorly-sourced claims about the subject of a BLP. Amortias, would you please read WP:BLP, and then say here whether you think your edit-warring was a breach of that policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Group of 88" problems

    More heat than light here, and more rhetoric than needed as well. The discussion on deleting the :cat is still ongoing[54], best to leave it there. At this time, there is no singular incident that requires an administrator get involved, and we don't discuss :cats here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I nominated the category Group of 88 for deletion because being a member of that group is not a defining property (WP:CATEGORY talks about "essential —defining— characteristics"). I removed the category from four biographies, which were the only members of that category. The category now has 23 members, all added by Johnpacklambert. At the deletion discussion he says "These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism" and "They should not get to remove their badge of infamy" and "Their most public act was a willingness to condemn students before a fair hearing had been reached, to denounce students on the grounds that they were white, 'privileged' and so forth, and to spew hatred at these students". It is clear that Johnpacklambert feels strongly about this issue and is pursuing an agenda which is not neutral.

    Johnpacklambert has also added the following non-neutral statements to biographies:

    While at Duke he joined with the Group of 88 which presumed accused people's guilt on the basis of race, and never apologized for their calls to violate defandants civil rights.

    While at Duke she joined in the guilt presuming letter of the Group of 88 which also encouraged vigilante activities.

    While there he joined with others in the racist statements of the Group of 88 which assumed guilt of accused criminals based on their race.

    I also tried to remove a passage about the Duke lacrosse case from the biography of a Duke professor who was part of the Group of 88 but does not appear to have done anything more than sign a public letter. This seems like a very clear case of undue weight but my removal was immediately reverted. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but the reverter seems to be ignoring it.

