Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User abusing PROD

User:AlanS is blatantly abusing the PROD system to get articles he doesn't like deleted without discussion. Thankfully most admins have been sensible enough to reject them. He has tagged over 50 articles so far, some of which are correctly tagged, but others clearly meet none of the criteria for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. He has tried to get articles on NFL, MLB, and NHL players, a former Chilean national football team manager, and a member of the Indian parliament deleted. These are ridiculous and disruptive edits. He needs to be stopped, warned, and maybe blocked. I've tried to undo some of his edits, adding references and such, but there's too many. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note offensive language by this editor on my talk page. And remove of legitimate PROD at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Acosta&diff=619948981&oldid=619936217 AlanS (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note further offensive language at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A124.148.207.219&diff=619950105&oldid=619950053. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the word "filth" offend you? I'm terribly sorry, and I cheerfully withdraw it. Less offensive synonyms are available on request. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles I Prod'd might be incorrect, but I'd suggest the vast majority are Biographies of Living People with no references. That is a legitimate reason to Prod them. If you can find references, feel free to improve the articles with them. AlanS (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems legit to me. All the ones I've looked at were BLPs without references. Number 57 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No that is not a legitimate reason to prod them. "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (from WP:DEL-REASON) does not mean any article without a source can be deleted at any one time – this user makes no effort to find sources, just tries to delete article. What worthless contributions – detracting from the total sum of knowledge and giving nothing back. Sources listed under external links are still references. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Number 57 13:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No admin action seems to be required here. My only advice would be for AlanS to use the {{Blpprod}} template instead of {{Prod}} when tagging such articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any BLP create after March 18, 2010 that does not contain any sources can be tagged with {{blpprod}}. These prod tags cannot be removed unless the one contesting the deletion provides at least one reliable source. (see WP:STICKY) —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the report, AlanS is doing good job and he don't have to write tags because he can select PROD type from page patrolling tools. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, he absolutely does need to provide good reasons for a PROD. "select[ing] PROD type from page patrolling tools" without a proper investigation and rationale is not acceptable, as explained below by Calathan, with regards to older BLPs, as just one example. I remember your name, OZ, from an earlier discussion about automated tools. Users are entirely, and personally, responsible for the quality of edits they make with such tools in exactly the same way as if they had not used a tool at all. The details page for any reputable tool will tell you exactly that. The tool may never become a substitute for thought and care. If the edits are in any way below the standard which a manual edit, with thought, would have been, then the tool is being used inappropriately, and such use must be discontinued. I truly shudder to contemplate the number of potential editors we scare off daily by use of these tools as though this was some shoot-em-up video game, where quantity of edits is more important than quality. I'd put that as Wikipedia's number one problem, right now. Really. Begoon ^talk 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the opinion of the only admin to have commented on this thread so far. AlanS (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to pick and choose whichever advice you wish. However, even a quick glance at User talk:AlanS/Archive 1 seems to indicate that there have been multiple occasions on which experienced editors have had concerns about the deletion related edits you have made. Of course, they could all be wrong. As Calathan says below, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, as are those who have expressed some concerns, or advised a little more care. I'd just ask you to consider that. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much about picking and choosing advice. I always am wary of cherry picking. More so the case of an admin saying that what I am doing seems legit to him. Sorry I'm going to take the words of admin with a bit more weight than I would any one else. You are quite right about others previously expressing concern at my haste in slapping CSDs around. I've tried to take quite a bit more care with them. As far as I'm aware though with prods, it's quite legitimate to place one an article with no references (especially given that anyone can remove it if they disagree). AlanS (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's great. All any of us can do is try to improve, and hope we get it right. Below this post, 2 other editors disagree that all of your BLP prods were unproblematic, and they give a reasonable explanation of why they think that might be so. Sure, another editor can remove an erroneous PROD, or even one they just disagree with, but really, why should they need to, and why should we run the risk of unnecessarily upsetting editors, or even article subjects, by tagging articles in this way? Begoon ^talk 08:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I commented about a similar situation to another user yesterday, and wanted to give a similar comment here. The BLPPROD policy was brought about as the result of a long and contentious discussion, as a compromise where recent BLPs would be deleted just for being unsourced and older BLPs would not be deleted just for being unsourced. For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced (as again, one of the key parts of the compromise was that older BLPs would not be deleted just because they were unsourced). AlanS, I see that you have tagged some older BLPs with PROD tags with a deletion rationale that only states they are unsourced (e.g. David Aldus and Adewale Ayuba). While I think you are acting in good faith, and disagree with most of what 124.148.207.219 said, I do agree that this isn't a valid reason for deletion for those articles. Please just put a little more into the deletion rationale, such as a statement that you did a quick search for sources and didn't find any, or that you think the subject is non-notable (if you think they are notable, it would obviously be much more helpful to add references rather than tagging them for deletion). Calathan (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS has ignored what I wrote here, and is continuing to tag older BLPs with prod tags that only say they are unreferenced. I consider that disruptive, as the prod reason isn't a sufficient reason for deletion for those articles. AlanS, remember that the idea is to build an encyclopedia that includes articles on notable subjects and excludes articles on non-notable subjects. Spending less than 5 minutes looking for sources on an article will often allow you to tell whether the subject is notable or not, and is much more helpful than just tagging lots of articles without even looking for sources. If you do even a cursory search for sources and don't find any that look sufficient, then that is a valid reason to PROD an article. I'm not asking you to stop cleaning up those unsourced articles, and indeed cleaning them up is quite helpful. However, please just go about it in the right way, by giving valid reasons for deletion when you tag them and by checking first if any of them are subjects we should have articles on. Calathan (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The two examples given by Calathan two comments up both have external links in the article - which makes them ineligible for BLPprod even if they had been created post-2010. Hack (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the BLPprod from the one which had external links that were working and removed the link from the other one that was broken. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, AlanS placed PROD on Adewale Ayuba, an article created in 2003, with the rationale "Article contains no references" while it still had an external link (diff). Hack (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you enjoy nitpicking? AlanS (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, this latest one is for an article created in 2009. Clearly there is a persistent problem here. I suggest the following:

What exactly is the problem with that PROD. The Article is completely un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, AlanS should stop marking articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place.
• Secondly, he should use the appropriate template - in other words {{Prod blp}} instead of {{Proposed deletion}} for BLPs without references.
• Thirdly and most importantly, he should acknowledge that (to repeat Calathan's words verbatim) "For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced.", check the history of the articles he is marking for deletion before he tags them to see when they were created, and stop tagging articles that don't meet the BLPPROD criteria with immediate effect.
• Fourthly, he should endeavour to search for appropriate references where none exist before even considering marking an article for deletion
• Finally, failure to abide by the "Thirdly" paragraph going forward should result in a ban on marking articles for deletion for six months. WaggersTALK 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Number 57:, I hear what User:Waggers is saying. Do other admins agree? AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your query above, AlanS, the problem is that the article you prodded was created before March 18, 2010 and therefore does not qualify for BLPPROD. That's been explained so many times in this thread now I'm beginning to think this is a WP:DONTGETIT situation. WaggersTALK 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, I am beginning to think there is a problem here. BLP prods for post-2010 articles are reasonable (although if you can see the subject is clearly notable, why not just find a reference yourself - Google is very quick!), but prodding pre-2010 should only be used if the subject is not notable – tagging many articles of subjects that are clearly notable (e.g. sportspeople that have represented their country) for deletion for no other reason than a lack of references is not particularly productive. I think there are also issues with returning to tag now-referenced articles with {{ref improve}} when in some cases one or two references is perfectly adequate (e.g. tagging the two-sentence Ronny Aloema twice, even though it had a reference that covered pretty much everything in the article). Number 57 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take what you've said onboard. AlanS (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol

• This is far from the first discussion I've had involving AlanS and deletion-related disputes. I think plain talking isn't obviously working, so unfortunately I'm going to throw open a proposal that AlanS is topic banned from all NPP activities, broadly construed, for three months. The evidence can be found in numerous discussions links off User talk:AlanS/Archive 1, particularly the notifications of declined speedies, plus comments such as "I think you should be banned from having an opinion." and "Do you enjoy nitpicking?" as seen above are just not helpful when dealing with new editors and articles. He's not the only one to blame in the dispute that kicked this thread off, but with a bit more tact and diplomacy, the thread might not have been created in the first place. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Something in the area of responsiveness to guidance, and willingness to exercise required care needs to change. I agree that there have been some very unhelpul responses, so far, and I share deeply the concern for new articles and editors, as I expressed in the discussion above. I'm reluctant to support a topic ban unless AlanS continues to reject guidance and exercise care, now that it is being put to them more plainly. So, I guess that's a "no, unless no alternative remains by the end of this discussion", at this point. Begoon ^talk 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree completely given my massive improvement in CSD's. I feel, by and large, I've been using PRODs appropriately. AlanS (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since your acknowledgement of Waggers' comment above (approximately fifteen minutes ago), you PRODed several pre-2010 articles with the rationale that they had no references. Hack (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oof - that doesn't help my reluctance to support the topic ban one bit. That, and the dismissive responses to guidance are starting to make me nervous, I confess. Begoon ^talk 15:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to say that putting a "notability" tag on a César Award-winning actress appearing in several major films is ... unhelpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• ...yeah... I think, at the very least, AlanS is going to need to remove his fingers from his ears and acknowledge all the valid concerns. Absent that happening during this discussion, I'll need to support your topic ban, I'm afraid. Begoon ^talk 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - adding a properly formatted !vote, in case my opinion is not clear, above and below. The WP:IDHT is, unfortunately, deafening still, 3 days later. Begoon ^talk 20:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - AlanS doesn't seem to be conscious or aware of the issues and has made 120+ PRODs in the last 72 hours, and they are ineligible, but it continued in this very thread after AlanS responded to it. I also see basic issues with the Notability tag - which should never have been applied to Anne Brochet in the first place. Combined with the attitude, the user is simply not able to be trusted with New Page Patrol if any new editor (or even an experienced one) has to deal with someone who doesn't understand the basic guidelines themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I contest that the majority of the Prods I've applied have been legitimate. Further, if anyone has a look at the page of unreferenced BLPs, they will see that it is pretty much halved in the last 72 hours (for persons with surnames starting with A or B). As per applying a notability tag incorrectly to one article. My mistake, I'll cop to it and take more care. Further I’ve taken Number 57 (talk · contribs) comments on-board. AlanS (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support and support banning of Prod - Recently encountered this editor when he placed a notability tag on the article of César Award winning actress Anne Brochet. [1] Wow. I didn't know this was the tip of the iceberg as indicated here. The mentioned article even stated in the version of this dif that she was an Ceasar Award winning actress who has starred in many films including the iconic Cyrano de Bergerac. This blatant disregard to WP:DEL-REASON occurred days after this thread began - It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's as if you're ignoring WP:AGF in saying 'he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules'. AlanS (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence is "It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior." Trying to AGF but you're not making it easy.--Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, but.. - TL;DR: seems hasty, why not try other things first? Long version Mass deletion proposals or any mass invocation of process is a problem if it's not done in an orderly, competent way, and we do have a quality issue here. New page patrol is a partial exception because AFAIK the majority of new pages aren't worthy, and particularly new bios that tend to be unsourced or non-notable. Even that has to be done carefully, politely, helpfully, and with compassion because this is many users' first and only experience trying to edit Wikipedia, and we don't want to turn away the occasional good new editor, or alienate the public. So a soft careful touch is useful even when making high-volume templated edits. A topic ban is a rather extreme remedy, not the first thing to try. AlanS seems to be a good faith, sincere editor. Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation. If AlanS will agree to slow down a bit, learn some more, perhaps work with mentorship of a more experienced editor, or just try a little harder, is there any indication that he's not going to do this work just fine? All I see is a 3 day old report where he's trying to be helpful and explain, and not quite hitting the mark. 3 days is too hasty to topic ban someone for 3 months. If there's an immediate present problem, a warning or (very short) block might be more appropriate if it's extreme. Otherwise, just step back and let's get back to normal business here. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I"m here on this page watching other business and abstaining from another topic ban !vote, I just thought I'd be useful by offering my $0.02 on a dispute where I'm completely uninvolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am always trying to learn. I will admit that I do make mistakes sometimes and I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down and by no means do I want to be putting new editors off or alienating the public. I do apologise if it has seemed like I have pushed back a bit. I do find the tone of this discussion has been a bit off putting. In particular the tone of IP editor who started it (please compare their edit history [2] to a conversation that occurred in Whitehouse Institute of Design at [3] and tell me there isn't some wikistalking and violations of WP:AGF occurring). AlanS (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think your comment doesn't really apply because AlanS was picking BLPs from before the policy change in 2010 and was PRODing them. Not only that, its that quite a few were also ineligible because they had external links. Not only that, the problem continued during this thread. Not only that, AlanS was being rude in response to the legitimate issue be called out. Then, the final straw for me was even after all that - managing to do it all again and slap tags that were ineligible without so much as checking the claims already present in the article. This is also not the first time issues have happened - all those comments apply to new issues. The "Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation." - shows that this very thread itself hasn't curbed the issue since its beginning and the issues predate it. My core issue is that AlanS doesn't understand the policies well-enough to do New Page Patrol and its a WP:CIR issue as well. I'd be open to mentoring however, I just don't want to see this return in a month's time to ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I hear you, but the key word for me in your explanation is "was" — if this is in the past, remedies are to prevent *future* disruption, not to punish or deter. If AlanS is committed to trying, why not give him the chance? He's promising to be more careful here. I haven't noticed the civility problem but if there is one you can ask him to stay civil. Accusations of wikistalking are a tough one, because if they're true they aren't uncivil. If they aren't true, sometimes it's just a question of perspective. If you see someone doing something surprising or wrong it's reasonable to look at their edit history to see where else they may have done it and perhaps take action or piece together the bigger picture. But if you're on the receiving end of that it can seem like someone has it out for you. If it does end up back here in a month, fine. You would have the record of this report, and an actual promise AlanS said he would keep but didn't. Strike two, you know. Regarding the pre-2010 BLPs, that's kind of surprising. I was part of the big free-for-all argument that ended up in that agreement to start the BLP rescue project (mostly arguing, not tagging or defending more than a few BLPs). I thought we had gone through them all. If there's still a pre-2010 BLP that looks like it's missing sources, then either someone made a mistake and passed it over without rescuing it, someone removed an earlier source, or the person doing the PROD is missing something. In theory there should be no virgin source-free pre-2010 BLPs here anymore. And in theory there shouldn't be any new ones either, any post 2010 BLPs should be deleted or sourced as soon as they appear. I do think that a single external link or improperly formatted, or tangential reliable source, isn't really keeping with the letter or spirit of BLP, it's just barely enough to survive BLPPROD. After four years now we ought to be trying to add some real sources to these articles, not the bare minimum. But that's not really an issue for this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My accusations are backed up by solid evidence. Please have a look at the two links I have provided and compare the names of the pages the IP has recently edited to his comment on the discussion page of Whitehouse Institute of Design. No excuse for me previously being a bit bull headed, but off putting all the same. AlanS (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a little lazy but I'll take you at your word without necessarily endorsing or agreeing. I've definitely been wiki-stalked, and also accused of wiki-stalking. I've seen everything here. People throw a lot of mud on AN/I and in any dispute, and no matter how clean you are when you come in, when mud gets thrown everybody gets dirty. You will rarely come out ahead on AN/I by insisting, however sincerely and correctly, that the person who is accusing you of something is completely wrong and made it up. And if you accuse someone of something on AN/I, however sincerely and correctly, you can expect to be accused yourself of the same thing and for some percentage of the participants to believe that you're the instigator and culprit. This is true in real life, by the way. The best solution I think is to rise above that and just do your best job as an editor. So what if you have an IP wiki-stalker, probably one of the named editors around here who is deliberately not signing in? Sure, there are certain admins with tools who could figure that out. Sure, IPs participating in process discussions are very suspicious (though there is sometimes a legit reason). But so what? You've been wiki-stalked. Welcome to the club. Let them stalk your edits. If you make good edits, own up to your mistakes, treat even your detractors with some respect and kindness, you just have observers, not stalkers. Sometimes that means you have to give up on an edit you know is right, or let someone get away with doing something they shouldn't, for a greater goal of having a good Wikipedia experience. Hope that helps! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - having a look at the PRODs listed at User:AlanS/PROD log, there have been 74 PRODs (ignoring BLPprods) placed on biographical articles in the month of August. Of these 37 were placed with the rationale "Article has no references", one with "Article does not have any references", 35 with "Article contains no references" and one with no rationale. All of the 74 were created before the 18 March 2010 BLPprod cutoff date. None of the rationales are valid deletion reasons making 100% of the PRODs invalid. Hack (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose NPP ban, support PROD ban I think a complete topic ban is unnecessary, but Alans does need to stop prodding articles that don't meet the necessary criteria. His responses above and continued editing suggests he either doesn't get it or doesn't care, so sadly I think some kind of sanction is necessary, and banning him from prodding articles seems appropriate. There's no reason (at present) to stop him adding maintenance tags or taking things to AfD/CSD as appropriate. WaggersTALK 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Oppose and counter-proposal - Let's try to channel AlanS' enthusiasm into making him a valuable contributor in NPP where we desperately need more reviewers. When I started reviewing, I made a lot of mistakes. Fortunately people were very patient with me, and I took their advice and improved. A way forward for AlanS may be some sort of mentoring. If he doesn't demonstrate improvement, or if he ignores advice or continues making the same judgement errors, then a NPP/CSD/PROD ban should be seriously considered.- MrX 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering the the poor judgement demonstrated by continuing to make questionable deletion nominations during this discussion, the attitude, and the evident lack of competence in this area, I now support a temporary NPP ban to include nominating any page for PROD or XfD.- MrX 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Personally, I've been periodically checking this thread, hoping to see a response from Alan to Hack's comment above, outlining which of those PRODS have been fixed by others, which ones he has dealt with himself, which ones may still be problematic, etc... That would be enthusiasm, and a beginning to the learning process you envisage. Begoon ^talk 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

When others have named specific pages by name where I have made a mistake I've usually gone back to the page to see if someone one else might of corrected my mistake or to see if the correction still needs to be done. Sorry if I haven't indicated that when people have brought up specific examples. AlanS (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hack's message is specific. It refers to a longish list, but it's a specific list. Did you have some other way in mind, rather than running through the list, to check for outstanding issues? Begoon ^talk 03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Every article I Prod'd is sitting in my watch list. When they had sources added I removed them from my watch list. There's not much left in my watch list at the moment from those articles that I Prod'd. I'll have a look through the ones that are remaining now. AlanS (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see there is only about 10 of them left (could be missing one or two) and they are BLP Prod variety and those articles are still un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think mentoring sounds like a good alternative. If AlanS rejects mentorship and shows no improvement, then we can come back. Sorry to potentially extend this drama, but I'm not completely convinced at this time that the disruption warrants a ban. I strongly advise AlanS to take a mentor; otherwise, it's likely that he will return here shortly. If we're back here in less than a month, I'll accept a trout and change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Who do you propose and what does it involve? AlanS (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can remove a prod. A prod is nothing more than a suggestion that deletion is uncontroversial, anyone can dispute that and remove it. Having a valid reason for deletion is not the same as consensus for deletion and is open to personal interpretation. I strongly advise AlanS to use specific prod templates for BLP and such and also provide detailed reasons for each and every article he prods.

  "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason for deletion and thus prod too, even if the article is prior than 2010 or not a blp. The notability policy does not simply require that a person or subject be notable but that this be demonstrated. The burden of meeting this policy is on the person seeking to include it not the person trying to remove it.

  I find those suggesting that he should fix the articles instead of removing content contrary to policy to be missing that fundamental point.

