Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plarem (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 22 August 2014 (→User:11raccoon1 Personal attacks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion



    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    If the other editor was also banned, then yes. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You're not banned, so clearly no. :) That wouldn't be an issue. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Isn't it not supposed to be punitive though? Kirothereaper (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    That is, as described, not typical behavior for Russvia's socks, no. Reventtalk 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. Reventtalk 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 [1] [2] [3] which add no value or negligible value to an article should be removed. However, images like these [4] [5] 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • The edit summaries for [6] and [7] 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • @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. Reventtalk 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Since the policy in question clearly states "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)", how is enforcing mandatory reversion of such edits "enforcing" the policy. It strikes me that the principles of WP:DENY provide better guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jusdafax, you must have a high opinion indeed of WMF legal abilities to find and stop someone that technical measures cannot. I'm wondering just how far your "stop policy violators for once and for all" tactics would go. The Wikipedia SWAT team knocks on a door, sticks in a Kalishnikov and yells, "That was one good edit too many, motherfather!", maybe? I think you'd have a hard time convincing any judge that (say) adding well-sourced material, correcting errors and so on to an online encyclopaedia "that anyone may edit" merited any official interest. At some point, common sense comes into play, and just because there's a local consensus by some band of Wikipoos on some talk page somewhere to nuke someone who is annoying them by uploading Commons photos, it's not really something that's worth getting upset over. In fact, getting you upset is very likely the objective of the blocked/banned editor doing good work. Just to see you run around and get red in the face, or username. Ignore the trolls, always the best advice. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the day has come when asking for existing Wikipedia policy to be enforced gets shushed, then I'd say the "dumbing down" of our editorship has gone pretty far. "Upset?" Do you see any caps, or cursing on my part? I am calmly making a comment regarding a blocked serial sockmaster who, in my view, should be dealt with firmly. And take note, he went to my talk page as an IP (subsequently and rightfully blocked) to taunt me. By any objective standard, he appears to be the one who is upset. Your comment is remarkably unconvincing. Jusdafax 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • When one gets to the point of invoking the WMF legal gods, I'd say that one is more than nettled. Obviously touching a nerve. Allcaps not required. Asking for policy to be enforced by the courts - and I'm talking about good edits by a banned user here - is going further than is reasonable. IMHO. And again, in a community where one of the rules is "Ignore All Rules", just how dogmatic can one be? We don't have a community where every little rule is enforced and we seem to have done very well in our efforts. If we changed our model to one where enforcement of trivial rules was at the point of a gun, I don't think we'd do quite so well. I think people would make fun of us. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • People already make fun of us. So what? The point is not that the edits by the editor are good or bad, it is that he has been told to stand down and continues to not only edit, but harass editors who, for whatever reason, he does not like or agree with. My particular skin is pretty tough, but how many people have left off editing because of this intractable and hostile blocked user. That as I see it is the issue at hand, and the core of my concern. If "ignore all rules" is the best you can offer in defense of a multiple sockmaster who taunts those with the temerity to stand up to him publicly, then our view of Wikipedia policy is irreconcilable. As for legal action, it should be pretty much a last resort. But a cease and desist court order, the virtual equivalent of restraining order, would get the attention of sockmasters worldwide. It should be, in my view, a viable tool for the WMF to use in wildly exaggerated cases. Jusdafax 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not this - or any other - particular case that I'm talking about. I'm addressing your general comments above: 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. It's the attitude that all of Wikipedia's trivial rules must be enforced. By the courts if necessary. Asking a judge to take action over someone adding good material to Wikipedia goes well beyond common sense. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • The community kicked him out because of his behavior. It doesn't matter if he's writing good content if he's not adding it in good faith, considering he knows full well he's been banned and he's just showing that such a trivial thing won't stop him rather than abiding by the honor system in place and then ask to be allowed back on the community's terms. The banning policy may be in place to keep people rolling back obvious disruption like vandalism and trolling from being blocked for it, but how Russavia has been acting is disruptive, even if he is producing content that no one would have second thoughts about if he was not banned. WP:BAN does include the caveat that content could be kept after examination by another party to see if it should be included under the same umbrella that defines "revert it because it shouldn't have happened in the first place".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks, nice summary. What you going to do? Ban him for being disruptive? React to trolling? Revert good edits? Can't see a win here. --Pete (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There isn't any good answer, but I'm already on his shit list for having said anything here and for having the gall to try to clean up disruption that spilled over from here to the Commons, so I've lost any good faith I could have had in him considering I never dealt with him prior to the David Horvitz cleanup.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL isn't this guy a sysop at Commons? Stay classy, Wikimedia... Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    William L. Uanna