    Meanwhile, another editor (User:Shakehandsman) has just accused me of having a conflict of interest simply because I registered my account shortly after he used weak evidence to accuse IP editors of being one of the members of the "Group of 88". I don't mean to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy at work here, but the situation is troubling. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing as I'm mentioned in that last paragraph I might as well debunk all the nonsense contained within it. At no point have I made COI accusations concerning the above editor, I merely pointed out the extremely suspicious time of his account being registered, not to mention his similar interests/editing pattern and level of experience to the IPs, and use of exactly the same arguments. Secondly. it's also false to say I accused the IP editors of being one of the members of the Group of 88. I simply did a WHOIS check of the IPs and pointed out that one was an institution that had started employing Cathy Davidson that very day, and that the second was Duke University itself. So the "weak evidence" is in fact absolutely 100% proof of people affiliated with Duke repeatedly removing Group of 88 material and doing so from Duke University itself.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people will see your thinly veiled accusation against me for what it is. If they don't, then perhaps your latest statement that "I should also note that none of those IP editors have reappearance since Nigel joined us here, and while that proves nothing in itself, is it a little strange on top of everything else" will convince them. You have made a clear accusation that the IP editors have a conflict of interest and strongly implied that they are both Cathy Davidson. And you have just implied that I am somehow associated with these IPs despite my statement that I have no association with any aspect of the Duke lacrosse case. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "You have made a clear accusation that the IP editors have a conflict of interest", yes and I've proved that to be a fact beyond almost any doubt! The fact that you refuse to see this obvious COI editing when its staring everyone in the face is in itself very puzzling, why can't you just accept what's been going on?.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no inherent conflict of interest in editing Cathy Davidson from Duke University. If you think that there is, you are mistaken. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to keep in mind that people initially assumed the prosecutor was doing his job properly. Once the state attorney general declared them innocent of the charge, anyone in the "group of 88" who continues to insist on guilt, even now, would be fair game for such a tag, especially considering the history of the accuser before and after. Labeling it "racism" is silly. It's blindness to facts. And it's also important to keep in mind that the lacross players were involved in bad behavior that night (drinking and hiring strippers), and there is an element of "good ol' boy" tolerance of that behavior, so the underlying anger of the "group of 88" has some justifiable basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as someone who (a) thinks racism and sexism are real social problems; but (b) thinks this "Group of 88" letter was a knee-jerk rush to judgment reminiscent of my days growing up in Berkeley, California in the 60s; BUT (c) thinks the idea that Group of 88 might be a sensible WP category has little or no basis -- in other words, I come down squarely on both sides of the issue -- this is a content dispute with everyday garden-variety not-ANI-worthy sniping. EEng (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. What troubles me about this is mostly a "guilt by association", McCarthyism. If any of the "group of 88" continues to support their original view (which helped get the lacrosse coach fired, by the way), then there's a good chance this isn't their only controversial position, and that could be covered in a better way than just sticking them in a category. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a category for this is a probably a bad content decision. Unless people are really going to populate the category, it is near useless, and even if it were populated, the same content can be presented more usefully as a comprehensive list at Group of 88 itself. There's no need to do the same thing two redundant ways, so that will do. That said, this decision shouldn't be up to admins; hopefully the editors involved can see clear to it. Meanwhile...... this is going to sound stupid (and pretty much is), but I'm wondering if you're getting some mystery hostility into the works somewhere because of some arcane American prison slang. You see, especially when matters of racism are discussed, "88" has been used by racist gangs as a code for "Heil Hitler". But of course, in this case it has absolutely nothing to do with it, reflecting only how many people signed a widely circulated petition to faculty. I assume the main participants are well aware of this but I wonder if somehow such a misperception is bleeding through from outsiders. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only people coming close to McCarthyism were the group of 88 itself. They presumed guilt on the basis of being white, and Houston Baker managed to use "white" as an insult 10 times in an article. They encouraged people to continue threatening the players, and they presumed guilt. Let me repeat that again, they presumed guilt. Such things should never have happened. The whole case was emblematic of a general false assumption about crime and race, a false assumption that makes fixing real social problems and getting to the heart of them much harder. The Group of 88 is emblematic of the pathological approach to race relations that gave us the Murder of Laura Dickinson and the cover up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The article obscures an issue at the center of the Dickinson case. Dickinson was a white woman from a small, rural community in Western Michigan. Her rapist and killer was an African-American. Whether this has much relation to the crime is hard to say. That it caused an unwillingness to speak openly and honestly about the crime seems likely, considering how many other similar crimes were also documented by the authors of Until Proven Innocent that were the seeming racial reverse of the Duke case, and never got any headway at all. Even though those cases were not as open and shut as the Duke case, because they involved not claims of no contact, but only questions of whether the sex was consensual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am all too aware of "88" being a poorly-kept "secret" code for "Adolf Hitler". How many of the "group of 88" still cling to notion that the "group of 3" were guilty of rape? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnpacklambert, I believe you have proven my point about your lack of neutrality. Baseball Bugs, perhaps you can discuss the political issues on your talk pages. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm providing background for some who may be unaware of the case, and raising questions that should be raised. You should continue or move this entire discussion to the talk page of the topic in question. Thanks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have restored Nigel Pap's version of Lee D. Baker. There is no way this is important enough to warrant a category. Unless someone is individually and reliably marked as special and their membership of this ad-hoc group deemed important, no way. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I question the category. I do find it puzzling. Is this group even active anymore. I wonder if perhaps this category could introduce bias to an article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But then you aren't here for that. You are here because of the COI claims. While editing Cathy Davidson probably wouldn't be a COI from Duke (unless of course it's her). To me though this seems to be a fair comment under the circumstances.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Serialjoepsycho -- I understand you're a psycho, but why are you responding to your own comment? EEng (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the group was ad hoc and ceased to exist after an open letter was published. While there are some Duke faculty who had an expanded role in the larger case, most of the "Group of 88" did nothing other than sign the letter. Including anything about the Duke lacrosse case in the vast majority of those biographies would be an instance of undue weight. There appears to be a small group of editors (User:Johnpacklambert, [[User:Hammersbach], and User:Shakehandsman) who are quietly using this issue for their own purposes. I am sure there is much room for discussion of content issues but it would be nice if those discussions were aimed at neutrality instead of pushing some political agenda. Nigel Pap (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The category is up for deletion. While yes this could provide undue weight, at same time it could not. It's really going to come down case by case. I personally don't see any bad faith on their part. I just wonder how much of this can be handle on the talk pages of the articles in question and thru some form of dispute resolution if needed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to endorse any claims in particular but I share some of Nigel Pap's concerns about what is going on here with this issue and its presentation in Wikipedia. Tonight I had a look at Group of 88 and KC Johnson (author of a book critical of the 88) and found the articles terribly slanted and full of NPOV and RS issues. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone close this please? This isn't ANI material. EEng (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin to close a discussion please?

    (NAC) Moved to WP:AN/RFC. Origamiteis out right now 00:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A discussion has been on going now since MARCH on a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_One#Splitting and I have sent messages to other people to try and get them to respond etc, but after four months only seven people have past comment, with 80% opposing the idea. Can an admin please close the discussion, so we can move on for this? The Idea was first suggested by a user who is now banned for socks. Thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Evading block

    LouisAragon (talk · contribs) was blocked for abusing multiple accounts [55] but he has continued (with IP) vandalizing, edit-warring and POV pushing [56] [57] [58] on the same pages.