  Frankly I think it is time people learn that unreferenced articles are not long for this encyclopedia. It is a simple standard that if met improves our credibility from a joke to a respectable source of information. I would rather be involved with a referenced encyclopedia 500 times larger than the next largest encyclopedia than an unreferenced one 5000 times larger. Chillum 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll just take a break from NPP for a little while. I thought I was actually doing something useful by helping reduce the number of un-referenced BLPs (with surnames starting with A and B) from in excess of a page at [4] to half a page. Others seem to disagree. Fine. I'm sure there are plenty more people who are prepared to go entirely through all un-referenced BLPs. AlanS (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm responding to AlanS's comment above that I [AlanS] can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down. Only a few hours ago he resumed edit-warring over his pet article at Whitehouse Institute of Design while a BRD-flagged discussion was in place. It's night in Australia and when I paused for sleep, he said (in edit summary), Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD. I think this editor should accept his own advice and slow down. In this global project, not every editor is simultaneously awake, let alone on-line. There's always time for discussion, and very few of our encyclopaedic articles need to be up to the minute. Least of all the sort of articles AlanS is PRODding. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What you trying to game WP:BRD to have material that you simply don't like not included in a page has to do with Prod'ing I fail to comprehend. Or is this a case of you having a go just because you can? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No. My comment is aimed at your over-hastiness. If an article is unreferenced, we can just put a "cite required" tag on it and wait a while. It doesn't have to be gone immediately because you don't like it. If a discussion pauses, it might be because real life intrudes. We, as individuals, have opinions and agendas. Getting more eyes and more opinions on a problem is always good, even if it means waiting more than a few minutes for a result. --Pete (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - On viewing AlanS's recent behaviour, I'm disturbed at the amount of damage he is causing. A lot of the articles he wants removed represent a significant investment in editing effort. Just because one editor has no interest or knowledge of a topic doesn't mean that articles in that area are deletion targets. He wants to remove bios of MLB players, such as Bob Adams of the Detroit Tigers, a man with his own Topps card. Geez. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Prior to my tagging that article it was un-referenced. Now it referenced. Surprising how that happened don't you think? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't just "tag" that article but you prodded it for deletion.[5] Deletion is not cleanup. As per deletion policy:"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If you had no interest in following WP:BEFORE and looking for sources to improve the article, then place a references tag on it. That you fail to understand this basic tenant of our deletion policy, even during your ANI, is very disturbing. --Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The article also had a link to baseball-reference.com, meaning it wasn't unreferenced. Hack (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hasn't this discussion gone on for long enough. I see no consensus for anything. AlanS (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked for someone to close it here: [6]. Hope that will help. Begoon ^talk 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Comments such as the ones that he made above show that he doesn't understand the concept of deleting articles without discussion. If he can't grasp the easy basics of a BLP PROD, perhaps he should be forced to take a break and take the time given to review the deletion policy. Given the fact that numerous editors here have pointed out issue after issue and he's come back with nothing but spite for them, I don't think that anything other than a ban will stop the disruption. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support this, and recommend extension to speedy deletion process as well. Editor just tagged for speedy deletion an academic at a major American university. who received a notable award in her field and holds an endowed chair. That's about as bad a call as you can make. and shows a complete lack of WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Update - Despite the ANI and repeated explanation of deletion and PRODding policies, this editor just speedy prodded E. L. Thorndike Award winner and UCLA Presidential Chair Sandra Graham with the rationale "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."[7] This is days after sympathetic comments like those of Waggers above with the plea that AlanS stop prodding articles that don't meet the deletion criteria. This has become a colossal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I now agree with the The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) in banning from speedy deletion process --Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support the extended ban Every time an article is incorrectly listed for deletion we risk not only losing the article, but the editor. NPP is difficult enough to keep current, without also having to undo the problems of those who do it improperly. We need more good people there, but everyone who won't or can't learn how to do it is doing active harm to the project. The continuing use of the rationale, "but it got fixed" shows that this misunderstanding of basic deletion policy is still present. If the discussions above haven't succeeding in explaining it, nothing will. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As it happens I just warned AlanS about this unwarranted CSD nomination--and now that I glance upward I see that that's probably what Hullabaloo was talking about. No, this is not good. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support In Alan's defense, this PROD wasn't completely wrong. However upon checking the content of the article I found it to be a copyvio, so I removed his PROD and applied CSD#G12 accordingly. This PROD also turned out to be a copyvio, so again I removed his PROD tag and applied CSD#G12. This PROD (IMO) wasn't completely faulty as apparently he didn't know that the article was really under Blackstreet. I propose that AlanS stay away from NPP for at least 3-6 months and thoroughly read and understand WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and especially WP:ATHLETE, since a lot of the PRODS that I saw were of soccer players.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support 3-month ban per speedy nom of Sandra Graham during this discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• I was on the fence about this, but seeing that AlanS is continuing to PROD articles, when his controversial PROD activity is being debated is not a sign of acceptance that there is community concern of his actions. Support extended ban. Blackmane (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support any ban on all deletion activities, whether PROD or CSD or AFD. As per Blackmane, it is clear that he isn't learning. I don't recommend a period of time, but rather than he be able to appeal in six months. With a period of time, there is the risk that he could just start up again. He doesn't seem to be trying to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Ban on deletion activities. IDHT. Should understand policies better. Finite duration so he can restart without asking (AGF); in three months there may not be a strong record on which to resume. Glrx (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. That no one has stopped him yet is mind-numbing. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support a three month ban on any deletion related activities including CSD PROD and AfD based on overwhelming evidence demonstrating a pattern of improper editing in this area and willfully ignoring WP:BEFORE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I am fed up of having to defend unreasonable prods and nominations. If you don't ban this guy then it's like saying we don't want Wikipedia at all. Op47 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Op47: Are you trying to conceal a report here on this page with the above comment? I draw admin (@DGG:) attention to the following two edits. Please note the material from another topic on this page that is removed. [8], [9]. AlanS (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI gets problems like that, it's a known issue (a bug). 2 or 3 times in the last week or so comments of mine have been removed in "silent" edit conflicts which the other users were almost certainly not warned about. You can see where I had to replace them in the page history. Here's one: [10] --> [11] - there are others. It really doesn't happen much anywhere else, but it does here (seemingly often when the page gets large) - many people have suffered and noticed it, but no fix yet. It's probably something you didn't know about. I'd tend to always first AGF and assume that's what's happened, on this board, to avoid "messy" situations like this earlier one: [12]. Of course, as I say, many people are unaware of this problem. Begoon ^talk 04:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd. Thanks for the info. They ought to do something about it. AlanS (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I did have 2 edit conflicts. On both occasions, my edit failed. I was not aware of any other "collateral damage". I trust everything is back in order now Op47 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - so far as I can see, Mendaliv noticed and fixed it almost straight away. It's always caused by errors handling edit conflicts, and it's unpredictable - very annoying, because you don't always even get the edit conflict warning, so you have no idea it happened, and even with the warning, the results are not always the expected ones. A bit of AGF is very helpful in these situations, but that can sometimes be in short supply at ANI, where editors may already be "on edge", so it's particularly unfortunate this problem happens here. Begoon ^talk 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I appologise for the accusation Op47. I didn't know it was a thing that happened on this page. Makes me want to double check every time I write something on here now. AlanS (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, for that reason I do try to remember to check diffs for edits I make here (Popups on contribution list is useful). Of course, if it's my comment that gets accidentally clobbered later, I won't see that in that way, but I can at least check I haven't accidentally done it to anyone else. Obviously, though, most people don't even know to watch for it. There are lots of related posts in bugzilla, and I'm sure it's being worked on, but the fix would be nice. Begoon ^talk 11:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely there are more congested pieces of real-estate? Does it happen in those places also? AlanS (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it does, but size of page and many fast, simultaneous edits makes it more common here, maybe. You can search Village Pump or bugzilla for "edit conflict" or "edit conflict race" to see some examples. Begoon ^talk 11:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Extreme personal attack

I can't see that there's any justification for this edit summary. Perhaps a block is in order for this editor. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

:/ Sooner or later, some admin is going to have to take one of these c-word droppers and make an example of them, i.e. in the 1-2 week block range. This is getting out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More vicious attacks in a tirade left on my talk page: [13]. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW see the OP's record at WP:Long term abuse here. Kahastok talk 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not going to attempt to justify that edit summary, if you're the same person as this edit then you are hardly in a position to criticize. See the IPs listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP for plenty of other examples. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so if you think I might be someone who you don't like, it's ok to call me a cunt? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here he goes again: [14] 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you would create an account & stick with it, tensions might drop. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's ok to call someone a cunt if they don't have an account? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're picking on me, I'm only a little IP. Give that whiny record a rest. Listen if you don't wish to be referred to as a dopey fucking cunt, treat people with respect and it'll be reciprocated. Otherwise if you behave like a dopey fucking cunt don't be upset if I call you one. WCM_email 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the behaviour of the IP or any other editor. PS: Beware of the boomerang -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP The edit summary was quite deliberate on my part, apparently its OK for the IP editor above to repeatedly refer to anyone who has an issue with him in the same manner cunts, cunts, cunts, You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster", you fucking idiot, told you nicely to fuck off. now fuck off., rv idiot, just fuck off, rm tiresome dickhead, For fuck's sake. Don't revert for no good reason. Do you understand why it pisses people off if their efforts are reverted for no good reason?, rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers

Variously, he'll claim:

• its OK because people revert him solely because he is an IP - which he knows is a lie in my case
• its OK because his edits are superior to everyone else and everyone else is a dopey cunt who can't write an encyclopedia

And as he seems to take delight in targeting articles I've edited I am fucking fed up with it. As far as I can see the guy is simply trolling and opening this ANI thread was just trolling. WCM_email 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now on 5RR after warning at Argentine Military Cemetery. I'd go to WP:AN3, but no point in informing admins in more places than necessary. Kahastok talk 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Australia, which is not within the scope of the LTA filing (Chile, Brazil). Are you alleging that the LTA person/persons are branching out? Tarc (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Its the same guy, he's regularly travelling. If you look at all the IP, you'll find the UK and Canada in there. Check Talk:Ian Gow and it'll confirm his mobile nature - this is why he keeps avoiding long term scrutiny. WCM_email 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The LTA notes that the IP has used geolocations in a variety of locations in the past, including the UK and Canada. Australia would not be unusual and the behavioural evidence is compelling.

Including the bad language. This was the first time somebody called somebody else a c*** on the relevant page. It's also the first of the OP's five reverts today (the last of which came after a warning). Kahastok talk 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now blocked for 3RR. Kahastok talk 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked the IP after it reverted a 4th time after being properly warned. That doesn't mean the complaint of the IP editor is invalid, though I'm not going to offer an opinion on the substance of it. Monty₈₄₅ 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first (some cunt reverted for no reason) as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a WP:CIVIL policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? WCM_email 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best solution is to just not give such editors any ammunition to further disrupt process. I know they can get under your skin, but just continuing to deal with them through normal process, and without any overt displays of emotion is the only effective strategy. A decent number of serially disruptive editors feed off the emotions and go out of their way to bait you. Your comment was out of line, but personally, I'm not interested in doing anything about it because the IP editor came here with clearly Unclean hands. Monty₈₄₅ 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is the same person, then yea, let's call it a wash as they have clearly inflamed the situation over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it got dealt with during the normal process, do you imagine I would have responded as I did?

No, I basically get told I have to put up with it, I've even had a snarky comment about being the "civility police". This is just a "content dispute" that I should talk out on the article talk page with an editor who responds as above. And too often they've been given fig leafs to hide behind. WCM_email 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize, as I've had somewhat the same problem, a recurring troll who first turned up around 2009 and pops up periodically for the sole purpose as harassment - and since he's likewise able to hop across various IP's around the world, I'm told to ignore it. Your case is rather worse, what with the woman-hating obscenities your IP friend is throwing around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're obscenities; "woman hating"--not so much. They sure dislike WCM though, and the feeling is very mutual. I can't fault WCM for their outburst, but this should have gone differently, as anyone can see who looks at the article's history. Bugs, this is not a troll. GoodDay, some people don't wish to get accounts, and nothing can make them get one: saying that they continue as an IP editor to avoid scrutiny is pure bad-faith hypothesis.

So let me just note that all this starts with a somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary, followed by WCM simply reverting because, well, it's this IP editor: I can see no other reason, and all WCM has to add on the talk page is "it is actually well known"--apparently this was enough for Kahastok to revert, with the net effect of producing a tag team effort that leads to Favonian's block. So what's next, after all this? Srich32977 comes in and does what a decent editor should do: check it out, and edit accordingly ("rm editorializing"). Thank you Srich. In other words, the IP was right after all, despite this revert a long time ago (unexplained, by an IP--and no one batted an eye). So it goes. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obscenities, obviously. And woman-hating in the same way that "fag" is considered to be gay-hating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's no more "woman hating" than calling someone a prick or a dick is "man hating". Such bollocks. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere, that particular word carries shades of meaning in North America that it does not carry in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as "woman-hating". It is, regardless, offensive and clearly best avoided.

As to Drmies' point about what happened, I disagree with her in policy terms. The source - a BBC TV documentary made by Peter Snow and Dan Snow - was taken offline at some stage. The BBC does not put programmes online permanently, so this is not surprising. That, taken alone, does not mean that verification was failed or that the source is no longer reliable as seems to be implied. Kahastok talk 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may clarify, most IPs are beneficial to the project. They're the gnome's gnome & I value them highly. However they're a tiny few who aren't helpful, such as the IP jumper-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this argument need to spill over into every incident involving personal attacks? It does not matter if it is "woman hating" or not, it was obviously offensive and unacceptable.

This is a simple case, it was a clear cut and very offensive personal attack. I have given the user who made the attack an only warning about personal attacks. If it keeps up we block.

This is biting the newbies in the worst way and it was in a content dispute. That sort of nastiness has a chilling effect and drives off new users and hurts our ability to find neutrality by driving off all but the thickest of skinned.

We don't even talk that way to trolls, banned users and spammers. Chillum 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, the IP is not a newbie: details and links to an LTA file are above. What is more troubling than any incivility (from both sides) is what gave rise to it. I have given an account above, which editors and admins are free to disregard it at their own peril, since that's what usually happens. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, I don't bite newbies and the accusation is almost as obnoxious as the sanctimonious warning you chose to leave on my talk page. It had already been dealt with, I'd calmed down, apologised and asked for the offensive edit summaries to be redacted and then you steam in half-cocked issuing warnings and laying false accusations of newbie biting. The situation had calmed down as far as I was concerned and to be honest you just brought it back to the boil as far as I'm concerned.
• Drmies can attest that as far as this IP editor is concerned the charge that I only revert because they're an IP is false and despite the abuse I did explain my reasoning for reverting their contribution. WCM_email 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• And to add, did you read the above, as that particular IP editor has been calling me a dopey fucking cunt for years, where is your concern, warnings or blocks been for the past 5 years??? Where has been your concern for the chilling effect on my editing? Eh, tell me that mate. WCM_email 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Wee Curry Monster, I read the whole damn thing. I've read just about every fucking word you wasted on this the past couple of years. It's really boring. Clearly you did not read all that I've had to say on the matter, since I have blocked this IP at least once. My concern is for the project. In this particular case, and anyone can see this in the article history, one of the IPs edits is reverted for improper reasons at all. First by another IP, then by you, with a cryptic edit summary: "comment is cited and the political motives are well known - wikipedia neutrally points out the facts that edit was censorship". (No, it wasn't "censorship": extraordinary claims require good, published evidence.) So the IP editor is "censoring"? Their next revert has a decent summary: "what nonsense. political motivation is as clearly expressed now as before. what is removed is the implication that they were somehow being crafty devils and cunningly "knew" something that the British had inexplicably overlooked". And your revert? The same old song: "rv as usual our foul mouthed IP editor from Chile thinks only his edit is allowed". Well, you're right about one thing: "rv as usual", since that's what you seem to do, regardless of the merit of the edit. If I got reverted as often as this person is, I'd get pissed too.

  For the onlookers, WCM pointed at Ian Gow or its talk page for another example of the IP's bad behavior. That article is another where they got into it, and where, the way I look at it, the IP presented (valid) arguments, while the anti-vandal patrol just keeps rooooooling them back. So, you may ask, how did we solve this, since solve it we did? The normal way: with an RfC. The IP did not get their way in the RfC, but the matter was addressed with arguments. And all is calm now in that article.

  I'm not making apologies for the IPs foul language, nor am I condemning WCM for his. It's not the point, nor is WCM's apology (they didn't apologize to the IP, I think). Their charge, that "I've done nothing", that's boloney. I've been trying to mediate and to help--but what WCM and his friends want is simply blocks and protection, and what I want is that IP editors' edits are judged on their content. That's all. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought about commenting on this, but this kind of admin action is exactly part of the reason why much of this is allowed to continue. A number of admins don't bother to read the story behind a situation prior to making decisions (such as placing warnings or blocks). Rarely is any situation at AN/I simple, and it would be best to keep that mentality at other noticeboards (e.g., the 3RR noticeboard, although even then matters also require good analysis) rather than here. WCM had also clearly apologized for the outburst, which is significant since few editors ever do.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see there were no admin actions. What admin action are you talking about?

  The warning was to prevent future incidences, not to punish the earlier incidence. Any user can make a warning and it is not an administrative act. If this is the end of it then fine, but if this type of behavior continues then the warning had been seen. Chillum 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did block the IP editor who was complaining about WCM, but that doesn't seem to be what MarshalN20 is upset about. AFAIK, that was the only admin action here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but I am displeased at what I continuously see going on in Wikipedia (meaning that this is not to comment on Chillum as an admin, mainly because I haven't interacted with him at all, but rather on admins in general). I consider this ultimatum placed in WCM's talk page (see [15]), as an unwarranted admin action. Now you may reply to this with a "warnings are not admin tools," but I have learned that warnings placed by admins are always given greater weight than warnings placed by other users. In fact, there are cases when a user's page (usually IP users) is filled with warnings, but admins only take action after seeing another one of them had previously placed a warning. Hence my statement above. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I want to tell you a story. When I was in grade 3 the other kids would make faces at me until I shouted at them, then I would get sent to a little room to get in trouble for shouting. The other kids got caught making faces sometimes and they got in trouble too but that did not get me out of trouble for shouting. I was told that whatever the other kids did that it was I who was responsible for my behavior.

By grade 4 I had learned not to let other provoke me into getting myself into trouble.

I think this long term disruptive editor has less to lose from a personal attack block than you do. I think you are being baited into shouting insults and that you are making his day by responding in kind. I also think my teachers were right that ultimately it is you who decide how to act to provocation and you who bear the responsibility.

You are being trolled, and you are feeding that troll. Don't let this person provoke you, it is what they want. Chillum 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with that last part. I think the IP isn't really enjoying having their edits reverted constantly. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trolls like being reverted, they like being yelled at and insulted, the LOVE it when someone else gets in trouble for reacting to them. They want attention and reaction and they want to stir up shit. It is what trolls do.

Now it could be this is not a dedicated troll, but rather someone who is using trolling to get their point of view out there. In which case they would be annoyed are reversion but happy when they bait the person reverting them into doing something they should not.

Trolls hate it when you ignore them. Block, revert, ignore. This is why I don't even template the talk page of a returning troll as they collect block noticed like trophies. Chillum 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Block-revert-ignore" sounds good, but it leaves out an important fact: The difficulty of convincing an admin to block an obvious troll, and the extra attention the troll gets as a result of an admin slapping the reporting user in the face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to offer a public apology to Chillum for earlier remarks both here and on his talk page. I have already offered a private apology on his talk page but as I also commented here and others have sprung to my defence I felt it important to do so here as well. I thank those who have expressed their concern about the warning but ask you not to challenge Chillum about this any more. Upon reflection, I think he did the right thing and I was out of order. I was annoyed and responded in anger and in a manner that violated the code of conduct I signed up to when I became a wikipedia editor. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about such behaviour in others and not apologise when I behave inappropriately myself. I extend that apology to the IP editor for my remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Chillum for their kindness in responding to me in a calm manner that brought me to my senses.