    Editor claiming to be the son of subject insists upon adding original research pertaining to Uanna's cause of death (supposed murder, contrary to reliable sourcing which claims heart attack). See [8]. I've raised the issue on the editor's talk page to no avail, and I would request intervention by an administrator or experienced user on this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    By "intervention" I was referring to more attention focused on this article, which has been done although the editor in question has not responded. I wasn't requesting any action against this particular editor based upon what has happened to date. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See also CIC777, who has one contribution here but several related uploads at Commons. --Kinu t/c 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Steven Uanna's viewpoint about William Uanna's cause of death is potentially relevant under NPOV and so I don't have a problem leaving a mention in the article, especially if it can be supported by an external citation to an RS mentioning the viewpoint (not necessarily supporting the murder theory directly). Web search does show that Steven Uanna seems to have been making the claim for a while. He gives some detailed arguments that I currently haven't examined carefully. I'd like to AGF/DONTBITE and treat the editing problem as a newbie not understanding our sourcing requirements, so I'll look over the contribution a little more and try to discuss things with him on his talk page. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some remarks at their talk page which expands on your points and hopefully explains why and directs them to the appropriate extended information they should peruse to understand what they need to do. Blackmane (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I also made a comment there. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All very helpful, thanks. There's no question the user raised this point in good faith, but the relevant policy was pointed out on multiple occasions without effect, and he edit-warred. Appreciate the extra eyes on the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, just a correction to Kinu's reference. The user is CIC7. Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. My comment was to note this user's other account, which is mentioned here. --Kinu t/c 08:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate this discussion. My father's career was a part of U.S. and world history. A history I contend has not been properly told. That is why I publish information about him on Wikipedia and Commons under Category:Bud Uanna. For me this is also a murder investigation. I know what I heard from my mother for years - that he was murdered - and how she felt helpless to do anything about it. And I also know that at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY it said that he was murdered. My mother and I did not give this information to the producers of the movie. And I don't think they put it in there to spice up a story that already was one of the most controversial of the past century. Look at what my father did and who he knew. Look at he people who should of said something about him in their "histories" like Leslie Groves or Otto Otepka. My hope is that someone will see the statement by me and the movie and be moved to come clean about what they know about his death. I believe this may open avenues to other mysteries, I wont say which ones now. I knew my father, the kind of person he was. And documents that can be viewed on Commons show the good character he had. I believe people who had bad intentions for the United States knew that he would be trouble to them if he were around. Why can't what my mother said and what the movie said be on his page William Lewis Uanna?CIC7 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Steven, the issue here is that we can't be the outlet for the first publication of anything (sort of the opposite of typical academic journals or magazines, which don't want anything that's already been published elsewhere). We need for the info to be published somewhere else first, so we can cite it. Another thing going on is that certain Wikipedia editors tend to freak out at anything hosted on Youtube, because of the amount of self-created video on that site gives it a bad reputation for reliability. In the case of a researched production like the Enola Gay movie though, our usual sourcing standards IMHO should apply, i.e. reliability comes from the level of research care that went into the production, not which website it got uploaded to 35 years later. (The movie is also available on DVD).

    You mentioned that the movie was based on the book by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts. Does the book say anything about this issue? There apparently was a 1977 edition that they made the movie from, and a later revision that was expanded considerably, and either sounds like a reasonable source. So if the info is in the book, just give the page number and that may solve the whole problem (my local library has the book so I can go there and check the page).