    The IP is in fact LouisAragon, you can easily notice this by comparing edit summaries and the specific pages being edited:

    He stated to admin on his talk page "I was on holiday. Sorry for that" [59] but evidence suggests that he has been evading a block and still editing.--39.47.212.219 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How many pic are allowed?

    Two years ago I had a disagreement with a admin about the amount of pics allowed on a certain page, ( The Admin had changed 100's of other pages aswell) , turns out the admin was right in the rule book. Since then it seems the rules are either being ignored or being replaced, can someone tell me what is it?

    What the deal? Does the Nintendo page have FAR to many or has wiki changed its mind on use of pics, if so I will be reinstating the page on the Night time page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are talking about image galleries, the guideline is on WP:Gallery, which says that "a gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved or moved to the Wikimedia Commons". As for a specific gallery of logos, it starts to get complicated. First, one could say that a gallery of historical logos is not "indiscriminate" per se and it adds some sort of encyclopedic value. Second, logos can either be non-free (which in most cases should be removed under WP:NFTABLE; and WP:NFCCP rules 3, 8 and 10c) or free content (such as those tagged with Template:PD-logo, in which the logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes).
    I do not think we had as much "PD-logo"-tagged images back in 2012 as we do now. Two years ago, it was easier to remove these logo galleries because all of the images were fair use logos that did not comply with WP:NFCCP. That is now harder to do when many of them are now considered public domain, and now should be treated like other free content images. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the page history of Sky 1 for the past month, and specifically the Nintendo reference, I suspect that it is a sockpuppet of a blocked user using a dynamic address. In fact, this use of a changing dynamic address was alluded to in the investigation discussion. In the past two days, he appears to have edited on both 83.39.46.74 and 82.152.187.189 (making changes to many of the same pages). The reference to Nintendo was made by one of the other now-blocked sockpuppets several weeks ago. Sky 1 page is now currently semi-protected due to sock puppetry (because he is on a dynamic IP address, trying to administer blocks would just make him to jump to a new IP, and lead to collateral damage on the used ones). Zzyzx11 (talk) Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Any problem with blocking this proxy?

    No sooner was an IP blocked for edit warring at Atlantis then another IP showed up, 93.115.95.6 (talk · contribs) which is a proxy.[60] Any objection to blocking this for a year? Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is unquestionably a proxy, but I can't confirm it is an open proxy. Looks setup for multiple ports for proxy and seems suspicious as hell, however, I wasn't able to route through them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whois identifies this IP with www.voxility.net, which is a web hosting company. I would suggest a one-year block with the tag {{webhostblock}}. Any person who edits Wikipedia through a web host is by definition concealing their true IP. In any case Atlantis looks like a candidate for semiprotection due to all the enthusiasm from IP-hoppers and brand new accounts over the past two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proxies Should really be indeffed. Also, an open proxy from Cyberghost VPN is going to run out in about a month or two. TitusFox'Tribs 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see much chance of collateral damage, so I'm not opposing the block. I was simply stating what we were dealing with, a closed proxy not an open one. Had it been an open proxy, I would have just blocked for being open. And Titus, we don't normally block closed proxies unless there is abuse, as there are plenty of legitimate uses for them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Doug's case, not mine, I leave it in his capable hands. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the only thing on my plate today, folks ;) I did the background, closed the OP case as it wasn't an open proxy, protected and blocked for being a web host used for abuse. Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas and Friends Vandalism

    Special:Contributions/78.150.147.25 has been constantly removing content from Thomas and Friends, without any explanation why. Staglit (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • A quick sampling of his deletions show he is removing large chunks of unsourced material, so that isn't vandalism from what I can tell. I thought WP:BURDEN says that in order to add it back, you need to provide a citation of some sort. Not sure this is something that needs admin attention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Guru has already blocked them for vandalism, but I can't say I agree with that. They did appear to be edit warring but that isn't what the block was for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree also; it looks like they were removing character introduction cruft that was unsourced. Rare is it I have to disagree with an IP kids show article block, but this is definitely one case; that information doesn't belong there without a source. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had pinged No Guru but no reply, so I left a note on his talk page. If anything, I'm thinking page protection would have been better, since it was a legitimate content issue, and the BURDEN was on the other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree it's not vandalism, a block for 3RR would be appropriate for the reverts(see below) 3RR was violated at Thomas & Friends (series 5). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • He wasn't the only one with more than 3 reverts, and technically, his edits were fine and shouldn't have been reverted back in via WP:BURDEN. Normally with two editors doing that, you do full protection and just get them to talk it out. You CAN block them both, but that isn't the preferred way. The other editors were calling it vandalism in their reverts (WP:CIVILITY....) but it wasn't. I get the feeling this is old fashioned IP discrimination. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite right, the IP wasn't the sole violator of 3RR. I suspect, however, that protection isn't going to do anything either; once they have it pointed out that their reverts weren't of vandalism, the reverting editors themselves aren't likely to re-add the content. But of course, that doesn't serve to validate the original block. Meh. Yeah, I think you're right Dennis, that this is just a case of unfairly presuming blanking by an IP is invalid. As such I've stricken my above comment that the block was warranted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 94.193.131.253