I am extremely disappointed that Drmies misinterpreted my remarks as being directed at them. They were not, there were intended for Chillum and I acknowledge that as I made them in anger perhaps this was not clear and I didn't express myself as well as I could. However, to respond to his subsequent comments I would also note my disappointment in the claim that I'm reverting solely because it was that IP editor. What he describes as a "somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary" was one which started by referring to another editor as "some cunt", which is why the edit summary was removed. The edit summary was way out line and my response, which is still there, was to point out it was cited and well-known. The suggestion I reverted solely because of who did it, is an allegation I reject.

I am further troubled by the way he characterises the situation at Talk:Ian Gow. The original edit was a minor edit, where the IP editor removed the make of car claiming it was irrelevant. A number of editors disagreed and suggested it was a relevant detail. In the normal course of events, a discussion would have settled the matter on the talk page. That the normal course of events didn't happen was because this IP editor, simply revert warred multiple editors and contributed a load of foul mouth expletives in talk. They were reverted because they refused to engage in talk not because they were an IP editor. The RFC Drmies imposed was a waste of the communities time, it was simply something that needed a discussion in talk to sort out.

Fundamentally Drmies, you are giving the IP editor a fig leaf to hide behind. You're basically saying its OK for them to respond as they do, when they're reverted if their edit improves the article as you understand why it may make them upset. No one likes to see their edits reverted but a load of good edits does not build up credit to be a total WP:DICK if someone disagrees with them. That they get reverted repeatedly is often down to the way they act.

Baseball Bugs makes a good point above, the guy is trolling and I bet he is having a great laugh everytime you Drmies wade in to defend them.

Furthermore, Drmies claim that all I want is blocks and protection is utter nonsense. What I want is to be able to edit articles without minor disagreements escalating into foul mouthed expletives if someone disagrees with me about an edit. And I want to be able to discuss edits in talk in a reasonable manner, without one editor revert warring multiple editors to impose their will. That is after all how its supposed to work. WCM_email 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM, "fig leaf"? Bullshit. (And I have no idea what you mean with comments not aimed at me.) Troll? No. Chillum, you need to look much more carefully. The talk page for Ian Gow is a clear indicator that, if the IP is not just reverted but is allowed to participate in community discussion, there is no problem. To call an RfC over an important matter (where I and others, not just the IP, disagreed with WCM) a "waste of time" is indicative of the attitude here. "Waste of time"? You know collaborative editing requires discussion, right? And that RfC is an accepted and encouraged way or reaching content decisions, right? Those blind reverts you and a bunch of others throw out, those are a waste of time. They're insulting, and they invite the behavior that is here mischaracterized as trolling. Bugs, you should know better: you've been accused of trolling often enough. WCM, "discuss edits in a reasonable manner"? Well, do it then. On Talk:Ian Gow you opened with "I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor", and then you went on to completely fail to address the content question. I see that in 2011 you already had this snarky tone toward uninvolved editors who tried to help, Born2cycle.

Fig leaf, my ass. Please look, all you impartial observers, at Talk:Ian_Gow#The_fully-protected_car_.28or_its_absence.29 (and the RfC I started), which is the first attempt to actually solve the situation--and guess what, the situation was solved with an RfC. And you, WCM, got your car make in the article (yes, the dispute was that silly), and the IP never came back to change it again. Instead of a "thank you Drmies" I get to hear "it was a waste of time"--a waste of my time, yeah. "Defend the IP"--I'll defend any editor who is treated like this one has by a variety of editors, not just you. I won't defend their language or their edit warring, but hey, you've been quite the edit warrior yourself here. Note also that you're the one throwing the c-word around and you didn't get blocked, so maybe you should be grateful. And I wonder: who's following whose edits around? But don't answer that: this thread is already long enough. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies I said it was a waste of the communities time to force an RFC over a trivial edit that could be resolved by reasonable editors in talk. To further make it plain, I meant precisely by a community discussion in talk. It was not a dispute of a level that warranted an RFC, just one foul mouthed stubborn editor who insisted it had to be done their way. If you're upset that I characterise your RFC as a waste of time, then I'm sorry about that but fear of offending you shouldn't stop me from speaking plainly. I nevertheless don't appreciate you inferring motives or emotions in my comments that aren't there.

You're being disingenuous to claim that the IP editor would have engaged in talk if given the opportunity, they wouldn't and they didn't. Thanks for paging Born2cycle because he can confirm they didn't engage in talk. Their participation in the RFC at Talk:Ian Gow was less than optimal such as their repeat of your allegation of anti-IP bigotry. You seem to forget in your rant above that you acknowledged I had been more than reasonable with the guy [16].

As regards your innuendo that I'm following the guy, I very much feel the need to respond to such a blatantly bad faith accusation. Firstly I invite you to explain how I could do so, given the IP is constantly changing. Secondly, I draw your attention to my first edit to the article on 3 March 2011 [17]. WCM_email 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. My "rant" was possibly prompted by the rather dumb suggestion that an RfC which settled a dispute was a waste of time. I'm not hurt or upset by it--I just think that it's a stupid statement to make, and I think it's worth pointing that out. As for my "innuendo" and the bad-faith accusation and whatever: I merely inquired how you run into this guy so often. Chicken or egg? It's a valid question. If that question upsets you, well, I'm sorry, but if you take the prerogative of speaking plainly, then so will I. Now, let me offer you one more suggestion: please stop pinging me here. This thread is going nowhere--the IP got blocked, and you didn't, so move on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I often look at threads where I have participated, and sometimes I notice that although I have made hugely important contributions, in fact I am usually the most important person in the room, everyone is rude to me (maybe they are emotional about something) and it's very difficult to make progress on anything. If things seem to be basically under control otherwise, and I seem to be descending into another argument rather than removing arguments, then the strategy I often adopt in such circumstances is to... walk away.

Don't argue about who has pinged who or who is responsible for speaking plainly first, et cetera. Just, walk away. Sell the last word to a strange guy by the side of the road. Why worry? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies I asked you a direct question, I invited you to explain how I could follow an IP editor whose IP is constantly changing. A question you rather blatantly avoided, to repeat the same innuendo. The answer is that it is in fact virtually impossibly for me to do so and yet you repeat the same innuendo with a further insinuation with reference to the frequency which the IP crops up on my radar. Chicken or egg? Join the dots. WCM_email 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, this seems to be a fairly long thread and I was thinking about letting people work it out, but there's something I don't see addressed here, and it doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it. Wee Curry Monster had his topic ban on Falkland Islands topics lifted after he agreed to a 1RR condition. "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." Has anyone taken a look to see if that's been honoured in all this mess? Wee Curry Monster is supposed to be extra careful on these pages. Multiple reverts and incivility on a Falklands war related page is part of a pattern of behaviour beyond this incident or the other user involved.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Paging Nick-D my mentor. It is completely untrue to claim I was blocked for incivility; pointedly it was noted that I had remained civil despite being provoked by a number of editors. The actual reason for the topic ban if you boil it down was to vociferously defend myself in talk pages and its one of this wikipedia situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Now this isn't the first time that Elaqueate has chosen to fling this at me, I'm getting rather tired of having to defend myself against these false accusations. The 1RR restriction is a voluntary thing on my part and I have stuck to it with one this one exception, when I got fed up with this. I have done exactly I said I would focusing on my editing and just helped take Falkland Islands to FA status. WCM_email 06:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a voluntary condition you undertook as part of lifting a topic ban. I don't think that's the same thing as saying it's voluntary as to whether you bother with it after you commit to it. Is it only a condition when you're not fed up, and non-binding when you are fed up? If you're here saying that you were topic-banned due to the behaviour of others, then I think you are back-tracking on what you said at your topic ban lifting. You are not "damned if you don't" if you don't vociferously respond in talk pages. That's what you were topic banned for six months for, and if you're still characterizing it as needful somehow, there's a problem.

As far as bringing it up here, this is an ANI incident where you "got fed up" and reverted multiple times on a Falkland Islands page. Why shouldn't there be passing notice of your topic ban condition for exactly that? Why wasn't there notice of your topic ban condition? A directly relevant editing restriction seems like the kind of thing you should have passed on to Chillum when you thought they didn't have the full background story.

Since you say incivility had no part in your topic bans, I should take a look over those discussions. Maybe you point out to me where you were cleared of any incivility in your topic ban. I see many accusations of behavior that would be classified as uncivil and I can't see what you're referring to. Even in the discussion regarding the lifting of your topic ban, people who supported you still mention that you got into an uncivil dustups contrary to what you state in your request. I'm fine with looking further into it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 09:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se, though the issues which led to it did include impolite treatment of other editors. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond. Dropping the C word also wasn't a good idea at all and I'd urge you to not do it again on Wikipedia, but isn't directly relevant to the terms of your topic ban being lifted (I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to not swearing on Wikipedia, but the C word is pretty much guaranteed to cause offence to a range of editors, regardless of circumstances). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D Nick, I agree with everything you said. That is why I apologised, undertook not to repeat it (and if I do I expect Chillum to carry out his undertaking to block me if I renege on that promise) and I think you'll agree it was uncharacteristic. If I'm mistaken please correct me, the 1RR restriction wasn't a condition of the removal of the topic ban it was something I undertook to do voluntarily to keep out of trouble and I've stuck to it with this one exception. I have also made an effort to be more culturally sensitive ie not reply in Glaswegian to delicate flowers.

You suggested I should have gone to an admin and part of the problem is I did. Please note the date of this diff You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster" and I've been having the same thing from this editor ever since. I've now had the admin I asked for help accusing me of A) only wanting blocks and bans and now B) of somehow stalking an IP hopping editor looking for trouble. Please can someone explain how I'm supposed to do that? If I'm apparently running into the same IP hoppping editor repeatedly but given only one of us can knows how to find the other it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is stalking who. Why is such a ludicrous allegation allowed to be levelled and not challenged? I don't want anyone blocked or banned, I've never asked for either only for the opportunity to discuss my edits in a reasonable manner. WCM_email 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I won't hold my breath waiting for Wee Curry Monster to retract his "false accusations" comment, but I will note that I never said he was topic-banned specifically for incivility (when I mentioned that he had been uncivil on those pages before his topic ban, I didn't think that was a matter of serious debate.) I'm afraid that I can't see this, "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." as being something unrelated to the lifting of the topic ban, as it was directly part of the argument that the topic ban should be lifted. If it had already been part of WCM's philosophy of editing, it wouldn't have been suggested to him as something to offer at the topic ban lifting stage. Nick-D or another admin may have a better understanding about it. It does seem like following it would have helped prevent this thread, and I can see how it still might help prevent the type of conflicts that happened before. My general understanding was that voluntary restrictions undertaken in arguments to modify bans and blocks are something admins could choose to enforce or not enforce at their discretion, depending on if they believed there was a repeat of any of the behavior that caused the original sanction.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a delicate flower and swear a fair bit (hey, I'm Australian!), but using the C word is guaranteed to get lots of people offside quickly, and is not suitable for use here IMO. Given the 1RR arrangement, I'd suggest that you should have asked someone else to intervene or stepped back when the IP continued edit warring given that you can't do so. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the details of this specific case, it seems to go far deeper than my involvement. I will say that if sanctions were strongly considered and were prevented by a voluntary promise then that promise would be binding. I am not sure if this applies in this case as I do not know the full nuance of it. Chillum 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that WCM hasn't stuck to the 1RR agreement concerning the Falkland Islands since the topic ban was lifted in February, which is good work. If my understanding here is correct, I'd suggest that there's no need for a sanction beyond the comments made in this thread (and I do note the provocation to which he was responding here). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in a sanction here, and wasn't calling for one. I had thought there should be some acknowledgment that the agreement existed, and was slightly more binding than how WCM decided it applied based solely on his own discretion and mood at times of great stress. I think it protects him from avoidable drama as much as it encourages the peace of the project, but only as long it's followed at those times when it's hardest to follow it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can see the IP is right though if you look at the situation and what gave rise to it. That doesn't excuse the actions of both sides though. Kirothereaper (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera

We were having discussion on Talk:Andhra Pradesh when User:Visakha veera gave me legal threat "we will settle this issue in court" on my talk page when I warned the User, the response was personal attack ("you are arguing blindly") & further legal threat ("you are ready for blocking and court cases?") and then further threats ("are you ready for blocking?" & "we will legally solve in court! are you ready?"). The user has done personal attacks on me while having discussion with other user on their talk pages too e.g. here ("arguing blindly") The user is also engaged in WP:Canvassing and trying to form block against me which is clear from the posts made by user here, here and here. I'm feeling shocked & depressed by such vieled personal attacks and legal threats, after so much effort this is what i'm getting from fellow editors.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Visakha veera has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly making legal threats like this. I'd also like to note that he had been warned about possible discretionary sanctions in WP:ARBIP territory. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's no excuse for Visakha veera's behaviour but the background to it is repeated POV-pushing on Andhra Pradesh (and to a lesser extent also on other articles) by Faizhaider, claiming that Urdu is an official language in post-partition AP, "supporting" his claim with references that say nothing of the sort, while refusing to accept sources, including the Andhra Pradesh government web portal, that say that "the official language in Andhra Pradesh is Telugu", with "official language" in the singular. Which since there's a lot of tension around the status of various languages in India, and perhaps more so in Telangana and "new" Andhra Pradesh (which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago) than in other parts of India, means that there was quite a bit of provocation leading up to the legal threat. Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think that about sums it up. I'm having a hard time digging through Faizhaider's various relevant edits but I agree that he doesn't seem to be quite innocent either in this dispute. I've explained to Visakha Veera that they may be unblocked once they retract the legal threat. But I'm also wondering if a temporary topic ban for both editors as part of an arbitration enforcement would be justified. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would definitely support a topic ban for both editors, regardless of length. A topic ban that for Faizhaider should include adding Urdu as official, co-official or second language to any article relating to India, broadly construed. He has been told to stop his POV-pushing, and knows he's being watched, but a topic ban, regardless of length, would send an even clearer message to him than just a message from me on his talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W, your statement "which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago", tells that although you are involved in the article & discussions but you may not be aware of exact background, Telangana was not carved out of Andhra Pradesh along language lines but in contrast Andhra Pradesh is first non-Hindi state which got splitted and that was due to development issues (and not language).

Admins, my edits may be called POV but they are NPOV as can be seen throughout my discussion I have been patiently answering the points raised by other editors in ambit of WP policies and decorum. But other group seems to come one after one raising same points which I have answered already, then too I didn't lost my cool and urged the editor(s) to go through previous comments. Intrestingly, I have constantly been asked to produce proof from official sources while they are now relying on ambigous blog/news link. When they were not able to answer my points and logic they lost their cool and started abusing me (they also had coversation in Telugu and used words like stubborn to define me). In whole discussion I have been WP:Civil and tried to answer each and every objection. I have given numerous links and quoted Acts & Laws of India & Andhra Pradesh to show status of Hindi, English & other state language(s) but nobody seems to be looking at them and totally ignoring them. User has been removing data on AP and other articles while discussion was going on and that too without edit summary. Recently I have not tried to restore any of the removed content so I fail to understand how that mounts to POV push or edit-war.

I'll urge admins to closely go through the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh and also look at postings of all editors involved on various other User Talk pages as there have been attempt of canvassing, campaigning & lobbying against me & my edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor, the impression I get is of rather extreme bullying. The legal threats and threats of blocking are obvious violations of WP:BATTLE and despite a sudden retraction, under duress, of the threats, I am not convinced of the sincerity of said retractions. Jusdafax 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither am I. The unblock request looks to me like the verbatim what they need to say to get immediately unblocked, followed by a series of rants about someone else being the problem, and then another insincere repeat of the verbatim text to get unblocked. Not at all sincere and I think the disruption would continue if they were unblocked.--v/r - TP 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Faizhaider, you are in fact edit warring because you keep adding your preferred references although they have been challenged by several other users. All I can see on your part is synthesis (this does not state anything about the official status of any language) and edit warring about it [18][19][20]. You are even being inconsistent in your editing since here and here you remove a statement that said that Urdu was in fact the co-offical language in AP while you keep pointing out that the AP public employment act will "still" be published in Urdu. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Bump. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic bans

Faizhaider

After reviewing Faizhaider's contributions at the article Andhra Pradesh, the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh and User talk:Faizhaider I conclude that Faizhaider is pushing a somewhat unclear agenda related to adding Urdu as one of the official languages in the current Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Regardless of the merit of sources provided by either side it has become evident that Faizhaider's edits to the article have become disruptive in a manner of edit warring, POV pushing and a lot of WP:IDHT resulting in even more disruption and needless drama. As it happens, discretionary sanctions following the WP:ARBIND ruling cannot be applied on Faizhaider because he was not notified of this possible type of enforcement while editing the article. While a block would be justified for edit warring I would like to seek a solution that may last longer than some two or three days. I therefore propose a topic ban as follows: For the period of one month, Faizhaider must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. This discussion serves as notification for discretionary sanctions in the ARBIND case enabling further action. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per De728631's proposal. Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@De728631:, @Thomas.W: I'm not sure if you have seen recent conversation on Talk:Andhra Pradesh, but the situation seems to be more cooled-off and clear than 24 hrs ago as it is now clear from various sources that the confusion is not only at WP but it even engulfs legislators of AP. I'm sorry for miopic view & stand but I felt that long standing information on article was being removed (without any comment summary) in absence of any hard proof (may be due to POV push & bias). Now we have reached consensus to maintain status-quo on the article. So, I'll ask for reconsideration of topic ban.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Visakha veera

Visaka veera has probably overreacted in the recent dispute with Faizhaider but seeing this unblock request I fear he is simply walking the same road as Faizhaider, namely arguing ad nauseam that his sources are the one and only truth while playing down the issue that led to his block. This makes me agree with Judasfax and TParis that Vv's retraction of the legal threat may not at all be sincere. Provided that the indefinite block of Visaka veera is lifted following his latest request or within four weeks from now I propose a topic ban of the same nature as the one for Faizhaider: For one month after his being unblocked, Visaka veera must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. Any failure to abide by this restriction or will result in an indefinite block per WP:ARBIND sanctions. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per De728631's proposal. Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support and additionally propose that even an hint of a legal threat elsewhere result in an indefinite block. AlanS (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User violating WP:No original research

Richard Harvey insists on inserting File:Redensignmonserrat.jpg into List of British flags. This image was uploaded as the sole edit by it's uploader without any sources. Richard Harvey argued in the file's DR that since Montserrat is a member of the Red Ensign Group that means they must have one, but that was inconclusive. In fact, another British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena does not have a local red ensign even though it is a member of that organisation, so using the organisation's membership as the sole source even when it does not directly say Montserrat has a red ensign is inappropriate. In their most recent re-insertion of this image, Richard Harvey added even more original research by claiming Montserrat is simply entitled to a red ensign (instead of them being granted) and that they have an unofficial one already. There are no sources of any sort to support that this flag exists in any manner, several which infer the exact opposite, and it therefore violates policy and can not be on that article. I am asking for an admin to remove the image. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First off please note that I am not the uploader of the image to the article and I am neutral in its usage and have not violated the 'Neutral Research' policy. I have been caught up in this as a Reviewer, whilst attempting to authenticate the flags validity. This is purely a content dispute that should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, as I advised Fry1989 on my Talk page. However it seems he prefers to use Administrators to achieve his aims. There are several images in the article that are unofficial, but kept as useful, this image is no different. I have previously added a supporting reference from the red ensign group website, which officially states that Montserrat is a member of the British Red Ensign Group and entitled to fly a Red Ensign on their ships. I have today reverted a deletion of the image by Fry1989 and reworded the entry to advise it is an example image that has been uploaded by Alexandersosx. It should be noted that Fry1989 has attempted twice to have the image deleted by Admins at Wiki commons to prevent its use in the article; and is currently attempting again to have the previous Admins decisions reversed. On that deletion request I have stated my own interpretation of the authority to use a red ensign (in the reference from the Red Ensign Website):- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. There is also this statement on the British Government website [21] which states the same:-

• The Red Ensign Group (REG) is a group of British shipping registers.