    I did find the Youtube video (v=ZXyUPYPwWbg) and watched the last few minutes and the end credits. The end credits show pictures of the main characters and have overlay captions saying what the person did after the war. The one for William Uanna (at 2:21:41 in the video) says "Uanna became a member of the CIA and was murdered in Africa. Any records of his death have subsequently disappeared." The movie itself (IMDB page) has been described as a historical drama that's partly fictionalized, so the movie content has RS problems as a source of factual biographical info, but the end credits are arguably not part of the dramatization. Anyway, I'm personally ok with mentioning the end credit statement in the "film portrayals" part of the article, as long as not much space goes to it (WP:UNDUE) and it probably shouldn't be in the main biographical part of the article due to RS concerns (discussion of this should be on the article talk page). I'd be uncomfortable with the article riffing at length off the movie blurb unless there's more documentation cited from elsewhere. If you want to write up your interpretation in more detail, it's best to get it into another outlet (e.g. academic journal) which we can then cite, since it is then part of the historical record. Does this help? 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is a work in progress. Information is put in and then someone may research and add to or take from it. I am one person. I am William Uanna's son, he is the subject of this discussion. Readers of Wikipedia are many people. I think they should be able to take what I say about my mother's belief and do what they want with it. I am saying what I was told by my mother. I can tell you more details of what she said she experienced but I have a feeling someone will say prove it. As far as to the movie Enola Gay, they must have been secure in their statement. I am not a lawyer but I think some sort of suit could have been brought against them for saying something like that. Would they that much time and effort into the movie and then say something like that at the end offhandedly. As to "the truth", what else is an encyclopedia for? I believe that "the truth" will eventually come back up no matter how deep it is buried. So please take a little time and look at the documents and pictures at Category:Bud Uanna (I had put up many more but they were deleted) and at the Atomic Heritage site... Ask yourself why someone would want someone like this out of the way? And why can't all the information about him be available. Much of it hadCIC7 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC) been covered up until I posted the FOI documents and pictures.[reply]

    • Steven, when you write "[i]nformation is put in and then someone may research and add to or take from it", there's a considerable omission there, that I think shows a misunderstanding of how this place works. Yes, we're supposed to add information, but only information that has already been published elsewhere (we call such info "verifiable", per WP:Verifiability). We're not an outlet for publishing novel interpretations or newly discovered info, and we resist that to the point that "original research" is almost a swear word around here (see WP:NOR). I think it's ok to count the Enola Gay movie credits as a "publication" and put something into the article about it as mentioned above: if you want, I'll add it for you myself, though I can't promise that nobody will revert it. I think it's also ok for you to put a summary of your claims and documentation on the article discussion page (Talk:William L. Uanna) since it might be useful for locating published info elsewhere, or supplying context for existing info.

      There's really only one path to getting significant coverage of the info in Wikipedia: 1) first, get it published someplace else (not here); 2) next, come back here and say "ok, the info is now in such-and-such outlet, issue so-and-so, month and year so-and-so, page xyz". At that point we can use the info, with a citation to the other outlet. I'm also not sure Commons is the best place to upload those documents: Wikisource might be better, and archive.org would almost certainly welcome them (click the "upload" button in the upper right corner of the archive.org home page, register an account and upload your docs--they can even OCR printed page scans automatically).

      Note that we actually don't care very much about whether your interpretation is true, so we won't ask you to prove anything about how William Uanna died. When it's an issue of controversy with multiple conflicting opinions, part of our neutrality ethos is that it's not up to us to decide who is right. We instead want to non-judgmentally present every notable viewpoint, where "notable" means "independently published", even though (since they contradict each other) at least some of them must be wrong. Our readers then decide for themselves what to believe. The requirement of independent publication is basically how we avoid becoming a soapbox for fringey or far-out claims (we used to have a bad problem with physics theory cranks, which is how the NOR policy got started). We figure out how much space to give each claim based on the amount of independent coverage that exists for that claim.

      I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see much legal exposure to the movie company from that end credit. They didn't implicate any specific people in any crimes, so nobody has anything to sue over. We'd be having a rather more difficult conversation if there were allegations of wrongdoing against specific people, especially currently living people, but for the stuff under discussion we can take a slightly looser approach than we would use in more contentious topics.