    I apologize for bringing a sock puppet issue to this forum but the situation requires a somewhat more rapid intervention. IP editor 94.193.131.253 is almost certainly a sock of IP 94.193.131.142 which has been blocked for serial and long standing disruptive editing of articles on the Ships Project. See this discussion from the project's talk page for background. I and other project editors have been busy reverting hundreds or more dubious edits by this subtle vandal going back to early June. S/He is now using the new IP to continue this campaign and is attempting to undue many of the reversions we spent the last couple of days working on. This editor's aggressive disruptive editing is too much for us to keep up with. I opened an SPI investigation yesterday, unfortunately that process moves rather slowly due to a backlog. Please note the contrib logs for both IP's

    I respectfully request an immediate block. A lot of work has already been expended fixing this mess and it looks like a lot more is going to be required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did a range block that should stop them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much appreciated. Hopefully we can go back and fix everything over the next few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Air Serbia (again)

    95.180.123.154 (talk · contribs) had been blocked for one week by Bishonen. Once the block expired, s(he)'s again making the disruptive edits they had been blocked for. Not even a word at the article's talk page. Diffs can be found here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP anon block evasion

    174.76.220.107 (talk · contribs) is currently blocked, for edit warring, on Will County, Illinois and Frankfort, Illinois. 38.111.104.199 (talk · contribs) is now adding the same material to that article. It's a bunch of axe grinding and name calling regarding law enforcement officers and judges in that area that were accused or convicted of crimes. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disregard, Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) already took care of it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's IP hopping. I've blocked the newest IP and semi-protected Frankfort, Illinois, since it's been targeted. If this starts again after the 72 hours of protection expires, WP:RFPP is probably the best place to handle it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnpacklambert continuing the Group of 88 thing