• The registers are operated by:

• the UK
• the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey)
• UK Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar; Montserrat, St Helena, Turks & Caicos Islands)

• Any vessel on these registers is a ‘British ship’, and is entitled to fly the British Merchant Shipping flag the ‘Red Ensign’ (or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour).

I am therefore believe the use of the image in the article is valid. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These points raised by Richard Harvey were already discussed in the file's DR, and there is nothing that supports the idea that being a member of the Red Ensign Group automatically means that a member has their own red ensign. As I stated, Saint Helena is a member but they do not have their own red ensign, they use the undefaced British red ensign. Jersey is also a member but they were only granted their own red ensign in 2010 which supports that red ensigns must be granted or adopted by order. There is no evidence that Montserrat has ever been granted or adopted a local red ensign. FOTW is considered a reliable source and they do not show Montserrat having a red ensign, and neither do other trusted flag websites. I can't find this flag on any flag shop website, I can't even find any photos of unofficial ones. There is simply ZERO sources that this flag exists in any capacity. It is original research that is completely unsourced and most likely the imagination of the uploader. It can not be used according to Wikipedia:No original research

As for Richard Harvey's false bad faith allegations, let me make it clear I am not trying to get the file deleted to prevent it's use on Wikipedia, rather it is the opposite. It keeps getting kept in that DR because Richard Harvey keeps re-inserting it on Wikipedia articles without sources. I have stated that I will be more than happy to create an SVG version of the image, should even a single source supporting that this flag exists ever arise, but there are none at this time. The file is fake that is pretending to be real and is therefore deliberately misleading which is a valid reason for deletion on Commons. The outcome of the DR is irrelevant however, because Wikipedia has it's own policies that apply to this situation. The image can not be used at this time. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a brief note that although Montserrat was permitted to have and use a Red Ensign per the permissions that were granted to it by virtue of it being part of the REG, you are correct that the existence of a Montserrat version of the flag is in doubt. In all actuality, ships registered to Montserrat would only fly the standard non-defaced Red Ensign. I've just spent the last 15min or so looking around on the net and have not found any reliable source that indicates the existence of a Montserrat defaced Red Ensign. I would agree that the image cannot be used at this time until a reliable corroborative source has been found. Blackmane (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been having a poke around trying to see if I can get a WP:RS for the flag. Tentatively, I've so far found that an image from a non-RS site (it's on eBay) that corroborates Richard Harvey's view that Montserrat does indeed have a red ensign. I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find. At this point, I'd put it up for FFD and see what others come up with. Blackmane (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

eBay has many imaginary and fake things, that does not support that this flag is real in any capacity, especially if that is the only sole image that can be found of it outside of the JPEG that was uploaded to Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The image should be removed. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, after I spent some time looking around, the only conclusion was that the image I found was for a self made ensign. One would think that if the flag is as important as it seems then finding a real image would not be so hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

Well somebody needs to do it. I can not without this turning into an edit war. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This image still needs to be removed from the article per Wikipolicy. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting here? Because what I'm seeing is a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am asking that this image, which is unsourced original research, be removed by another user besides myself, as I will not enter an edit war over this. The image is obviously imaginary but pretending to be real, violates policy, and needs to go. I also want an administrator to warn Richard Harvey not to add it again unless there is a reliable source. I have made it clear I am not prejudiced towards this image being used as long as there is a source that it's real, but so far there isn't and it needs to be removed. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection

Banned user Russavia has been editing Wikipedia at a dozen articles, using multiple proxies. To prevent this kind of disruption, I would like the following articles and pages to be given temporary semi-protection:

• Wikipedia:Files for upload
• Líneas Aéreas Suramericanas
• Dassault Falcon 7X
• Juan Falconí Puig
• Mauricio Rodríguez Múnera
• SAEREO
• Martinair
• Icaro Air
• TAME
• Copa Airlines Colombia

There's even a bit of disruption from Russavia at WP:RPP, ironically, with the guy saying "fuck off binksternet" for good measure.
I know I'm supposed to notify a user who I am discussing at ANI but this guy is using throwaway proxies, and he clearly knows what is going on around here. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting WP:FFU would be counter productive, as new users and IP'a are the people who are meant to use it to request uploads.... --Mdann52talk to me! 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: is now semi-protected for 3 days. How will IP editors be able to request files to be uploaded during this time? 122.52.157.88 (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gfoley4: Please consider unprotecting WP:FFU. Lots of IPs request files for upload and they need to be able to continue doing this. As an example, I took a look at the first 20 requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload/August 2014, and out of those, 20% had been placed by an IP. The remaining 80% requests were made by users with accounts, but presumably some of them weren't autoconfirmed yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection might be acceptable, but this blanket reverting of IP edits (not even confirmed yet by a CU to be a ban evading sock) really isn't good - every edit reverted by Binksternet has been a good edit that improved each and every article, it just seems to be such a monumental waste of time and effort for all concerned to go around reverting edits, then someone else following behind re-reverting so as to 'take responsibility' for the edit.

There has to be a better long term solution than this endless nonsense, surely. Nick (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good edits or not, Russavia is banned from editing. IP 85.234.141.185 doesn't need a CU, Russavia admitted using it. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If the edits were made by an editor other than Russavia, would there be an issue with any of them? Tarc (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If the other editor was also banned, then yes. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not the question. Imagine that I were making them while logged out, saying who I was, and giving a good reason for being logged out: would there be an issue with any of them? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not banned, so clearly no. :) That wouldn't be an issue. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc was simply attempting to address the content of the edits themselves, regardless of who made them. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what Tarc was trying to do, but in this case, who made the edits is the important issue, not the quality of the edits. Banned editors are no longer welcome to contribute to the project, especially when they continue to use socks and IPs to evade the community ban. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Who makes the edits is important if you are interested in playing a MMORPG. But Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. It's an encyclopaedia. Apparently. It should be noted that Bilby stalked my Commons uploads and created a two line stub at Lena Nyadbi to prevent me from creating it. Rather than preventing me from creating it, I expanded it. So question, do you think readers really give a fuck who created the content? People need to take their heads out of their arse and seriously answer that question. 213.55.112.138 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor who is banned may not contribute to Wikipedia. Period. It does not matter if their contribution was constructive or not, banned means banned. Quoting Wikipedia:Banning policy: The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. (emphasis in original). It doesn't matter if edits by a banned editor are creating a Featured Article from scratch - they are still banned, and the edits are unacceptable. If they want to contribute, they need to convince the community and/or Arbcom to lift the ban, then edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should Russavia (if it's him) be allowed to evade his ban? What makes him so special? If it is him, then he should be getting his head out of his 'you know what' & stay away. Again, I had to serve my time. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger. GoodDay is an example that a ban need not be forever. If Russavia want to return to the community, then he needs to prove to the community that he should be unbanned. Socking through multiple proxy IPs is not the way to go about this. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies for a reason and that is to provide a space for people to edit in relative harmony. There'll be disagreements and what not but for the most part the policies do work and things progress towards the encyclopedia we work towards. Banning an editor from WP is saying "you're not welcome here anymore as you have chosen not to abide by the rules that the community has created". If we then turn around and say "yeah, but they're doing good work! Why undo it?" basically pulls all of the fangs from policy. When any of us chose to become an editor here, we agreed to abide by the guidelines and policies of WP. Russavia, your argument that the reader will not care who wrote it is a red herring. The readership is one community and separate from the editorial community only overlapping when a reader becomes an editor. Your refusal to abide by the community's decisions and policies has resulted in your being ejected from WP, this is on you. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my question from last night was getting to the matter of the quality/content of the edits. If the content is good, and the edit is not pushing a particular POV, e.g.. in contravention of an Israel-Palesine or climate change ban or the like, then it is the height of childishness to revert just because of the person behind the revealed sock. This, I'm sorry, is a dick move; it was just a photo being placed into an article. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc:, you seem to be missing the point here. That was an edit that any editor in good standing was entitled to make. Russavia is not an editor in good standing, and is not entitled to make any edits on en-Wiki. roolz is roolz, if you dont have roolz, what do you end up with? anarchy!. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Banned editors can edit. If they create a sock and stay away from the behavior/articles that will get them caught then obviously we have no way of identifying them. That's how they can participate. Against the roolz but there's only so much you can do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, "rules are rules" is what pencil-pushing government automatons would say. Strive to be more creative than the average IRS auditor or post office worker. If I see an edit reverted simply because of who it is, I'll simply reverse it and take ownership of it myself. You can ban the account, we'll still have an improved article, and everyone can be happy. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If ya wanna restore edits made by banned/blocked editors, that's your choice. Hopefully, it's not gonna encourage sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"If ya wanna restore good edits..." is what you mean. I don't see any problem with getting banned users to do good work. It's the bad edits that we don't want, and a banned user attempting to stay under the radar and still edit Wikipedia won't stick his head up to be caught. Isn't that right, GoodDay? --Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never socked, Skyring. I didn't sock during the times I was blocked & didn't sock when I was banned. Why? Because those are the rules. I faithfully served my ban, so there's no reason why Russavia (or anyone else) can't. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that some people will wait for the green man when it's two in the morning and the street is deserted. If "rules are rules" and the leaders of the Thirteen Colonies had taken that view, then the world would be a different place. Likewise if Nazi Germany had paid less attention to rules. Turning a blind eye to good edits by banned users serves two purposes. First, it improves the encyclopaedia. Second, if they are doing it to get noticed and cause people to run around with their heads off, then ignoring that behaviour keeps the project tranquil. If no harm is being caused, then where's the problem? Why make a fuss? Keep an eye on them by all means, but lean back, pour yourself a cold one and take a break while someone else does the work. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Invoking Godwin's Law is certainly an excellent way to come across as rational on a topic... Also, lets face reality. This isn't about improving Wikipedia for Russavia. This is all about his ego, and his desire to feel like he's better/more important than others. We do more to improve this project by RBI'ing him than we do indulging what amounts to a long-running temper tantrum. Resolute 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just quietly, but the phrase "Invoking Godwin's Law" doesn't mean what you think it does, Reso. Think about it. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest if editors want good edits made by sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors to not be reverted, then they should seek a changing of the rules, at Village Pump. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. It's not about the rules. The answer was given above - any editor can take a good edit as their own. That's just common sense. Do you really need to look at a rulebook to decide if an edit is vandalism or not? --Pete (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. The edit is invalid if made by a sockpuppet & therefore should be reverted. Why bother banning or blocking anyone, if we choose to allow their 'good' edits? With all due respect, you & I are on different trains of thought here & so it's best we discontinue the discussion. Resolute is correct, Russavia is likely getting his jollies at this moment. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it not supposed to be punitive though? Kirothereaper (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors are not blocked for their good edits. It's the less-than-good behaviour we discourage. As for getting jollies, there's a lot of fun to be had as a blocked editor in seeing other editors, of a particular anal bent, jumping about reverting good edits to the puzzlement of everyone else. Just turning a blind eye, ignoring trolls, is more productive than dancing to socks. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, editors are not (supposed to be) blocked for good edits... I would go as far as to say that anyone who goes to any length to revert unambiguously good edits of banned or blocked users is in serious danger of breaking WP:POINT. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I think that if you wish to take this stance, you may need to try and get WP:BAN changed - "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad ... The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Although to clarify, we don't block for good edits - we block for ban evasion. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A blocked/banned editor can create as much disruption as they want with a little creativity. Over-zealous attachment to trivial rules brings its own vulnerabilities. Those wishing to game the system and feeling they have nothing to lose aren't going to react well to rulemongers. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a similar tangent to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#If_I_may.... mini-brouhaha below; at what point can an editor in good standing take the reverted work of an editor in (sometimes allegedly) bad standing and call it their own? Tarc (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of content, immediately. If any of Russavia's edits are reverted under WP:BAN, and an editor decides to reinstate them, then that's fine and it can't be reverted on those grounds again. I have no idea how that applies to other issues, such as comments not related to content. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What people are saying is that we should revert banned users' good edits and then wait for someone who isn't banned to un-revert them? which is obviously what will happen if they're constructive. sounds like bureaucracy to me. Remember that WP:IAR is policy, always has been. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have previously started a formal ban discussion, so you know where I stand. However I am taking a harder line this time, and calling for all Russavia's edits as a sock to be reverted as well. Clearly, not to do so merely encourages him. Ban him permanently, revert his sock edits and keep doing so until he admits defeat. Otherwise our rules about blocks and socking while blocked are meaningless. Do it starting now. Jusdafax 09:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is pathetic. I have no love for Russavia either, esp over the Pricasso mess, but you're treating the project like a blood-soaked "take no prisoners" battleground. If he uses a sock to add a Photo A to Article X, and you revert that, what then? Is everyone barred forever after from inserting A into X? Tarc (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT, and WP:PROXYING define what is and is not allowed, with the last saying the reasons to add it must be independent from the original banned user's edits. Although every time I've seen it it was "If you revert you take full responsibility for the content of the banned user's edit" or whatever it was.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • With respect, but that's ridiculous. Using a sock to make perfectly good edits is only disruptive if someone knows it's a sock. And, apart from good detective work, the usual way to pick a sock is some consistency of style. Or if the sock makes it obvious. And if people are then jumping all over the place getting hot under the collar and waving a rulebook, the banned/blocked editor is sitting back with a smile all over his face, having achieved his end. Yes, I know that the point of banning or blocking a user is so they can't participate, but for anyone with reasonable internet skills, that is easily avoidable. Why get all stressed up over something that is simply not achievable? And all to revert good edits? That's about as POINTy as it gets. And as pointless. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserting data for the same blocked editor over and over on multiple pages goes well beyond anything intended in our policies. I suggest that Tarc simply be blocked the next time he reinserts material originating with Russavia, and that he remain blocked until he agrees to stop.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While all this is happening, Lugia2453 is battling vandalism on this userbox (and now this one) by a series of IPs in Argentina changing it into a "I support the unbanning of Russavia" and also he's getting tagged as a sockpuppet of me by the IPs. Does he normally do this or is this just some other troll?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is, as described, not typical behavior for Russvia's socks, no. Revent^talk 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the IPs were going "I'm just an Argentinian" like the IP listed further below went "I'm just a Japanese".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia's 'modus operandi' is to be intentionally quite blatant about his socking, not to deny it, from everything I have seen. Given his obvious ability to switch IPs at will, and given that he is almost undoubtedly also editing under 'quiet' socks, it would make little sense for him to attempt to 'justify' a particular IP as not being him. Revent^talk 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we have a little bit more common sense here? It's evident that somebody, probably Russavia, is campaign to make WP:POINTY insertions of Commons images uploaded by Russavia into any en-wiki articles where they're arguably even remotely pertinent. That's disruptive, deliberately so, and the ensuing dispute here and elsewhere is exactly the disruption that whoever's behind the IP/SPas wants. Edits like these [22] [23] [24] which add no value or negligible value to an article should be removed. However, images like these [25] [26] clearly add value to articles, fall within the exception for "clearly helpful" edits under WP:BANREVERT and the similar "productive" exception under WP:PROXYING and should be allowed to stand if restored/endorsed by a legitimate editor. Getting involved in an arcane discussion to justify removal of clearly appropriate content is just, in the long run, carrying water for Russavia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:, in both this comment the one that you closed out the "If I may..."section" below, you are dead wrong; I have never taken an action to restore material edited by Russavia. However, I do feel that any such edit should be evaluated on its merits rather tan on the author. So for example at the article Dassault Falcon 7X, there's no valid reason IMO to revert the adding of that image, and it appears that Nick has restored it already. Do you plan to threaten Nick with a block? Would you threaten to block me if I had restored it? Tarc (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If Nick restores it, then it's Nick's edit. The orignal removal of the Russavia sock's edit, however, is perfectly legit and should be done, per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• The edit summaries for [27] and [28] are interesting - it appears that some sort of co-ordinated action is taking place on IRC. Mass semi-protection seems to be the only answer here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Those are just Russavia again, messing with our heads - he used the same IP on June 24. Would like to know how he manages to use IPs all over the world that are not apparent proxies. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That last IP belongs to Linode, which is a company that provides virtual private servers which for whatever reason is allocated in Japan rather than the US where Linode is based.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @NawlinWiki: There are multiple ways that it can be done, that are not incredible obscure. Detailing the method that Russavia is most likely using, or any of the others, on the wiki would be inadvisable under WP:BEANS. Simply accypt the fact that it can be done, and that blocks and checkuser are easily evadable by anyone that is reasonably technically competent. I find it hard to believe that many, if not the majority, of blocked or banned users do not already return to editing using such measures. Revent^talk 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support upholding policy (WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned means banned) by reverting edits of banned user and preventing banned user from further editing by the best means necessary, which may be page protection of target articles. If user desires reinstatement, they are well aware of WP:STANDARDOFFER. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Blackmane above, but I can't work out where to put it after so much back and forth. Blackmane, you said, Banning an editor from WP is saying "you're not welcome here anymore as you have chosen not to abide by the rules that the community has created". If we then turn around and say "yeah, but they're doing good work! Why undo it?" basically pulls all of the fangs from policy. I see this exact same argument used all the time to excuse editors from being blocked. "They do good work, so we can excuse them the odd tantrum. They can abuse other editors and edit-war and create disruption so long as they contribute." Now, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope, I'll admit. I have a somewhat hardline view of things especially when it comes to policy, which would make me a rather poor admin. When I see many a good contributor go off the rails and just gets a slap on the wrist I see it as a slap in the community's face. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support upholding policy. We invite chaos and anarchy if we don't enforce policy against banned and/or blocked sockmasters. Revert all edits, protect articles, and in extreme cases use WMF litigation to actuate sanctions that will stop policy violators for once and for all. I would like to take note of the fact that an IP message on my talk page, presumably from the subject and challenging me to act as a policy enforcer or "shut up," was deleted recently by another editor. My response, post deletion, can be found there. Jusdafax 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment following SPI

Borsoka (talk · contribs · count) Made an unfounded accusation that Akifumii (now called Xermano) was a sock. After the case closed with no evidence of socking, Borsoka has apparently continued to harass Xermano (in Hungarian).

• after the SPI case closed

I gave warning that I would act on continued provocation, to no avail.