      I hope this helps you understand Wikipedia better. If there's more to discuss, we should probably stop clogging ANI with it, and use either your talk page or the article talk page instead. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding by Range of IP's

    There appears to be a range of IP's that is stalking me: 59.97.32.195 and 59.97.33.91. I'm not sure if they're the same editor, but they seem to be working together to avoid the 3RR rule. In addition, based on this report, it appears that the IP's may have a history of dodgy activity. Can someone please assist? Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for god's sake. I'm a regular (if sporadic) editor interested in US politics. I've edited from a bunch of IPs over the years, that I don't remember most of (any reason I should?) but I have never attempted to pretend that I am more than one person, or anything of the kind. Yes, I travel frequently, and when I do I edit from public computers; which is probably why I overlapped with an online troll at some point (as you can see, that report is a few months old). TLDR; show me one policy that I have violated (sure, I hit 3RR just now, but so did you). And I am not the one with 4 ANEW reports in a few days, only one of which I authored......59.97.33.91 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, the excuse from the IP is weak. The correct answer is to create an account. instead of hiding behind multiple IPs, and edit from any available computer. David J Johnson (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the entire paragraph and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#John Kline (politician). There is at least one SPA with an interest in keeping the attack in the article, so it will need watching. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning accepted, but I still decline to create an account. Is it "disreputable?" Perhaps; so is having four blocks, and four ANEW reports in a day. I can recognize your problem with warnings and blocks and such; but can you find me actions of mine prior to today that warranted warnings or blocks? Probably not, because until I came across this tendentious character (seriously, he still insists that a particular sentence does not exist in a source) I was scrupulous about reverting, essentially obeying a self-imposed 1RR. I have never breached 3RR (as an individual; I don't keep track of my IPs). And I might as well let you know, blocking a range will not be very helpful; these are public IPs. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am still amazed at how many "red-line" breaches CFredkin made over the past day, and got away scot-free with all of them; and here I am dragged to the drama board just for following the letter of the law. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding. How am I supposed to know if there are "actions of yours prior to today that warranted warnings or blocks"? That's the whole point. You have no history. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • You're right, Mr/Mrs IP; they're being rather disruptive right now. The problem is - you might be just as disruptive, but since we cannot easily review every single edit that you personally have made, we cannot tell. We therefore cannot take you seriously. We therefore are starting to have to assume the worst, instead of assuming the best. You seem to be ok pointing fingers, but we cannot verify how clean your hands are, and that's simply reducing your argument, unfortunately. So yes, you're welcome to edit without an account - but very soon, the threshold for action against you will become lower, as we'll have to assume a not-so-pleasant history. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been two or three redlink users edit-warring with Fredkin since the start of August, including the original posting of the contentious material citing Bill Maher.[9] There's pretty obviously an agenda being pushed. (And how any rep could be "worse" than Bachmann is hard to imagine, but that's a side issue.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unclear as to the precise tools that Check Users have, but I was under the impression that negative evidence (ie confirming unrelated) was easy to come by (especially when, as I suspect, we are currently in different countries). I have never edited with an account; but I guess you only have my word for that. Regardless, I'm not sure where this thread is going. I will promise (of course) to abide by policy, which IMO I have done all along. I was perhaps a little carried away today, but if any of you had ever tried to handle content disputes with CFredkin, I think you would sympathize. They violated 3RR twice in a day, and got away, both times, even with a block log like theirs. I wish to maintain my anonymity as far as I can, and I will not get an account. Can this thread be closed now? 59.97.33.91 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: CheckUser, see [10]. --92.4.168.193 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather disingenuous to say that the IP is pushing an agenda without noting that the reporting party is also pushing an agenda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has said it's a crime. Just a little dishonest to keep editing under different IP's. Far better to create an account, so everyone knows the contributions are from the same person. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a realistic answer. The IP is obviously dynamic and the user has no control over the IP they use. They could be on dial up, their ISP could have a short reservation time for IPs, or a host of other reasons their IP is changing without their control. Accusing them of being dishonest over something that is not within their control is really not appropriate at all. The IP originates in India, you cannot hold them to the standards you'd expect from an American or British ISP.--v/r - TP 18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They DO have control over owning up to their past. If they can't be bothered to reveal their "trail", then there's no reason anyone should be bothered to listen to their complaints. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is that written in policy? Do you keep track of your home IPs? Where does it say in policy that we treat IPs as any less of a person if they do not keep a running list of their edits? You have the range contribs right there - review them. Those are the tools we have available. Faking ignorance for the sake of biting an IP is dishonest of us and we can do better. Here is the tool. All arguments about 'not knowing', 'avoiding scrutiny', and 'edit trail' are rendered null by the existence of this link.--v/r - TP 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My IP seldom changes, but I don't edit from my IP anyway. If an IP-hopper expects to be treated with good faith, he needs to demonstrate some. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not an "IP-hopper". They are an "I-have-no-control-over-my-ip-er". This is essentially systematic nationalistic discrimination - not intentional on anyone's part. But our system is designed to be suspicious of changing IP addresses and that suspicion is based on ISPs in 1st world countries which can be depended on to be fairly regular. This IP lives in a 3rd world country and doesn't not benefit from that kind of system. We cannot judge an IP from a 3rd world country the same as one from a 1st world country.--v/r - TP 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It bothers me that someone editing under an ip address is automatically assumed to be disruptive even though there is no evidence of disruption or abuse. However, it seems as if this issue is easily resolved if the editor decides to register an account, a process that takes only a minute and does not even require an email address. Alicb (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