    Despite warnings here and elsewhere (see their own talk page, and mine), Johnpacklambert continues to edit-war in articles related to the so-called Group of 88, with this revert by Malik Shabazz the most recent of many. Viriditas commented on my talk page that there is or was discussion about a topic ban for BLPs; perhaps such a discussion should be revisited or started. (Other editors have expressed strong opinions about their editing on my talk page as well.) In the meantime I warned them for edit warring, since they are clearly guilty of that. Personally I want them to stop screwing around with what I think are clear BLP violations, though I won't push the button since I've reverted them in a couple of articles; I don't want to place an even slightly controversial block. So I'm suggesting that, pace Dennis Brown's closure of the discussion above, we mull this over again. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was referring to the last discussion we had several months ago about topic banning Johnpacklambert from articles related to Amanda Filipacci.[61] However, the problem with Johnpacklambert has been onging for years, with the community consistently ignoring his problematic editing with BLPs and categories and giving him a free pass to continue his disruption. A quick glance at the ANI archives show the following:
    There was also an RFC in 2013:
    I don't know why the community refuses to topic ban him from all BLP and category work, but it's time. After this one would have thought it impossible for him to escape a ban, but apparently you can get away with anything on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor being a Mormon may figure into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why. The Mormon the merrier. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cute. However, you may find Black people and Mormonism interesting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, that's really distracting from this topic. Please strike it. Viriditas (talk)
    No, it speaks to the topic. The possibility of an ulterior motive must be considered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's completely off-topic. It doesn't matter if he's a Mormon or not, or if he is editing from a religious POV. What matters, and what is under discussion here, is that there is a pattern of problematic editing in the BLP and category area. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mormons had a long history of official racism. The fact that the church is now officially desegrated and officially not racist doesn't mean that individual attitudes don't die hard. I'm not saying the problem is religion. I'm saying you must consider the possibility that the user is one of those folks who looks for any chance to say, "See, blacks are racists too." The irony is that as a Mormon, who have often faced prejudice themselves, you would think the user in question would be more understanding of the lifelong prejudices potentially suffered by the "group of 88", whose frustration found a voice due to that lacrosse case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above attacks on my religion I find to be severe violations of all Wikipedia rules. The attempts to claim that a unilateral ban on all editing can be brought about because I have insisted on stating accurate and correct things about the Group of 88 is outrageous. The continued hounding of me on any and all grounds people can come up with is most objectionable. I feel very strongly about the actions of the Group of 88. The above attempts to brand me a racist based on my religion are part and parcel of the attempts to presume guilt that are at the core of how the Group of 88 view the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should not be editing topics you feel strongly about. I don't care about your religion and I agree that Bugs shouldn't have brought it up. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies has used inflammatory and unjustified attacks on me. The attempts to reduce all my participation in Wikipedia to a few issues where I been attacked is extremely unfair. This is especially true of the whole Filipacci incident, because so many of the things said in relation to that have been demonstrably false, starting with the claim that I created Category:American women novelists. That category was not only not created by me, I have never edited it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies did not post that list, I did. And, I'm the one arguing you should be banned from all BLP and category work, not Drmies. Go find something else to do with your time. You've certainly wasted a great deal of our time. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no such organization as the "Group of 88". Yes, 88 faculty members signed a newspaper ad, and in retrospect, that ad may well have been ill-advised, but jointly signing an ad does not consitute joining a "group" and does not link those 88 people together for life as notorious reverse racists. The wording of that ad made no conclusive statements about legal guilt. Johnpacklambert's recent comments about the matter are so egregious that it ought to be clear to all that he is aggressively pushing a denunciation POV against BLP policy. This must stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not going to stop and the community has allowed him to continue like this for years. The question is, why? How does Wikipedia benefit from Johnpacklambert continuing to edit? Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)It's about an attempt to broad-brush 88 faculty members with a "reverse racism" tag, in apparent ignorance of the climate of the time, which was before it became known that the accusations were the product of a lying claimant and an unethical prosecutor. To continue to paint the entire 88 for something they signed eight years ago is undue weight and a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It certainly would be undue in the cases of all those who've apologised to the victims or who distanced themselves from the Group of 88, but that isn't the case in a single group of 88 article John has edited. And as for race, that's significant but one only of many aspects.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose a counter, unilateral ban of Baseball Bugs from all editing for bigoted attacks on editors, and trying to discredited them with bigoted attacks on their religion. Such bigotry should not ever be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does Wikipedia benefit from my edits? There are hundreds of ways. Who else was going to significantly expand the article on May Green Hinckley. I could go on and on and on. The hateful invective spewed by some of the above is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim "it's not going to stop" is a show of failure to recognize the ability of others to change. It is a show of failure to recognize that my recent additions to Category:Women historians were 100% within guidelines. It is a failure to recognize that people can and do change when they are corrected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will admit that some of my edits and comments have been intemperate and unwise. I will admit that some of my edits were done without fully citing my sources. I am willing to avoid making similar edits. Those are all the things you can reasonably demand that I admit and state my willingness to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on JPL for BLP issues per Viriditas. Support topic ban on Baseball Bugs from mentioning any person's personal characteristics - or at least a topic ban from the rest of this thread. After the Manning naming dispute, you'd think Bugs would curb his language.