• my warning
• after I gave warning and Xermano asked Borsoka to stop
• and once more

I'd like an admin response to this witchhunt. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please ask Xermano to translate my messages? I have not sent any harrasing messages to him/her. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate for us, Chris?--v/r - TP 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sure can't. I'd be glad if a third party could handle that. I've notified Xermano of this ANI post. My assumption is based off of Xermano's previous reaction to Borsoka's message. Borsoka has at least become an unwelcome guest at that talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please stop harrasing me. First you accused me of Wikipedia:OWN (here) without evidence. Next you suggested (also here) that I only initiated a sock-puppet investigation, because an article created by me received a template. Later, without being able to read the message written in Hungarian, you accussed me of harrasing (also here). I again suggest you that you should imagine a world where editors are not driven by bad emotions. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also no. I've seen no evidence to refute my assertions. You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset. Believe me, I would be happy to be proved wrong, apologize, and leave this alone. However, you foolishly said "if you think it is harassement, please take me to an ANI" and so I have. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Foolishly? Chris troutman, I again suggest you that you should assume good faith. I said that you could any time take me an ANI, because I was sure that I had not (and I would not) made any harrassement to anybody. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid a biased translation, I will ask Armbrust, a fellow Hungarian to translate the messages at my talk page. Xermano^Talk 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, I trust your fairness. Please translate it yourself, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian. Actually, I insist on your translation. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused here because your insistence here is basically a declaration against a neutral thrid party being involved. Why?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no need to involve a third party. These are so basic texts. You can translate them in 10 minutes, and this case will be closed. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, I am surprised that you have not translated the texts yet, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian, and your English is excellent. Sorry, but I would like this investigation to be closed in short, because I would like to concentrate on editing articles. Would you please tell us whether my texts on your Talk page contained any harrasing message? If you think there was a harrassing message, please translate only that part. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, a fellow Hungarian editor, Fakirbakir, expressed his/her doubts about your knowledge of the Hungarian language here. If you are only pretending that you can speak our language, please tell us, because in this case we actually need a translator in order to assist the administrators to close this case. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman You should apologize to Borsoka. Your comment "You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset" is impolite and unacceptable. Regarding the conversation between Xermano and Borsoka, I assume Xermano does not speak Hungarian. Her/his account is suspicious (IMHO). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One does wonder how Akifumii/Xermano, who initially claimed on his userpage that he was a native speaker of Canadian English and French, with professional knowledge of Spanish, Galician and Catalan, and who became a "Translation Administrator" at Wikimedia Outreach (outreach:User:Akifumii), but whose actual "Galician" translations on that project look suspiciously like machine translations and contain some rather glaring errors (see outreach:Best_practices/gl, which among other things translates "best practice articles" as if it meant "best articles about practice" rather than "articles about best practice"), has suddenly become a native speaker of Hungarian with professional knowledge in English, German and Romanian. Isn't it a bit deceptive to make yourself a "translation administrator" on a Wikimedia project on the basis of faked credentials? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise: and he/she also forgot to speak Basque while transforming from Akifumii [29] to Xermano. (Interestingly, Akifumii's Basque knowledge was mentioned during the sock-puppet investigation process. All the same, I am desperately asking the administrators to close this case, because I would really like to concentrate on editing.) Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The text Borsoka sent me on my talk page does not contain any harassment of any sort, in my opinion. Sorry lately I have been active on Wikia instead of Wikipedia. All User:Borsoka said was that "We do not need Armbrsut to translate for us. I object a third party to translate my messages" Xermano^Talk 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, thank for the above clarification even if I do not understand why you suggested a third party translation hours ago if you was well aware the fact that I had not harrassed you. Your absent-mindedness could have easily caused new offending or harrassing remarks by Chris troutman about me. I hope the case now can be closed. Have a nice day! I am sure that we (together with Fakirbakir) will continue our communication in our beautiful language and we can cooperate in improving many many articles. Sorry, but it was so strange that you did not want to translate the text, but now I understand you. Your English is not so excellent as I thought, and that is why you were not able to translate exactly my words. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on third-party translation and admin intervention. I suspect shenanigans. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, are you kidding? You declared that I had harrassed Xermano - Xermano declared that I had not harrassed him/her. Please stop harrassing me. Sorry, but I cannot imagine how you can have any administrative role in our community. Do you really fight against vandalism??? Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's ok if User:Chris troutman would like a third party translation even though Borsoka has not harassed me. The third party translator will find nothing bad that Boroka has put on my talk page. @Borsoka: User:Chris troutman is a very experienced editor and my CVUA trainer. He often fights against vandalism and helps other users. Please do not make such assumptions. Xermano^Talk 18:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot imagine how he/she can fight against vandalism. My experiance is that his/her style of communication is uncivil and he/she can only assume bad faith of other editors. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with all of this is that even if they aren't a sockpuppet, you think you would like to mention that you are Hungarian under your userboxes on Akifumii's page. On that page, he says that he is Canadian and is studying in the United States. Nowhere does he suggest that he is Hungarian, or a native speaker of the Hungarian language. Personally, it would be hard for me to edit here all of these years, and forget that I know English and grew up in America, as well as visited multiple countries in the meantime. In his rename, he now lives in Budapest, and now speaks Hungarian. The languages were also further jumbled around, with the removal of many of those on Akifumii's page, and the addition of a few others. I am leery of giving any trust to anyone who is acting like this, although I would like to see what others think before I move ahead with any action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the messages on User:Xaosflux talk page. Xermano^Talk 03:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ktr101, it was me who initiated a sock puppet investigation against Akifumii (now called Xermano), because I assumed that he/she was identical with Afro-Eurasian. Bbb23 closed it, stating that "Akifumii has an impressive list of credentials, here in a very short time in terms of the privileges that have been accorded him, and elsewhere in other wiki and wikimedia projects that make it unlikely that he is a puppet of anyone". I am a simple editor with no credentials, so I cannot determine whether his/her credentials are authentic or fake. According to Future Perfect at Sunrise's above remark his/her knowledge of Galician (claimed under the name Akifumii) is dubious. All the same, if Akifumii/Xermano is a native speaker of Hungarian, he/she cannot be identical with Afro-Eurasian, because the latter declared (here [30], in the "Personal beliefs" section) that he/she was "Hungarophobe" (and also "Russophobe", "anti-Zionist", etc.). Afro-Eurasian also used disgusting anti-Hungarian slur. Nevertheless, I assume Akifumii/Xermano could not properly translate my Hungarian message because his/her English is poor, not because he/she cannot speak Hungarian. When I suggested him/her a cooperation on his/her Talk page in Hungarian, he/she answered me saying "Thank you" in the same language. There are few Hungarian editors, so I would not like to lose him/her. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, Akifiumii got all the advance permissions by deceiving me into granting them and I have just found that out myself through this ANI discussion. So I want to thank you, Borosoka, for spotting something fishy and decided to investigate further. I'm going to start a sub-section below to demonstrate just how far Akifiumii has deceived the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the sub-section, but, regardless of that, the purpose of SPI is to determine whether someone is socking. The burden is on the reporter to present sufficient evidence of socking. Whether the user is a problem in some other way is not the province of SPI. I don't question Borsoka's good faith, but he simply was unable to present sufficient evidence to connect the user with the master. It's fairly usual in such cases to close the report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, sorry, I did not want to offend you. I remember that during the previous SPI only a CU could prove that the suspected editor, along with many other editors, was in fact Afro-Eurasian's sockpuppet, because the evidence that I presented seemed unsufficient. An administrator initiated a CU because she was also convinced, for reasons she did not want to reveal, that it is a sockpuppetry. Sorry, but my English is rather poor and I am not good at administrative issues, that is why I cannot always express myself properly. Nevertheless, Xermano, who proudly declares that he/she is a native speaker of Hungarian on his/her user page, can hardly be identical with the Hungarophobe, Russophobe, anti-Zionist, ... Afro-Eurasian. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Borsoka, I wasn't the least bit offended. Regardless of the socking issue, from the looks of below, Xermano is going to be dealt with. Also, based on the history, I don't believe that OhanaUnited is the only administrator who was fooled.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, taking into account the events what have happened in the meantime, would you please agree to close my case? I did not harass your pupil. Please, let me concentrate on editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Armbrust: @MusikAnimal: What say you? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I hope you will learn based on this case when you should be cautious and when you can trust an editor. My feeling is that an editor who is not a native speaker of English is always suspicious for you, especially when this barbarian attacks somebody who has several times expressed his/her thanks for you in excellent English. I understand: the barbarians must always be overcome. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, @TParis:, I translated my messages. You can read the translations always below the relevant texts here. (Armbrust informed me that he would not like to be involved in the case and he did not like translating.) Borsoka (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Your translations seem to evince your hounding of Akifumii/Xermano. Some of your comments here (about barbarians, etc) including your eagerness for me to let the matter drop indicate to me that you are aware of your guilt. I leapt to Akifumii's defense at the SPI based on my interactions with them for CVUA. Clearly, Akifumii/Xermano has been less than forthcoming and I'm beginning to think I made a mistake getting involved. Still, your conduct needs to be addressed and I'm happy to watch this train-wreck continue until an admin puts an end to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, I know that I am not guilt, because it was not a hounding. It was a hunt for a sockpuppet of a banned editor who was taking a new personality similarly to the way he had several times done beforehead (I refer to my below remarks of the multiple CVs of Afro-Eurasian and his socks). Yes, I have experienced that you can only assume bad faith of those who attack a favorite of yours. This lack of neutrality is the reason I think you should not have any administrative role in our community. You are talking of witchhunt and hounding, but it was you who accused me of WP:OWN without knowing anything of my past, or who accused me of harrasing based on messages written in a language you do not understand. You should be ashamed of your behavior, but it is obvious that you are unable to realize this. Actually, on my part, this was the last piece of communication to you. I wish you new experiences for the future. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deception by Akifumii/Xermano

Since Xermano disclosed that everything Akifumii provided were "all a dare and a lie", I will be summarizing what Akifumii has emailed me to get various permissions (email copies are available upon request). Akifumii began editing on April 30, 2014. Six days later, he contacted me to inquire how to be involved in Canadian education program. I told him the usual (read five pillars, get some edits, communicate with others). In an email dated May 9, he told me that he is a Canadian from British Columbia and recently moved to California for college. Three days later, he asked me to grant him reviewer and rollbacker. At that point I granted those rights because he seemed to be trustworthy (but now it all appears to be an elaborate scheme/confidence trick to deceive myself and others to get those tools) In June, he made an application to become an online ambassador. He explained to me, through email, that he can only be helping Canadian universities through online and not on-campus since he is in California.

Ever since Akifumii changed his username to Xermano, we're starting to see that his deceptions are finally catching up. Akifumii claims Canada to be his home country and grew up there yet Xermano says he is a native Hungarian. Akifumii absolutely made no mention on Hungary and claimed have visited Brazil during the World Cup in 2012 (wrong, they just hosted it earlier this year). We now know why he wanted to be an online ambassador not because he is studying in California, but because he lives in Hungary. We also noticed the completely absence of Hungarian language on Akifumii's userpage plus a few other languages (e.g. German, Romanian) that mysteriously appeared on Xermano's userpage while Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese were dropped quietly. All these evidences point to the fact that I have lost all confidence in Akifumii/Xermano because we simply don't know when is he telling the truth and when is he giving us crap and bull. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on this behavior, I have removed his "Online volunteer" right, as I am not comfortable with having a user with this kind of edit pattern participate in the program. If anyone wants to revert me, please go ahead and do so as I will not object if a good reason is given, but I just wanted to explain why I did what I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, a sockpuppet of the Hungarophobe, ... etc Afro-Eurasian also deceived an administrator [31]. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And his online ambassador application successfully deceived User:Neelix into supporting him too. I think all of us fell for it because we all used AGF and he exploited it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting coincidence, that Afro-Eurasian also changed his identity from his sockpuppet to sockpuppet. Afro-Eurasian was a Latin man who had been born and lived in Florida [32]. One of his sockpuppets, Paleolithic Man also said that he was a man living in Florida, but under a new (Basque) real life name [33]. His next sockpuppet, Southeastern European, said that he had been born in Southeastern Europe [34], but at the same time a fourth (or 14th) sockpuppet said that he is a "Moroccan American" [35]. @Xermano:, please answer my next question: are you a native Hungarian speaker or you are only pretending it? I have not read any long sentence written by you in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Xermano:, igazán elárulhatnád, hogy beszélsz magyarul vagy nem. Jó lenne már lezárni ezt az egész vizsgálatot, mert nagyon unom, hogy állandóan figyelnem kell, éppen ki mit ír ide. Mellesleg, ha nem vagy magyar, akkor biztos vagyok abban, hogy azonos vagy a magyargyűlölő soviniszta Afro-Eurasian-nal, és kezdeményezek egy Wikipedia:LTA vizsgálatot ellened, mivel eddig még a minimális szintjét sem mutattad a megbánásnak gusztustalan magyarellenes megjegyzéseddel kapcsolatban. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that we know his first persona was a lie, and seeing how much effort he put into collecting hats and alleged wiki-qualifications on the basis of that persona, I think it's not unreasonable that we should treat his new persona with the same kind of suspicion. As far as I'm concerned, Xermano had better quickly provide some evidence that at least the linguistic skills of his new persona are true (i.e.: produce some realistic talk in Hungarian + German etc.), or I think I will treat him as some kind of sock or bad-faith account after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's explanation of the Akifumii/Xermano confidence trick makes sense to me. I was wrong to have supported the online ambassador application. Neelix (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New account info from User:Xaosflux

As seen in this archive on my talk, User:Akifumii and User:Xermano are either the same person (or a compromised account); I assisted in moving permissions from one account to the other that were both strongly linked, and included the relationship in the logs. I have no idea if there was a link beterrn Akifumii and any other accounts prior. If anyone has specific questions about my action, please ping me. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Xaosflux, the issue I raised has nothing to do with suspected sockpuppetry (Afro-Eurasian/Paleolithic Man/Southeastern European) or trasnferring permission from Akifumii to Xermano because I already saw the conversation in your archived usertalk page. It has to be with the all the lies Akifumii made up to get those tools in the first place. I for one am no longer comfortable working with him in the Canadian Education Program because he lacks integrity. In fact, after communicating with Kevin Rutherford, I realized that Akifumii intentionally created a gmail account specifically to pull off this deception. I agree with Fut.Perf. We don't even know if what Xermano told us is even true (or that he is coming clean is actually "clean"). Does anyone disagree if I rescind Akifumii/Xermano's reviewer and rollback rights? (I gave him these rights so I should take responsibility and be the one to clean up this mess.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you removing his user rights. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited I defer to anyone who wants to handle this, my addition were procedural only. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad-hand IP on retaliatory reverting spree

Some editors from Nepal are currently unhappy both with User:Kwamikagami and with myself – with Kwami, because he initiated a page move proposal they didn't like at Talk:Newar language, and with myself, because I closed the RM in his favour against the weight of their numbers. I now notice that a Nepali IP, 202.166.200.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is almost certainly connected with a named account involved in that move dispute, has been going after Kwami engaging in random reverting sprees of his edits on a wide range of unrelated topics, evidently in retaliation (Mishing language, Four tones (Chinese), Iranian languages, Modern Hebrew, Telugu language). Today, the same IP turned up at another article with the same kind of random drive-by revert against myself [36].

From editing overlaps across a large number of other articles and from other behavioral similarities, I consider it pretty certain that this IP is Karrattul (talk · contribs), one of the most vociferous opponents of the move at Newar language.

Articles shared by the IP and Karrattul include: Kachhala (month), Newa cuisine, Tundikhel, Pahan Charhe, Jana Baha Dyah Jatra (chariot festival), Kul Ratna Tuladhar, Bhaju Ratna Kansakar, Momo (dumpling), Chittadhar Hridaya, Thaunkanhe (magazine), and others. The articles on which it has been reverting Kwami and me are the only ones he's ever edited that are not directly related to Nepal.

I first reacted by blocking the IP myself, but on second thought I would prefer for this to be handled by a more uninvolved admin, so I have unblocked them for the time being. However, I believe that a serious sanction for the master account is in order. Since it's not just a simple case of socking but also a pattern of wikihounding and good-hand/bad-hand behaviour, I'm bringing it here rather than to SPI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Socking quite  Confirmed, I've blocked a couple more (Zulufive (talk · contribs) and Uray1130 (talk · contribs)) and softblocked the IP for two weeks as well. Given the long list of editwarring blocks in Kwamikagami's history, I've indefed them as well. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait wait. You blocked Kwamikagami? He was on the receiving end of this abuse! (I've had my own run-ins with Kwami recently, and I know he's sometimes edit-warred, but he's generally a highly respected contributor and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't sock like that.) Did you get the accounts mixed up? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, God, I blocked and tagged the victim rather than the master. My apologies, please stand by while I fix my goof! — Coren ^(talk) 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I've properly fixed my mixup. That'll teach me to have too many tabs open. — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601

User: JMJimmy insists on installing and reinstating a completely incomprehensible version of ISO 8601#Date. The editor has participated in extensive talk page discussion, but his responses are indirect, discursive, and difficult to comprehend. I am unable to discern if the editor sincerely believes the editors edits are useful, or if the editor is a troll. I started an RFC, Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?, but not enough editors participated to convince the editor that the editor was in an extreme minority. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems an insane amount of work to go through if I were trolling. The version, prior to any edits by myself, contained factually false information, information not relevant to the standard, and it generally lacked a significant amount of relevant information. My good faith edits to improve and add to it have been met with hostility from Jc3s5h who was the source of some of the information. I have, repeatedly, made revisions to remove/adjust my contributions when consensus was reached whereas Jc3s5h prefers to delete text and make bad faith* edits for content that is being discussed on the talk page before consensus is reached. Why this was escalated to administrators I do not know, I would think there are more appropriate resolution processes to attempt before going to this extreme. *Note, for clarity, I believe that edit to be in bad faith as, even after significant discussion on the topic and clear evidence in the text, it intentionally seeks to change the meaning back to Jc3s5h viewpoint despite no evidence/supporting documentation/opinions other than his to the contrary. It also removes 99% of the information I added in good faith, cited, and worked with other editors to improve. JMJimmy (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither version is particularly well worded in my opinion. MaybeWP:3O would help? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I don't know which two versions Rich Farmbrough is referring to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

MaybeWP:3O would help?

The disagreements may be more complex than appropriate for WP:30. A third editor - myself - is involved. Mostly I tend to agree with Jc3s5h's viewpoints and disagree with JMJimmy's, but it's not as simple as "two view points, multiple editors". There are several points of disagreement (as I see it), some of which are related to each other:

• Whether or not ISO 8601 defines its own specific version of the Gregorian calendar (I'm not actually clear on whether this is a disputed point or not, but I include it for completeness)
• Whether the year 0000 is a reference point in the proleptic Gregorian calendar
• Whether conversion between other calendars (eg Julian) and Gregorian is within the scope of the standard (and thus the article), and whether parties exchanging date/time data using 8601 are required to mutually agree on such conversion
• Whether the term "Gregorian UTC" is meaningful and/or should be used
• Whether or not 8601 recommends UTC ("Gregorian" or otherwise)

Some of those ought to be able to be split out into separate sections and discussed apart from the others - it might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a rather long response here since Jc3s5h brought in a 3rd editor as well as perusing this dispute mechanism. I think Mitch is right though, this subject is of such a complex nature that a clear guidance from administrators would be appreciated. The above is really the tip of the ice burg if a series wide improvement is ever to occur. JMJimmy (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! This isn't the appropriate forum for requesting editorial guidance from administrators (and please note that administrators' opinions in matters of disputed content are not generally afforded more import than those of other editors.) You might consider a RFC, or pursuing the dispute-resolution options available at WP:DRR. betafive 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I share your view that this is not the appropriate forum, it is merely the one put upon me and being insisted upon. An RFC was initiated by Jc3s5h almost immediately (without really trying to talk through it). Mitch was the only respondent. Just to clarify, I was not meaning intimate that import was somehow to resolve this, just that clear guidance is needed (by consensus or some other mechanism) from those with experience (and ideally knowledge of the subject). It's not really an issue that a weekend-wikier will likely be able to delve into in a meaningful way. 18:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talk • contribs)

IP harassment of editor

History: User_talk:NeilN#Potential_ANI_post Acroterion blocked before the incident reached here.

Today: [37] Warning [38], [39] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for resumption of disruptive editing, personal attacks, and slightly veiled legal threats. The inevitable unblock request has been posted. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First unblock request declined. Probably going to end up with someone revoking talk page access before they are done digging the hole. Monty₈₄₅ 02:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: You might be interested to see that he deleted your "decline" comment and replaced it with an "accept" comment, over your signature,[40] before deleting the whole exchange from his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. For the record, I have asked them to raise any genuine concerns about me here with evidence before the latest rant [41]. HelenOnline 07:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To finish this off, per the Bearian thread below, the IP has been blocked for two years and talk page privileges taken away. Alison left a helpful note on my talk page indicating the IP is a sock of a banned editor. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internodeuser --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Qxukhgiels

Behavior of Qxukhgiels (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić (2nd nomination) has been substandard. Apart from a giant failure of following WP:BEFORE, first removing [42] and then striking other people's comments [43] in a deletion debate where you were a nominator, and then edit-warring about it [44] strongly suggest a lack of clue. No such user (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I explained the procedure. You probably want to take these kinds of issues to WT:AFD in the future, it's not really an issue requiring admin attention unless it escalates further. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

He has been around since 2012, and possibly longer [45], and knows a lot of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, including WP:DICK. Somehow, I don't find that the Hanlon's razor applies, and my supplies of AGF are somewhat short. No such user (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

When my supplies of AGF are somewhat short, I find a WB helps restore them much faster than a visit to ANI, hint hint. betafive 09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Heed betafive's wise words. Kirothereaper (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had expressed a concern that this article may not meet WP:AUTHOR and maybe not even WP:GNG. Both of the comments (the one I struck and the one I removed) relied on arguments specified at WP:ATA, including WP:LASTTIME, WP:MUST, WP:GHITS, WP:ASSERTN, etc. This is the main reason I removed them. Aside from this, User:No such user's comment ([46]) of "disruptive nomination. Homework: read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić first, or just fucking type his name in Google" may constitute a personal attack and is a sign of dickery. I have again removed this per WP:RPA. Upon Google searching the topic, most of the results you get are for social networks, blogs, and the so called "internet farms." Many of these are circular references or mirror sites to WP. As I mentioned on the AfD, this ANI report has not accomplished much.-Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This AfD has already passed it's seven days, and should've been already closed by now.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing my comments, or anybody else's, from that Afd, as you were already warned by two administrators. That's a comment relevant for the afd outcome. Also, stay off my talk page. There was no "personal attack" in my afd comment, as it only points to your apparent laziness to read the previous afd, or to click any of the links at the top of that page. WP:RPA is not a policy, it is and it is certainly not your business to apply it, as you have a conflict of interest on that page as a nominator. I'd ask an admin to finally close that ridiculous AfD and apply an appropriate cluebat at your direction, because you just don't get it. No such user (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

...starting, maybe, from his WP:ROLLBACK rights per [47] No such user (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Gnuuu editor behavior

This editor needs to be dealt with. A look at his contributions will tell you that his intentions are not to help the project. He has been moving pages around, and to me, generally causing disruption. I am trying to undo what he has done, but I need an admin to step in and stop the edits before they get too much out of hand.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Gnuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved five draft articles to article space. The names seem to have been radically changed such as Draft:Shubhra Bhardwaj Mehandirata to Harrison Jordan (poet). The article has Mehandirata, not Jordan as the name. Jim1138 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merged entries from ArcAngel & Jim1138 Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138:- This is the second such incident within as many days - it's starting to get out of hand. The AFC helper script needs to be "locked down" more than what it is now so that editors with less than 90 days service and and 500 edits cannot use it. I am trying to undo the damage he is causing, but need some help with it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: I believe the article moves need an admin to delete the redirect. Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I don't have IRC access or I would go on there and grab an admin.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: Blocked just now. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thankfully! But he did a lot of damage in such a short time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Need an admin to clean up after a stupid typo I made while moving a page back. What should have been a simple reversion of the Draft:Male accessory gland infection -> Ian Thomson (computer programmer) move accidentally resulted in the page ending up at Draft:Draft:Male accessory gland infection and a technical limitation hindering my ability to move it to the right place. Whoops. My apologies. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I did the same thing trying to move a page back to Draft:Arthur Thomas Finney. I simply placed a db-move tag on it since I couldn't do it with that page either.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's all cleaned up now, though I am checking the moved pages just to make sure no others accidentally got put in the wrong place. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted all. Check if I missed anything. Community's reaction was in less than 1 hour. Not bad. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magioladitis! I feel that this shows that editors who "autoconfirm" after just 10 edits isn't necessarily a good idea anymore, and I think I will make a proposal at the village pump to have a discussion on that.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  ArcAngel   I also believe that the 4 days limit should mean "4 days of activity" not "4 days after registration". Moreover, if I had a tool to auto-revert moves I would have finished in 5 minutes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thank you for your quick work. There are still a few CSD-tagged redirects that got left behind, but otherwise, it looks to be all cleaned up. (Mitchell Chang (Canadian athlete), Sun Kim (Korean journalist), Vincent Stone (comedian), Samantha Roberts (politician) and Ian Thomas (computer programmer), at last check). Also thank you, @ArcAngel:. If you hadn't alerted people, who knows how big a mess this would have become? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

AddWittyNameHere Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I noticed—my watchlist is currently flooded with redlinks. Again, thank you for your quick work. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Yes, I am glad I spotted what they were up to, but still - 88 edits in just about 2 hours' time was quite spiffy - but then he was helped by the AFC helper script also.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: And by HotCat. Pretty sure this was someone's sock, albeit not sure whose. An actual new user would hardly be familiar with both of those and cross-namespace moves, I'd say. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not a stretch to say that they may have been a former IP editor, either, and if they were editing with any length of time as an IP, then they would have had the knowledge of such tools.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge, certainly, but the experience to use it this rapidly? Neither the use of the two tools nor pagemoves can be done as IP, after all. Oh well, not like it particularly matters. Without specific account to connect it to, there's pretty much no chance of a checkuser's check anyway. (But if another one pops up, a check for sleepers would be a good idea, I'd guess, since this account did lay dormant for over a week). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow... what a mess. As someone involved in the criteria, the AFCH script is protected by a whitelist, however it is currently only semi-protected. Personally, I think PC2 would be a good way to resolve future issues such as this, but I doubt we will see PC2 in use any time soon. WP:BEANS prevents me from saying too much about how else people review using the script, but an edit filter that automatically checks to see if editors (appearing to be) using the script may be a good idea to check they meet the criteria, and help prevent this happening in future. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think that someone with a plan could do far more in two hours than 88. Jim1138 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where the two hour estimate came from, but if I exclude the two edits from the 4th and the edits to their own userpage at the start of their editing session, the actions (including 25 pagemoves; messages of acceptance of a draft to probably equally many users; a few dozen spurious categories added through HotCat and other messes) took place in slightly less than a single hour (7:41am UTC to 8:35am UTC). (He also hit the page-move throttle for new users multiple times early during the session.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That was my comment. It was around 4am my time, and I was already half-asleep anyway, and failed to see any edits prior to today. Guess that's why I shouldn't be on Wikipedia at such a late hour!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It was ~10am local time for me and I had not slept yet either at that point. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat to sysop Bearian and User:HelenOnline

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

---

Hi folks, I got this legal threat overnight. Can somebody else take appropriate action? FWIW, I am an attorney off-wiki, so I know what a legal threat looks like. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

They were blocked for two weeks. IMO I don't see a definite legal threat - I see a hint at it, but it could really be taken two different ways. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not quite sure what's appropriate in view of the legal threat; it's a static IP, but still it is an IP, so I can't very well indeff it. I was thinking a block for six months as a compromise, but there's obviously no urgency: Acroterion has already blocked for two weeks for resumption of personal attacks, so there's time to discuss it. Acroterion, what do you think? Bishonen | talk 14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I'd say it's clearly a legal threat placed there deliberatly to have a Chilling effect, which is one reason why we block for legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I blocked primarily on the basis of the immediate return to attacks by the IP. They've been offering (from Australia) their personal analysis of the closing arguments [48] in the Trial of Oscar Pistorius and seem to feel that the removal of that analysis is somehow actionable by the defendant, or at least they've been using that idea to try to keep other editors from removing their preferred text. I have no views on the material other than that unsourced commentary/amateur legal analysis has no place on Wikipedia: such things are best left to the talking heads on CNN and Sky News. It's clearly meant to have a chilling effect. I have no reason to believe that they're going to change their behavior once the block expires, and would advocate an extension at least beyond the announcement of the verdict on 11 September, and six months might be better. As an aside, this is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Acroterion (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, in addition to the six months, we could semi the article until 11 Sept? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's mostly a hint of legal action but not an outright threat. Although it was definitely suppose to have a chilling effect. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm generally against long term NLT blocks on IP editors due to the dynamic nature of IPs. However, in this case, the IP has a very long history, and I would wager its the same person who was causing disruption from the IP back in 2012. In that light, I think a very long 2 year block would be an appropriate solution, just so that we don't leave a potentially dynamic IP blocked forever. On the question of NLT, its right on the edge of an outright threat, suggesting someone else may sue a specific editor(s) over it. Clearly intended to have a chilling effect, so blockable even if its not an outright threat of legal action. (Disclosure: I declined an unblock request from the IP) Monty₈₄₅ 15:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a good occasion for a long ip block, and two years seems about right to me. I consider the legal threat to be unambiguous, and we need to make it very plain that such are not only useless, but will always backfire. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone for the input, especially the sage Jedi User:DGG and User:Acroterion for the block. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Game show IP vandalism

I've been noticing for a while that multiple IPs have vandalized game show articles to add false information to them. Today, I noticed that the latest IP, 108.46.241.184, added false information to Chain Reaction (game show) to say that not only did it air in 2012, but also aired on Nickelodeon as a kids' game show. This isn't the only IP to do this sort of thing; I've also seen this vandalism from 108.46.175.218 and 108.54.209.165. It would definitely be a good idea to look into this, since this seems to be a fairly regular thing. I suspect that this is a single person using multiple IP addresses, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'm bringing this issue here. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

All three IPs have a block log indicating a long history of this. Blocked the current IP for six months. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Constant deletion discussions on the iPhone 6 redirect

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

Currently, there is no article pertaining to the iPhone 6, but a redirect was established a while back ago that redirected the phrase to iPhone. This is, and always has been, the way that potential future generations of the iPhone have been dealt with. Redirects have always been fine and nobody has ever questioned the need for a redirect until now. Currently, per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia guidelines prohibit "unannounced" devices and technology to have their own articles. That, even in the face of 77 Million results in a google search. In fact, I have never seen so much coverage of a future iPhone device in reliable sources, than I have seen with the iPhone 6. This is very much unprecedented and only tells me that perhaps WP:CRYSTAL may not apply here. And even if it does, CRYSTAL certainly does not prohibit a common redirect, especially with the millions of reliable sources that link the term "iPhone 6" to the "iPhone" Bottom line, we as Wikipedians are not making the connection, but the connection is being made by reliable sources.

That said, User CloudComputaions latest attempt to get this redirect deleted has gone beyond disruption. He/she has very little experience with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and has been known to WP:SHOUT very loudly on several occasions, [49], [50], [51], [52].

Now normally, another discussion wouldn't matter. I have no problem with discussion, but what happens in a particular discussion such as this, is that the redirect iPhone 6, now has a template at the top of it, which basically stops the redirect from continuing on to its target destination, which is suppose to be the iPhone. The previous discussion lasted nearly a month and a half. The whole while, this template was placed on the page, preventing the redirect from doing its job. This morning, I decided that the redirect needs to stay in order to prevent any disruption of the page and the redirect, all the while letting the "deletion discussion" alone so as to allow the discussion to continue, but allow the redirect to work. Unfortunately, User:Tutelary used WP:ROLLBACK on my edit and restored the template, thereby extending the disruption to the redirect. In addition, I was aware that ROLLBACK was only to be used for vandalism and should not be used to revert long time users in good standing. Many people, myself included, take offense to such use of ROLLBACK, But that is a secondary complaint at this point.

I hope that at the very least, the disruption to the redirect can be cured and that the latest attempt to delete this redirect can be closed as soon as possible.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

* now has a template at the stop of it, which basically stops the redirect from continuing on to its target destination, which is suppose to be the iPhone. Duh, that's what happened at a Redirects for discussion, and removing the template does not stop the discussion, and in fact is beneficial as it aids in getting more people to participate in the discussion. This morning, I decided that the redirect needs to stay in order to prevent any disruption of the page and the redirect, all the while letting the "deletion discussion" alone so as to allow the discussion to continue, but allow the redirect to work. That's not how it works. You don't get to remove the RFD template just because you feel that it will break something, and it's not 'disruption of the page' to have the template there. You seem to have a misinformed manner of viewing RFD and deletion templates. I assume that if an article has been afd'd multiple times, you would want to delete the deletion template informing people of the discussion, too just because it's been nominated a lot? That's what you seem to be making a case for. User:Tutelary used WP:ROLLBACK on my edit and restored the template, thereby extending the disruption to the redirect. I used Twinkle's rollback and used an edit summary. See the diff here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone_6&diff=prev&oldid=621220861 | That's what you're supposed to do; leave the template there. In addition, I was aware that ROLLBACK was only to be used for vandalism and should not be used to revert long time users in good standing. I did not use TW's rollback in that fashion, and use it as a revert button, so I don't have to click 'undo' twice every single freakin' time. Many people, myself included, take offense to such use of ROLLBACK, But that is a secondary complaint at this point. Woo, I used it as a revert button. Big deal. All in all, I think this side of the complaint needs some a boomerang. Tutelary (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now on the side of the 'constant deletion discussions' point, the user that you seem to be accusing of this has only nominated the article for RFD...*drum roll*...once. Not twice, not three times, not 4 times, not taking 'no' for an answer, only but once. The first nomination was in September 2012, 2nd was in late February 2014, and the third was in May 2014. They were all nominated by different users, not by this exact same user like the misleading section title seems to claim. Tutelary (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said or even implied it was the same user. I only stated that there had been four previous nominations. Now Cloud Computation was well aware of the previous three. The user even linked all three previous discussions in this current nomination. And in fact nobody was louder, and mean LOUDER than Cloud Computation in that last discussion, less than three months ago. No way, this user is well aware of what he/she is doing. CC knows that by nominating this for deletion, it will disrupt the redirect and prevent it from functioning. CC is not ignorant of these facts.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No way, this user is well aware of what he/she is doing. CC knows that by nominating this for deletion, it will disrupt the redirect and prevent it from functioning. CC is not ignorant of these facts. Nominating a redirect to be reassessed by the community is not disruptive, and due to the nature of being a redirect, is unavoidable that it will stop working; but for a limited time only. Again, the template itself needs to stay even if you consider it to be a bad faith nomination. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not really sure why you are defending this disruption by someone with a history of disruption. We let this go last time. A month and a half, we let this disruption go on. Enough is enough already. If this was JUST a discussion, I wouldn't care. But this type of discussion constantly disrupts the flow of the redirect. Three times in the past 5 months. Each time this happens, it disrupts the redirect for over a month. The last time it was a month and a half. At some point this just has to end. It cannot be allowed to go on and on and on. You may think that anyone can nominate a redirect for deletion, but when it gets nominated three times in less than 5 months, I think its time to argue that its being disruptive to nominate it once again. CC had his/her chance to speak in the last discussion. Its over. Time to drop the stick already.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1. If you really want to keep the redirect, ask an administrator at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to see do WP:CBALL covers redirects.
2. This redirect is actually a disruption. The RFD will just turn it into an soft redirect for a while.
3. I use CAPS, Bold, Italic and Big fonts because I'm overwhemingly Wikistressed. See User:CloudComputation/Wikistress for more information.
4. I will not make any apologies to the ones who insist on keeping this disruptive, fake redirect.
5. Message to JOJHutton: It will not go on and on only if you (and Luminant, ADNewsom, Rich Farmbourgh, etc.) changed your mind to delete this redirect. One policy wins over one trillion rumors. This redirect will end up like Windows 9.
6. Windows 9 now have 1,.62 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?!

CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 00:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact Windows 9 was deleted has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not iPhone 6 should or should not be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Misuse. Windows 9 and iPhone 6 are upcoming (but not confirmed) products and the search results are over a billion, with the sources that JOJHutton has said... Go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to ask an sysop do WP:CBALL covers redirect. The other stuff, really, exists... only if it is confirmed. I'll try my best to renominate until iPhone 6 is officially introduced. Until then, you're allowed to vote for a keep, but no name-calling (Wikilawyering troll, as what JOJHutton said) is allowed. Note for JOJHutton: Beware of the 5th Nomination and don't attack the nominator as this enrages him/her. CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
    _CloudTracker 10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Making disruption to (The template in JOJHutton's view) a disruption (The redirect in my point of view) is highly constructive. Minus the negative adds the number.

Report to User:BDD

JOJHutton's account is created in 2008, that means he's bending, offending, breaching Wikipedia policies for 6 years! It's 6 years! Please, when can JOJHutton stop slandering me?! This disruptive user which claims himself as an old, good-standing user while slandering me by calling me a disruptive wikilawyering troll. Help me, BDD! You're a good-standing adminstrator and Wikipedians trust you! (Except the group of crystal balls, they wants you to be desysopped instead) CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 11:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that in Cloud Computation's comparison of "Windows 9" and "iPhone 6", he/she needs to learn how to use "quotes" in a google search in order to refine and define the exact parameters of that search. Without quotes, the search will pull up any and all article that contain the word "Windows" and the number "9", but with quotes, such as typing "Windows 9", the results are not in the billions, as has been alleged, but only a measly few million. That as they say is that.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I know that "quotes" includes the word together. iPhone 6 got 42m, not 77m. Windows 9 got 5m. As a reply to JOJHutton. CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
    _CloudTracker 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP-hopper on Nvidia-related articles

There is a disruptive IP-hopping editor who concentrates on Nvidia-related articles that refuses to discuss edits when others including User:Dsimic, User:Lonaowna, and I find material that contradict this user's point of view and therefore edit these articles to resolve these contradictions or revert this user's content removals. For example, our articles normally list the API that the GPU can fully implement or emulate (in the case of Intel's integrated GPUs that failed to implement a vertex shader and forces the CPU to emulate that unit), but this user keeps marking the articles on the GeForce 400 through 700 series as fully supporting Direct3D 12.0 when there is at least one credible article showing that this GPU will only implement a subset of Direct3D 12.0 because there are hardware features to be introduced with Direct3D 12.0 that these older GPUs cannot implement. When we tried to get this user to discuss this issue, the IP-hopper then states that there is nothing to discuss. Also, this user removes content regarding free and open source drivers for these GPUs at the articles on Nvidia and GeForce. This user has used a talk page before. This user has been discussed on WP:AN/I before. I have placed notes in the talk pages of the GeForce 400-700 articles trying to start a discussion, but the IP-hopper refuses to discuss. I have also left notes on the IP-hopper's user talk pages, but this user just blanks what other users write on them. This user's latest IP address is 175.141.35.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Previous WP:AN/I discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Disruptive edits by ip:175.138.232.130

Evidence of content removal regarding free and open source drivers:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce&action=history : Includes the IP-hopper calling people "retarded idiots"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nvidia&action=history

Histories of articles where this user refuses to discuss the Direct3D version support

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_400_series&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_500_series&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_600_series&action=history : The IP-hopper states that there is nothing to discuss despite pleas to discuss the issue and calls us "aholes"[sic]. Also, this IP user hops entire /8 networks
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_700_series&action=history

Evidence that this user knows how to use talk pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shield_Portable&diff=prev&oldid=618122785

User talk page blanking:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.138.238.84&diff=619382566&oldid=619377931
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.141.35.82&diff=621232491&oldid=621229642
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.138.232.130&diff=618300910&oldid=618300426
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.138.232.130&diff=618680260&oldid=618653593

This user has IP-hopped entire /8 networks. 210.187.221.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was used in an edit on GeForce 600 series to remove material showing that the GeForce 600 series will support a subset of Direct3D 12.0 instead of the full Direct3D 12.0. The only thing in common with this user's IP addresses is that they all belong to Telekom Malaysia.