--v/r - TP 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does JPL have a history of BLP issues, or is it just this one? If it's just the one, there's no real need for a topic ban. If there are many, then a topic ban should be considered. As regards editor characteristics, if anyone wears proudly the badge of any organization with a history of racism, and then makes controversial edits on the subject of racial matters, the personal motivation of the editor needs to at least be taken into consideration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As regards the other thing, I was banned from a topic on false premises, on a topic that I don't really care about, so everybody's happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • the BLP topic ban is both unreasonable, overbroad, and ignores any mitigating issues. The fact that no one has object at all to my most recent edit to the article on Mike Nifong shows that people do not object to my contributions to such topics in even most cases. BLPs is such a large part of Wikipedia, that a topic ban on any contribution to BLP articles would severely limit an editors ability to do anything. The unwillingness to even give an editor a change to admit that he has seen the error of his ways, and will try to do better is even more disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not create Category:Women historians, and I have not yet decided whether I think its continuance is worth while. I do have to admit it is a bit frustrating to have put as much time as I did into it over the last week, and only now have it brought up for deletion, but such is the fate of those who categorize. What is clear is that the way I populated it is exactly as the current guidelines suggest I should have. Whether those are the best guidelines seems to be a matter for another debate, but they were upheld in the recent discussions on such categories as Male United States senators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why I generally avoid category work, as a plethora of editors are constantly messing around with them. As regards Nifong, your edit adds the fact that some of his other cases may be looked out to see if he fudged other cases in addition to this one. Meanwhile, someone thinks the Nifong article is biased or some such. That bears looking into. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a rush to punish, without giving the offender even a chance to reform. This is a very frustrating and sad situation. The attempts to discern some sort of deep seated race prejudice on my part are very disturbing. Of course, as I have said before they amount to asking "when did you stop beating your wife." I literally cannot defend myself from the accusations. The fact that no one has reasons to suppose they actually do know my race to begin with is the first problem. The fact that I may well have some African ancestry and almost certainly have some Native American ancestry would not dissuade the attackers. The fact that my girlfriend is without question an African-American Mormon, that I work at a low paying job as a teacher's assistant in Detroit Public Schools, doing my best to correct the societal problems that lead to so many of the city's problems at the closest place to their origin as I can, or the fact that my first vote in a presidential primary was for an African-American, are never going to convince those who have already branded me a racist that I am anything but that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's your reasoning for insisting on this "group of 88" category? If it's not about reverse racism, then what is it about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from categorization and BLPs. This highly experienced editor who has been in many disputes over the years has just admitted above that his recent edits have been "intemperate and unwise". Accordingly, I conclude that this editor should take a long break from these areas of editing. We need temperate and wise editing instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could support a limited duration topic ban, like maybe a few months. He deserves a chance to improve his behavior, after a break, without having to go begging to the arbcoms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of this is totally unfair. I have struck my original comments from the category discussion. Beyond this, the addition of the category to people who were clearly identified as part of the group in the article Group of 88 was totally within policy. Expanding an under discussion category is always allowed. The reactions to this, such as claiming I was engaging in "placing a scarlet letter" can not be said to have given a fair or balanced summary of what was going on, or being the reasoned or non-accusatory appeals people should be allowed before they are placed under such hugely broad bans, that essentially prevent virtually all contributions to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I was asked why I support the Group of 88 category, I will explain. I believe in due process. That means innocent until proven guilty. That is the antithesis of what was seen at Duke. Beyond that, African-Americans are far more hurt by a failure to presume innocence than any other group. That said, we do not ban people from participation in Wikipedia because they supported categories that were found to not align with policies. We have deleted so many categories that it would be just plain ludicrous if we did so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To paint all 88 as being in some non-existent organization, with the inherent implication that they all stand behind their own rush to judgment even to this day, is similar to the HUAC's branding everyone who ever went to a Communist meeting as if they were still "card-carrying" Communists. It's unfair, undue weight, BLP violation, smacks of a political agenda, and any other number of issues. Your continued defense of it is most unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since the Gang of 88 continue to advance in their academic careers, any comparison to HUAC makes no sense. If there were similarities to HUAC it was in how those who dared to stand against the guilt-presumptions of the Group of 88 were so viciously attacked. Until Proven Innocent directly attacks this ludicrous attempt to paint as McCarthyite those who did not join in the witch-hunt to convinct someone for what proved to be a totally fabricated crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Would both of your mind slowing down the number of replies to this thread? It's getting ridiculous.--v/r - TP 06:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those Mormon comments are out of line and absolutely uncalled for. If we searched for ulterior motives and used religion as the basis we would have no credibility.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    24.56.15.29 edits to I Wear Your Shirt

    I wrote at User talk:24.56.15.29:

    Please stop changing "Kelly and Steve Sadler" to "Kelly and Vincent Stein" in the article I Wear Your Shirt, which you did 9 November 2013, 3 January 2014, 3 January 2014 again, 1 June 2014, and 4 July 2014. Your change contradicts the article from The Leader (http://www.webcitation.org/5l7u87VZ1). If you can find a reliable source that verifies that "Kelly and Vincent Stein" are the parents of I Wear Your Shirt's founder, please provide it on Talk:I Wear Your Shirt. Otherwise, further edits like this to I Wear Your Shirt will lead to a block by an administrator. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

    24.56.15.29 made the change again at 20:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    I am not posting this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because that noticeboard says:

    The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.

    The user is not active right now.

    Would an admin review this and block 24.56.15.29 for a lengthy period of time? 24.56.15.29 appears to be a static IP since the IP has been making the same incorrect edits since November 2013, eight months ago. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=616876675"