I am not going to block this user because I have been in the edit wars this user refuses to discuss in order to resolve. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• This user is IP-hopping again based on content removal from Nvidia regarding open source drivers. The user's latest known IP is 175.138.234.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, this editor's behavior is quite annoying and, more importantly, counter-productive for the content and accuracy of our articles. For some reason, this editor has a fixation toward Nvidia-related articles, which I've seen numerous times on the GeForce 600 series and GeForce articles. This whole thing is a good "exercise" for the WP:BRD concept, as in this case editor simply doesn't care or want to discuss, meaning that there's no "D" in "BRD". Thus, with no better options available, there was some edit-warring on both articles, and we've somehow managed to preserve the GeForce article. Regarding edit-warring on the GeForce 600 series article, I've ended up with trying to give up on May 26 this year, and I finally gave up completely later when the same edit-warring continued between July 26 and August 6. As we know, it's perfectly fine for editors to have different opinions, but "D" is the key. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Due to this editor's IP hopping, I am starting to think that semiprotection might be the only way to stop this user. Is this a good idea? Jesse Viviano (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NigelHowells

• NigelHowells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a feeling this is a sock of someone given the editing pattern (might be a compromised account maybe). Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been some discussion recently about the issue of hoaxes in Wikipedia. My gut feeling is that this editor was kind of testing Wikipedia's hoax detection ability. The edits were remarkably unverifiable, some of them dubious; yet not always obvious hoaxes and cited to some obscure off-line sources. The editor's comment that the article of a pornographic actress should be speedy kept because she has donated to autism causes seemed rather sarcastic/trollish. Iselilja (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like an odd first edit after not editing for seven years, and then busily creating more articles. Bahooka (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an odd one, and he certainly seems to be jerking us around. His only contribution before today was over seven years ago, to file a frivolous arbitration request, which was rejected, about a joke "religion" called Briefsism. The history of that ten-times-deleted article, and its AfD show a long string of SPAs, mostly blocked.

He has also filed a DRV for John Bambenek, another much-fought-over article from 2006/7 with a history plagued by SPAs and sockpuppets.

That is all much too old for a checkuser, but it seems extremely likely that he has used other accounts, and also that he is WP:NOTHERE to help. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious the user is a well-known LTA from their second edit (which I removed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

NigelHowells is now unblocked and making the same kinds of edits. Bahooka (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015

MOS:TV#Cast explains that there are two ways to present cast content: Actor then role or Role then actor.

Harrison Ford as Han Solo

Han Solo (Harrison Ford)

Avenger2015 has added redundant cast lists to articles with existing character lists, for example here and here. I've explained this to the editor on their talk page at least three times, and have been clear that the articles are intended to be overviews, and that they should not contain incidental characters that are not pertinent to our understanding of the series. User has continued to add ponderous cast lists, without sourcing, without explanation, and without discussion of any sort. They've also added blank cast list sections numerous times including recent ones here and here, and over these four edits (the first few appear to be tests) ([53][54][55][56]) re-added previously removed content. Not sure how to get through to this user since they seem to be editing per their own whims and they refuse to talk. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Abusive anon

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

---

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

Recently making several racist comments in talk page at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown‎, but if you look at the contrib list you will see other anti-Semitic comments as well. The user has been templated several time, to no avail. A permanent block should be considered. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

If I may....

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

---

(Top Posting: Note the protection is only for one hour. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

What in the hell is going on at Jimbo's talk page? Tarc and HIAB seem to be going back and forth and reverting each other, whilst Floquenbeam just fully protected Jimbo's talk page? Are we not above this? And who are we to judge what questions can be posted on ANOTHER person's talk page? Just because someone's a talk page stalker means that you get to dictate what they can and cannot read.... *smh* Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:EVADE does that, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" Tarc stated here [[57]] he would post the comment on their behalf which he did and I removed as this is also prohbited. I'd like to point out the three editors in question 2 have been blocked for being obvious socks and the third is still waiting behavioral evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your selectively reading the policy. Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction and then Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. The policy says nothing about reverting established, non-sock editors who want to make the change themselves. Monty₈₄₅ 21:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out that Tarc was doing this at the direction of the banned user which covered their edits reinserting the comment found [[58]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• The only thing on this planet with less potential to be useful than a thread (any thread) or edit warring (about anything) on Jimbo's talk page, is an ANI thread about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And the only thing on this planet with less potential to solve the issue would be to fully protect a person's talk page for an hour - hoping they "cool down" - instead of dealing with the two editors themselves. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You think blocking them both is more likely to cool them down? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think if they were blocked they wouldn't be edit warring on Jimbo's talk page. I'm not particularly interested in their frame of mind, so long as the disruption isn't occurring. --Jayron32 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32. Blocking the two of them have nothing to do with the two of them and everything to do with stopping current and future disruptive editing on Jimbo's talk page.--v/r - TP 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The protection of the page is going to have the same effect of a short term cool down block IMO. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not supposed to issue 'cool down' blocks, as it's seen as punitive rather than preventative. See WP:COOLDOWN. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, protection doesn't have the same effect as a block for 2 editors. Now, instead of these two editors being prevented from editing Jimbo's talk page, everyone is prevented from doing it. That makes the disruption that much worse. A better course would have been to block those two to prevent disruption.--v/r - TP 23:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite the official stance, as a practical matter every short-term block is a "cool-down" block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about this protection, as it is only one hour; nothing is THAT urgent that can only be handled on THAT PAGE. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on further reverts, so protection is probably moot atm. There are some rather important points to note here though; first, that the last time this circus came to ANI last week, several editors explicitly suggested a "repost it as your own post" solution to the problem. Second, what exactly are we preventing here? Say one of the "Big Bad Luminaries" posts something at say Wikipediocracy that I or another editor find interesting. Are we then banned from posting it to Jimbo's page or anywhere else on-project, just because of who the originator was? In this situation here, I posted this person's (whoever it is, I have no idea, nor do I care) question as my own, which SHOULD have been revert/removal-proof, as it is now MY post. This is straying a bit close to thoughtcrime. Tarc (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughtcrime seriously? You were set on this like a dog when they came to your page. How could you be so blind that all three weren't the same person? They are all spouting the same terms of use nonsense. The socking in my research goes back at least to 2009. stating you would just post it for them and seeing how we would react is a clear example of not believing in the cause but outright trolling. read that suymmary [[59]] it's not your concerns it's theirs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in your straw man constructions; this has always been a two-part affair and complaint of your behavior. Your first transgression is that you do not have proof that it is a banned user. Your second transgression is that even if it is a banned user, Jimbo himself interacts at times with banned users on his talk page, and as noted in the last ANI about this, others noted that editors are traditionally given some latitude in regards to people, even banned ones, posting to their own talk pages. The problem here is that you and Smallbones have ignored that, having anointed yourselves as some sort of elevated Super-Cops. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Wales should control his own talk page. I assume no one has contacted him behind the scenes to see what he thinks should be done, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a request left in the protection log asking for his direction when things like this happen. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've notified Jimbo of this thread and I'm sure he'll reply here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Jimmy might be on holiday, after the big shindig. (If I may mix my British and American). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What in the (what's the term you use... Bloody Hell?) is a shindig? :P ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A party, from what happens to legs when the enthusiastic (or uncoordinated) dance together. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Jimbo to ask that he weigh in on all of this, and I have also re-posted the paid editing question on his talk page, 100% in my own words. If this is reverted again, I will not (for now) attempt to undo it, but I will pursue sanction against the reverter here. Swiftly. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And the first joker to step into it is @Johnuniq: (link). I am under no restriction or condition that prevents me from posting to Jimbo's talk page; whether or not it is something that someone else asked and was reverted (by someone other than the talk page owner) is irrelevant. We have more than a few people, myself included, in the Russavia discussion above who are of the "do the edit in your name and you own it" bent. You can't have it both ways. I request Johnuniq be warned and my 100%-my-own post restored to Jimbo's talk page, please. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sending an e-mail is key. No one can "revert" that except Wales himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -I re added it, then removed it, and have re re added it. Please don't block me for edit warring with myself :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stranger things have happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Had the question been proxy-sent to Jimbo via 'e-mail' at the first, all this commotion would've been avoided. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That observation has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Jimbo's talk page has traditionally been an unofficial village pump of sorts. The loggerheads here are about the latitude given to banned editors to post on user talk pages vs. the zealous rules-sticklers who feel that is forbidden. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

People need to remember that it's still a user talk page, and need to respect said user and those that post to that talk page. Too many people overstep the boundaries and are disrespectful and try to censor things on that talk page. Jimbo, albeit the "founder" of Wikipedia, is still an editor and still has control over his talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that Tarc has not sent Jimbo an e-mail on the question of whether a paid editor can use the Reward Board to nullify the terms of use (correct me if I'm wrong!). Rather he has for some time been trying to get Jimbo to say something like "I personally prohibit Mr 2001 from editing on this page," in order to try to embarrass Jimbo. In any case, I doubt that he will get an answer. IMHO he, along with Mr 2001, are harassing Jimbo, and Mr 2001 has been for a very long time.

About February, I noticed the pattern of Mr 2001 harassing Jimbo and trying to disrupt almost every serious discussion on the page. At that timeI stated that I would revert every edit I saw by Mr 2001 in line with WP:BMB, unless Jimbo asked me not to. We've discussed reverting banned users at least once since and I've reverted Mr 2001 about 30 times since (with proper edit summaries), and Jimbo has never asked me to stop. He's been harassed a dozen times over the last week with demands that he personally must do all the reverting himself or at least approve it. It seems to me that Jimbo's silence on the issue speaks volumes, and he is managing his talk page very well.

BTW, I'm not doing this for Jimbo, rather I'd like to be able to have a serious discussion on his tak page without disruption. Banned editors have no right to edit anywhere on WP. And WP:PROXYING is against the rules. I'll post my new position on reverting banned editors and proxying on his talk page tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and it is quite clear that these edits are not held to the edit warring rule. I would suggest if editors wish to change that and get a special exemption they should take it to the village pump of start a RFC. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to change a thing, the rules are already being followed; I now "own" the post and the question. Another editor restored it last night, and another still has now responded, so things can proceed normally. This will be the modus operandi going forward; if you insist on deleting innocuous content from Jimbo's page, I will rephrase it as my own and re-post, and there's really nothing you can do about that; you're deluding yourselves if you think there'd be a 3RR exemption for trying to remove a post of mine. We'll be back at ANI, and if that again fails to produce a solution, I have no qualms about taking you to Arbcom...which given your recent history of c-bombs and associated sub-par behavior defending that, will probably not end well. Have a nice day. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of blocking or banning anyone, or getting anyone blocked or banned, if any of their edits are gonna be accepted, during that block or ban? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with your overall argument. Any entries by a banned user are, in general, removable on-sight. But why is it appropriate to nanny an editor's talk page? That's not an article, i.e. it's not something the public will see unless they purposely look for it. And if an editor wants to fend off trolling, he can have his talk page semi'd. Wales, or any user, should manage their own talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Always (if possible) e-mail your questions/concerns to JW & avoid his talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly be preferable to nannying his talk page. Another thing you can do is when a banned editor posts on someone else's talk page, you can follow that up with a comment like "the above is a banned user", and again let the talk page owner decide what to do, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• As an idea, specifically on Jimbo's talk page, and only on Jimbo's talk page, where a sock/banned editor sends Jimbo a message, and if that message does not justify removal for a reason other than who the sender is, can we just collapse the section with {{hat}} {{hab}} and leave it for Jimbo to decide on removal? Monty₈₄₅ 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc and I obviously disagree on this, and he boasts on my talk page about his ability to edit war on this matter.

Very well; I have reconsidered my practice of reverting Mr. 2001 on-sight on Jimbo's talk page and I will start a new practice.

• I will revert Mr 2001 and anybody WP:PROXYING for him on-sight on that page
• If Jimmy wants me to stop doing this, he can let me know in any way he feels best, and I will stop.
• If any admin wants me to stop, they can drop me a line on my talk page, and I will consider their reasoning. I will not necessarily agree, and per policy, I will not necessarily respond.
• If anybody reverts my reverting of Mr 2001 or his proxies, I will warn the reverter after the 3rd reversion and after the 4th reversion will ask at ANI for the reverter to be blocked. This is automatic.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you pretend you are some sort of Grand Arbiter of the Truth and Defender of the Crown, when nothing could be further from the truth. You have no right at all to police the talk pages of others users. Article-space, perhaps, when it comes to content added by banned users. But even in those cases, other editors can just "take on" the edit as if is their own and restore content. This knee-jerk idiotic treatment of possibly banned users as if they were escapees from a leper colony is more of a commentary on your own personality and behavior than on anyone else. The one bright spot in this is that your draconian p.o.v. seems to be in the minority. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, when several people tell you that you re being disruptive then strongly consider that you are. You say you are taking ownership of the comment but it still looks to me like the banned user talking to me. Regardless if you own it then you are responsible for it.

3RR lists an exemption "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space" I see no exemptions to edit warring for posting on Jimbo's talk page. You said you sent the e-mail so just wait for a response. Smallbones's plan sounds reasonable to me. Chillum 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

When the "several people" consist primarily of the 2 agitators in this affair, I do not take into consideration their opinion in the slightest. As for the comment, yes, I am responsible for it now. I am not banned from the Wikipedia, nor banned from Jimbo's talk page, thus there is no standing reason to re move a post of mine for any reason other than an WP:NPA transgression. And what precisely is reasonable about Smallbones "plan", which is just what he's been saying all along "I'll keep reverting and I am exempt from 3RR" ? In the absence of a comment from Jimbo, user's posts should remain intact, not default to deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not just 2 people, several people are saying you are being disruptive. I am saying it. Your lack of even the slightest consideration for people's opinion seems to be the root cause.

I suggest we wait 24 hours and then block every single person who is still violating 3RR on the page, regardless of who they are. I suggested the same thing on Jimbo's talk page. This is getting silly. Chillum 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I had an edit conflict with Monty above, in any case I had to consider it.

Just in case anybody is unsure of the rule

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

So even though Monty's hatting proposal looks like a reasonable compromise, I wouldn't feel bound by it since the policy says without qualification that I may revert. I wouldn't consider it binding on anybody else either. Nevertheless, depending if it was effective or not, I would likely leave the hatted material alone, and respect the hatter's wishes. I do encourage all other editors to participate in stopping the banned editor's trolling, whether they are hatting or reverting according to the rules. In particular, I think admins should be trying to stop this trolling and enforce the rules on banned editors.

I would also be open to any sort of moderation, arbitration, or any other sort of dispute resolution on this, with only one condition: Tarc agrees to follow the rules, e.g. banrevert. There's not much else for me to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My eyesight is not too good, so tell me where in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines it says that it's OK to nanny someone else's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines says absolutely nothing about "nannying", so I assume the policy WP:BANREVERT applies "

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban" (my bolding). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR is the highest law of the land, if invoked properly. I believe that I am invoking it properly, as your overly-conservative interpretation of proxying rules is a net negative to the project. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No. You are being intentionally disruptive and know it. Stop proxying for RussaviaGreg Kohs. Now.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Matthiaspaul

Hi.

I have been wanting to avoid coming here for a long time but it appears it cannot be avoided. User talk:Matthiaspaul and I contribute to the computing area of Wikipedia. We disagree a lot. Except, his manner is somewhat lacking. He never talks to me; he may talk at me if he condescends. (Wikipedians in dispute must communicate much more.) And he never assume good faith, rather he directly accuses me of sabotage.

• Instance #1: I filed a technical move request for moving CMD.EXE to cmd.exe. Obviously, he disagrees and contacts the moving admin. So far, okay. But in his message, Matthiaspaul:

1. Accuses me of deliberately ignoring a consensus. ("Lisa was fully aware of MOS:COMPUTING as well as of this move discussion, but has announced to ignore the consensus.")
2. Accuses me of verbally attacking administrator User:Jenks24. (Jenks24 later refutes this. Still, what does rudeness have to do with the appropriateness of a rename request?)
3. Accuses me of gaming the system by bypassing the procedure. ("If Lisa really wants the article names changed for some odd reasons, she should issue proper move discussions, instead of trying to game the system by bypassing the procedure.") This sentence is equal to saying WP:RM/TR is not the procedure.

• Instance #2: This time, I am subjected to personal attack in spite of having done absolutely nothing. Following the closure and eventual move of CMD.EXE to cmd.exe, another user asks whether the remaining pages must be moved or they need a separate move discussion. Matthiaspaul objects by saying:

I get the feeling that Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting to force the lowercase forms into articles where they do not belong into, and this is really getting annoying with all their (groundless) personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting.

What? I didn't even say a word; how does it become "personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting"? Since when does starting a dispute resolution process is counted as "concerted effort to violently attempting ..."? If anything, there were six other supporting parties in that discussion.

These points are just tip of the ice berg, with the ice berg being the neighboring diffs or more talks in the same talk pages. But there are more disputes. For example, back in 2013, I filed a WP:RM/TR request for CHKDSK, which was rejected. An admin started a full RM on my behalf without asking me (definitely in good faith) but in the interest of avoiding WP:POINT, I withdrew the full discussion. Matthiaspaul revived it simply to exhibit his opposition and his message accused me of subverting MOS:COMPUTING for my own purpose. (This issue actually came up in Talk:Cmd.exe § ‎Move request – CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lisa! I am confused about what sort of intervention you are requesting from administrators. May I suggest WP:DRR? betafive 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Betafive. It appear you did not notice that I am just out of a successful WP:DRR. Stress on successful. Here is what I am requesting.

Bearing in mind that civility and collegial cooperation is one of our founding pillars here, I am starting to feel concerned that if he keeps dragging my name in the mud like that, I lose my reputation unjustly. If people keep hearing "Codename Lisa lied" repeatedly enough, regardless of the fact, they start to look at me like a liar. (This has actually happened once.) I perfectly understand that admins are not at liberty to kick anyone out of Wikipedia permanently just because of offending someone a couple of times. And we certainly don't want to lose a knowledgeable editor, do we? But a warning at this stage has significant remedial power. So, for now, please tell him to stop.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Help in dealing with user

I need help in dealing with admin User:AntonioMartin in regards to his style of working. For disagreeing with part of one edit he will insist on reverting a series of edits. It's tiring to try to deal with him. --damiens.rf 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong forum, premature action. Hello, damiens.rf. First and foremost, you must add {{subst:ANI-notice}} to the other party's talk page before coming here. Otherwise, you risk being blocked. I advise you to either do this immediately or, better yet, withdraw this discussion for the reasons that I am about to say.

  Starting this topic is unwarranted: This is a dispute, which must be resolved through dispute resolution process. Regrettably, the civil manner in part of both of you is somewhat lacking, which is another reason you may never get results from this page. I advise you to start a discussion in talk page and discuss the content only, not the contributor. And don't worry for the outcome: This is a straightforward case of deviating from MOS:DAB; your version is most probably endorsed, although not the whole of your actions.

  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Lisa. Especially for the links. Sorry for taking your time spamming the wrong forum. --damiens.rf 16:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Prolonged edit warring and content dispute on Wikipedia

Chealer (talk · contribs) and LawrencePrincipe (talk · contribs) have been slowly edit warring over some content dispute on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) since the end of July. The talk page has 12 sections, 7 of which are about these two users. A few days ago admin Eustress protected the page and began a dispute resolution section on the talk page, but no headway was made. Immediately after the page protection was released, the two editors resumed their edit warring. I have concerns that LawrencePrincipe is WP:OWN on this page, but they also tried to start an RfC to preemptively protect the page for 90 days to block Chealer from editing it (and I closed that RfC and have had Wikipedia on my watchlist since). The behavior of these two editors is unacceptable and they apparently cannot resolve their dispute through normal avenues. I am requesting an admin review the situation and act accordingly. (PS - I original started to fill out an AN3, but given the unusual nature of the incidents, I felt ANI was best). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir,

I reopened the associated case on WP:AN3, but just for clarification, the section you allude to was in fact created by LawrencePrincipe, who copied it from my talk page.

Thank you --Chealer (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add except to mention that I've put the article for a good article re-assessment here, primarily on failing GA criteria #5 (stability), as well as having further problems elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

69.178.193.40

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

---

There's a long AIV backlog, so can I get a rush on a block for 69.178.193.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has decided to redirect the talkpages of cleaning-up editors to the cyberbully article? No doubt another account belonging to LTA Zimmbotkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has just come back with a vengeance over the last month. Their last IP 178.195.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got a year block but also decided to create a YouTube video telling us how they reset their MAC address. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind; they just got a 60h handed down by Acroterion (talk · contribs), though I'm sure they're setting their alarm for the block release. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

<ec>I'm not familiar with this particular troll: other editors may wish to recommend an adjustment. This comment may be useful [60] Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to their SPI. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed talk page access and reverted the user's brag that they are a returning troll. Trolls treat blocked ip pages like trophies. Chillum 00:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked around a bit and it seems that there are 1 or more rapidly rotating IP trolls right now. Given the speed at which they are changing IPs I recommend short blocks, perhaps 6 hours. Just long enough for them to abandon it for another. Chillum 00:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have laid a lengthy range block on 69.178.192.0/22, which has been repeatedly anon-blocked going back as far as 2010. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to this, there was abuse from this range in another venue, so I ran a check on it. Everything I could see there was abuse, vandalism or otherwise unconstructive, so I have upgraded this to a CheckUser hardblock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much; there's no room for this type of editing here and after six years of this it's getting kind of sad to boast you 'crushed Wiki' with easily revertible vandalism. Nate • (chatter) 19:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User removing CSD and AFD tags

Hi. User FabianaAlarcon2000 is removing CSD and AFD tags everytime we tag the page Edmundo Alarcon. Can you issue a block to stop him so the processes can take place? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FabianaAlarcon2000 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 24 hours for disruptive removal of AfD tags, including after being told not to do it. It should be noted that JulieAnnMoore2000 (talk · contribs), the page creator, is loudly quacking, but I'm not sure if it's socking or 'all in the family'; {{Checkuser needed}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The newer SPA is blocked, and the disruption has stopped for now, so I don't think that CU is warranted at this point. If any other accounts show up, I'll gladly reevaluate the situation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus

User:Fearofreprisal seems to have first indicated a recent interest in this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Emerging theories of an historical Jesus here promoting new works which he alleges reflect a secularist or deist bias/"perspective", and has since gone on to the Historicity of Jesus article and talk page, engaging in what he has been told several times by several people is tendentious POV pushing, and edit warring on the article itself, but to date shows little if any understanding of the problematic nature of his own rather transparent POV pushing.John Carter (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't imagine any topic with more potential to be contentious, and for which it would be more difficult for the those of differing viewpoints to reach consensus. What exactly would NPOV look like on a topic like this? Why does this article exist on Wikipedia at all? Formerly 98 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This article has long been a source of trouble, but the reason for that is that most of the editors that deal with it refuse to account for bias in their sources. Of course most Christian Biblical scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. That isn't a very meaningful statement when it comes to studying whether he actually did.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This remark is typical of the problem. We can only go by what experts in the area say. It is not our job to assert that those experts must be biased in some way. The continuous distraction from what experts actually say towards personal interpretation has turned the talk page into a quagmire. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The article would probably look a lot like the introductory material in the recent Encyclopedia of the Historicity of Jesus which as I've said on the talk page I hope to get material from by I hope the end of next week, although I acknowledge sometimes I use that phrase a lot like "real soon now." And I agree with Paul that part of the problem is editors with contrary biases being unable or unwilling to recognize them as biases.John Carter (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have plenty of criticism of Historical Jesus scholarship and discussion of the problem of bias by HJ scholars themselves, the wider community of biblical scholars and at least one historian who has written a biography of Jesus. The solution is not to suppress these scholars, but to make sure their opinions are not represented in Wikipedia voice and that the criticism is mentioned as well. The same would go for criticism of the scholarly credentials of the minority of scholars who disagree there was a historical Jesus. Clear distinctions also need to be made between biblical scholars and historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Paul, my remark is not the problem. The article treats biased sources as authoritative and does not clearly label them as biased sources. I don't argue that Christians and Muslims should be ignored, only that their bias be recognized and labeled as such. It's not at all surprising (or particularly interesting, even) that people associated with the two religions that treat Jesus of Nazareth as a divine being tend to agree that he existed. The opinions of others is far more interesting. Note that everyone, Muslim or not, tend to agree that Muhammad existed. No one doubts the historicity of Haile Selassie, although only the Rastafarians believe that Selassie was God incarnate. Believing that someone wasn't divine is no particular obstacle to believing he existed. In the opposite direction, believing that someone was divine creates a serious bias towards believing he existed.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Requiring that "their bias be recognized and labeled as such" is tantamount to requiring original research. Is there a reliable source that states they are biased? If not labeling them as biased is, itself, biased and fails WP:NPOV. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view; there is no requirement that Wikipedia's sources be neutral, nor should there be - just that the writing of a Wikipedia article maintain a balance among the sources, regardless of the sources' bias. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If (along the lines of what Mmeijeri suggested) we listed all possible sources, divided them according to academic and popular works, gave a quote or summary for each, stated what their authors' credentials were, and then included affirmations, rebuttals, or other discussion of the work (likewise with credentials labelled, and divided between academic and popular works), that should address the problem. The reader get to make their own informed decisions regarding arguments and credentials (or bigoted decisions regarding the author's worldview), but we avoid making those decisions for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kww, yes, indeed, your comments do reflect part of the problem and a wider problem on Wikipedia overall. Editors determining which sources are biased based on their own POV. I'm not saying you are a problem, but your explanation of the problem is reflective of the problem itself. In any case, the way to solve the issue on this article is to get consensus on a clear definition of what the article is about. If it's about the scientific evidence supporting or opposing the existence of Jesus - then okay. If it's on the scientific evidence of Jesus contrasted with the religious belief of Jesus - then fine. If it's on the religious history of Jesus - alright. But let's select one and stick with it. The problem here is the "Historicity of Jesus" could mean any of those three and probably a few more.--v/r - TP 21:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the comment by Kww above seems to be mistaking "bias" for historical methodology, and very likely could be seen as an attempt to right what perhaps a non-historian perceives as the "great wrongs" of the historical study of poorly documented individuals and eras, and even demonstrates perhaps an inability to recognize the differences between the poorly documented distant past and the very well-documented 20th century. Historians have to use different methods for different eras, whether non-historians like that or not, or whether they wish to describe that as "biased" or not. History as a discipline does have biases, and I think they are discussed elsewhere, but they do not have to be described in each potentially related article. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, John, I'm arguing that Christian and Muslim historians have a different bias than Buddhist, Jewish, and atheist historians when dealing with precisely the same set of uncertainties. Nothing to do with the uncertainties themselves, but the differing tendencies the different groups will have when evaluating their weight.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You don't believe Buddhist, Jewish, and atheist historians have their own biases? Are you telling me that an atheist who is opposed to the idea of a diety is not inclined to oppose the existence of what 60% of the world's population believe to be the son of God? Everyone has biases, Kww, even atheists. And atheists don't sit on some kind of unique morale high road - a monopoly - which allows them, and only them, to ignore their own biases or to consider their biases when writing an opinion.--v/r - TP 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We need sources to describe sources as biased before we can treat them as biased? We need a source to say "Ford Motor Company is probably biased in favor of Ford products" before we can treat Ford Motor Company advertisements as biased in favor of Ford products? No. Part of editorial judgement is weighing the bias of a source and treating it accordingly. There's no reasonable doubt that Christians and Muslims have a bias in favor of believing that Jesus of Nazareth existed: I don't think you can deny that with a straight face. As I said, that's not an argument for discarding their opinions, but it certainly requires editorial caution, something the article lacks.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Explain Tom Harpur and Docetism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a splinter doesn't contradict the existence of a piece of wood.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that those are splinters rather than just another part of the wood is a rather Catholic bias. Also, even C.S. Lewis has pointed out that a historical Jesus is completely different from the one of Christianity -- if he can do that, surely folks far less evangelical can separate a belief in a divine Christ from research into whether or not the religion has any connection to an individual with a then dead-common name who made a not-uncommon claim among revolutionaries who met a rather common end as a result. My mother, a Baptist minister's daughter, understands that even Dr Who couldn't find the Jesus of Christianity in 1st century Judea. So please, knock off the asinine claim that Christians can't treat religion and history separately. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop treating my use of the word "bias" like I'm saying "irresistible compulsion in one direction that completely robs the holder of free will or good judgement". The bias is undeniable. That doesn't render a biased source as being completely without value, nor does it make the contents of the source a foregone conclusion.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the bias that Bible-believing Christians accuse of: "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit more in line with the OP, two bits that I'm concerned about:

• Fearofreprisal claimed that sources by Christians and even ex-Christians are inherently incapable of competently handling the historicity of Jesus. If he had just said "Christians," it would only be potential bigotry on his part. But, he threw in ex-Christians, those who affirm the plausibility of a historical Jesus in particular. He doesn't mind people citing them when they deny the possibility of a historical Jesus (at no point demonstrating any problem with a user who misrepresented sources and cited a dozen irrelevant sources to argue that Jesus couldn't have existed), but he does when ex-Christians go against the Christ myth theory. He appears to have learned that that line of argument simply isn't going to go forward, but has turned to OR arguments against RSs and vague arguments regarding the scope of the article that coincidentally eliminate the sort of material he's targeted before.

The claimed reasons change, but the actions remain pretty much the same.

• He created a thread accusing me of an agenda, on the article talk page instead of my talk page, providing no evidence. He then edit warred to keep the thread on the page. When told that he needed evidence for his accusations, he euphemistically rephrased the accusations. When told that he should have brought any concerns over my interactions with editors up on my talk page instead of the article's talk page, he claimed the out-of-place thread wasn't an accusation of problematic behavior. When context was given for the words he took out of context, he continued to insist that I was operating with an agenda, provided diffs to the words he took out of context (as if I had denied saying those things). At no point did he provide even a reference to a conversation where I fabricated quotes. When I demonstrated how one would present evidence of an agenda (had I not been stuck on my phone in a hotel room, I would've even provided diffs instead of referencing material anyone can still see on the talk page), he continued to say that I had an agenda and showed offense at me supposedly trying to bring his religious beliefs into it (even though I never mentioned his religious beliefs, and even though it was totally fine for him to accuse me of a religious agenda without evidence). The only user to support his complaints at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Ian.thomson was a user who also made similar unevidenced claims, and was blocked for likewise failing to assume good faith and attacking other editors.

As I've indicated above and on the article talk page, I'm for including a variety of sources, even due weight to the Christ Myth Theory. Between that, me pointing out that a recently added source claims that a historical Jesus is ultimately unknowable, and my prior track record, accusing me of an agenda, failing to provide evidence for it, and refusing to retract it is inexcusable. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. The author you posted about seems to agree that Yeshua existed, but asserts that the events of his life may be essentially unknowable or unprovable. Those are two different things, and in your summary the author does not seem to deny that this person existed. So what is the issue at hand? Historical existence, or provable life-events/teachings? Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that in the Christianity noticeboard discussion I linked to he explicitly referred to a source taking a deist perspective. Although, as I indicated later in that thread, the new deism seems to be widely discussed on the internet, I who have looked haven't found any significant discussion in independent reliable sources, and believe Fear giving such prominent use of the term is a very serious indicator of his perhaps trying to promote that dubiously notable perspective.John Carter (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As Ian.thomson has shown, this is one of those cases where disruption is a pattern that requires patience to observe and document, and individual diffs don't tell the story. Last year, Greengrounds, now blocked, disrupted the same article (and related articles) with a similar habit of argumentation; this went on for months, until the user self-destructed in a spectacular ejaculation of epithets and obscenity. Since Fearofreprisal and Greengrounds seem never to have edited Historicity of Jesus or any other article at the same time, I can't say whether Fearofreprisal is aware of this parallel history. But it might be edifying. Or maybe it would just show Fearofreprisal how to prolong these behaviors without crossing the line, since the user has boasted of his experience in doing so and implicitly dared editors to try and stop him. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a really simple issue here. A Christian who says Jesus existed has added nothing of value to the discussion, because a Christian must believe that Jesus existed. Any source written by a Christian can therefore be safely ignored in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an atheist, you have a truly awe-inspiring misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. --23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And a source by an atheist who disbelieves the existence of a deity wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a man who 1/3 of the world believes is the son of God, another third believes he is a prophet of God, wouldn't have cause to assert Jesus never existed? So we can discount atheist views as well. What's left? I reassert my comments to Kww - atheists do not hold a monopoly on the capability of recognizing one's own biases.--v/r - TP 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that 1/3 of the world's population believes Jesus is the son of God. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's based on the count (or guesstimate) of there being 2 billion Christians in the world. That's slightly under 1/3 probably, but it's in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In my country the "number" of Christians comes from a census question that asks people to state their religion. Millions who haven't been near a church for years tick the box saying Christian. The correlation between ticking that box and believing Jesus to be the son of God is unknown. I believe that it's a very low. My guess is that the same applies in many parts of the world. So 2 billion? Nah. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

An atheist can believe that Jesus existed, or didn't exist. A Christian cannot make such choice. Whether he is the son of a god is none of Wikipedia's business. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

An atheist is no more capable than a Christian is incapable of believing that science supports the existence of a man named Jesus.--v/r - TP 00:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Suitable evidence could convince an atheist that Jesus existed. By definition, nothing can convince a Christian that he didn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

. Any Christian can agree about whether or not it is a fact that scientific evidence does or does not support the existence of Jesus without it compromising their faith. That's not difficult at all.--v/r - TP 01:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I will admit to not understanding that post. Too many "or"s and negatives. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, HiLo, you have to look at the flip side. The lack of suitable evidence would not necessarily convince a Christian that Jesus didn't exist. Belief in the existence of Jesus has nothing necessarily to do with looking for historical corroboration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A Christian should not require concrete evidence of Jesus' existence. That's what faith is about. On the other hand, a Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And it's possible that such belief could bias a Christian when looking for historical evidence. But it's not safe to assume that a Christian would be automatically biased in that search. Finding evidence could be nothing more than a nice surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Response from User:Fearofreprisal - I read the comments above, and my eyes glaze over. These people are all over the place.

We're here because the OP, User:John Carter is accusing me of "Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus." Let's deal with that, before we get to the part about me trying to singlehandedly destroy Wikipedia.

• He has provided no evidence or diffs, just an accusation of "tendentious POV pushing, and edit warring."
• He said I posted here. Take a look. He has me confused with someone else.
• At Talk:Historicity of Jesus he's posted some oblique "warning" messages to me -- directed at "a certain obvious POV pusher," and "a rather single-minded POV pusher."diff1diff2 Frankly, I find these to be creepy - as if he's trying to intimidate me.

It comes down to this: He's got nothing. The only reason we're here is because I called his bluff when he threatened me with ANI. [61]

Now, about all the other comments here: What a royal mess. TL;DR.

Historicity of Jesus is seriously broken, and has been for years. I've poked at it a little bit, to see what might be fixable, and I've come to the conclusion that it's probably lost cause. An article about History has been turned into an article about Religion.

If the article can be fixed, it won't be through trying to manage POV. It'll be through WP:SCOPE. But some editors are freaked out at the thought of making the article actually be about historicity, rather than all the other irrelevant junk that's been stuffed into it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Disambig

I propose we turn Historicity of Jesus into three pages:

1. Scholarly Historicity of Jesus
2. Religious Historicity of Jesus (Would proboably just be Jesus and may not be needed)
3. Contrasting Historicity of Jesus

We could clearly define the scope of the articles. Alternatively, we could just renamed Historicity of Jesus to Scholarly Historicity of Jesus.--v/r - TP 01:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding number 2 does this mean that you want to rename the existing Jesus article and if so to what?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow this proposal as it looks somewhat like a WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Can somebody please close this thread! What admin action is required or desired here!?! 99% of this thread has NO ANI board value. Please take it elsewhere, especially the above proposal. Just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/181.53.168.141

Colombian IP address which exists solely to vandalise by changing the teams involved in football tournaments to nonsense, has previously been blocked temporarily, reoffending. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for disruptive editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

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

---

Last night, I was looking at the section named "Death" on Robin Williams' article and noticed that the quote of Obama came before the quote of his daughter. I figured the family's comments should come first so I started an edit to reverse the order. When I hit save, I entered an edit conflict with HiLo48 (talk · contribs). He had edited the article to remove the quotes, using the edit summary "Removed undue content. Please discuss." I saw this and was quite perplexed as I had seen dozens of articles prior mention quotes from those most closely affected by a death before. So, I undid him once, with the edit summary of "How is this undue? It's no different then content of other dead celebrities death sections. Justification for discussion?" He didn't revert me back, he did however take to my talk page leaving me a message that clearly was him assuming bad faith, accusing me of edit waring, accusing me of behaving badly, and his unwillingness to discuss. When I made a final effort to get the section on Robin William's talk page that he was referring to, he instead belittled me and continued to assume bad faith. Finally ending with "Assume good faith? LOL. No point in trying any more with you. Goodbye." I don't know what this editor's problem is, but he is clearly not assuming good faith and instead acting uncivil and immature. Request to discuss were ignored and replied with petty, belittling comments. I don't know what can be done, but something has to be done about this user's attitude. Thank you for your time. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 23:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I notified the user of this discussion, this was his response. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At worst slightly snippy. Why not discuss your thoughts about the edit on the talk page? --Daniel(talk) 23:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried, I asked him for the section he was referring to because I couldn't find it (there were many mentioning quotes, couldn't figure out which one was the one), instead of happily supplying it, he instead belittled me and continued to assume bad faith. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] I will make one comment before quitting this perfect example of yet another wasted thread in this cesspool of injustice and abuse. CRRaysHead90 has STILL not joined the discussion on the Talk page of the Robin Williams article, despite repeated requests. That was my single ongoing concern with his behaviour. Editing without discussion, despite repeated requests. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to get the section you were referring to from you, but you wouldn't provide it. I clearly demonstrated the willingness to discuss, but you wouldn't provide it. Instead choosing to belittle me and laugh. You seem to be the one not showing willingness to discuss and you have demonstrated your bad attitude once again. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone editing Robin Williams at this time should be aware that there is a lot of activity (120 edits have occurred since the issue in this report). Anyone should know what "please discuss' means—have you been following the edits in that section? have you followed the discussion on the talk page regarding that section? HiLo48's first comment at User talk:CRRaysHead90#Quotes in Robin Williams was a little terse, but you chose to ignore the message. Are you hoping someone here will point to the appropriate section on the article talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm hoping that someone will talk some sense in to HiLo about the importance of acting civil and assuming good faith. Also I was pointing him out to be monitored as he clearly has no intention of working with people.CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I'm beginning to lose my assumption of good faith regarding CR90's behavior. Is all this over a single revert and a couple of comments? If you really care about the article content you'd have been discussing it on the talk page long ago, but instead you're here looking for some kind of administrative action. --Daniel(talk) 00:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

How? I asked for the section from HiLo because I couldn't find it on my own. How can I comment if I can't find the section in question, Daniel? CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been editing here for eight years. Do you seriously not know how to use a talk page's table of contents? I'm sorry but the fact that you bring this to ANI is shocking. What a waste of time. --Daniel(talk) 00:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell this out for you, one more time. There are four sections about quotes. HiLo mentioned a specific one. I looked for that comment, even used the CTRL+F function on Firefox and couldn't find it. I asked HiLo to point me to it, and instead of helping me, he assumed bad faith and wouldn't help me. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably the one titled "Too many quotes?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close. There is nothing for any admin to do here other than to block both parties for wasting their time. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there are four threads on the talk page about quotes and you want to edit sections of the article with quotes, logic would suggest you should read (and probably contribute to) all of them. Contributing to one but ignoring consensus in the others and editing the article anyway would probably be considered tendentious. Coming here rather than having a proper read of the talk page is just silly. Viriditas is right - can someone close this before the boomerang makes it back to OP. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Compromised account

I have published the password to my account. Please block my account for the rest of eternity. However whatever (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)