    Assistance from one or more Admins and any experienced editors is requested with issues related to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (yes there is such a thing). Short synopsis; we have an editor who has created around 160 articles, and almost all of the ones we have looked at so far have major problems. We over at the tin foil hat noticeboard are sending out an SOS. Any help is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose a Topic-Ban on New Articles in Article Space

    I propose that this editor be topic-banned from creating new articles in article space (rather than via the AFC review process), since he or she is cluttering article space with a large number of articles that need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy crap batman--v/r - TP 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The combination of refusal to communicate with other editors, fringe topics (need less on here, not more) and the obvious vast amounts of original research. Their intent does not seem to be malicious, but they've chosen the wrong platform. All this belongs in their blog. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support seems pretty obvious that these articles need to go through AfC and that the user isn't willing to do that without some strong handed encouragement. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Question How will this go any better at WP:AFC? Some of the articles appear to me, a non expert in Hindu material, to be potentially direct translations form a worthy book or set of texts. I am wondering whether it might not be 'our' problem that 'we' cannot understand them easily as submissions in clearer English. A comment from an experienced, perhaps immersed, editor would be relevant to this discussion before moving to a draconian apparent remedy. For example, if they be direct translations or quotations from learned texts then we should, surely, treat them in an identical manner to other such texts an the editor should be granted the same courtesies as are extended to editors creating articles in other faiths/disciplines.
    This material is arcane, certainly, but is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles? If proper then there is no issue save for our understanding the material. If improper then remedies are already available to you, ranging from deletion through to blocking the editor. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles?" Yes, in the way it is written. It presents material from Hindu astrology as uncontested fact. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: A host of reasons: 1) AFC space isn't indexed by search engines, 2) AFCs arn't searched by our search bar without going to more advanced options, 3) AFCs can be deleted easier by CSD guidelines, 4) Editors in AFC space review it before the first 2 things limitations get removed, 5) AFC has a giant "THIS IS A DRAFT" banner.--v/r - TP 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is not proper for the articles to be here, and I suspected it was not for the reasons stated by AndyTheGrump, might the correct route not be a bulk AfD? If it is not proper then AFC is not the place for them either, surely? I come back to my thoughts that one does not need extraordinary measures to deal with this. I have never heard of a topic ban against creation of new mainspace articles and I feel intellectually against it for a great many reasons. Fiddle Faddle 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am cementing and formalising my opinion as a firm Oppose. I have made a asmall edit to my original text, adding the word "clearer" as a modifier for "English"Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Timtrent (Fiddlefaddle). Look at this revision of Rasasvada, for example, which Aditya soni had created, and nobody else had edited it except one editor adding a single cleanup tag. It's quite difficult to read and understand, but that's because I'm completely unfamiliar with Indian philosophy; the article appears to have solid sources, and the difficult-to-understand comes partly from the author's way of writing, which makes me suspect that the author isn't fluent in English. As a result, I can form only two conclusions: either it's a decent article on a specialised topic, warranting only some wording cleanup, or its problems are profound enough that only a specialist can understand them. Neither one warrants the ban that's proposed here: if it's a decent article, we shouldn't sanction the guy, and if a specialist is required, the article will sail straight through AFC because people over there aren't specialists in Indian philosophy — AFC is good for filtering problems that anyone can understand, not things like this. Either levy no sanctions at all, or prohibit creation through AFC as well; if the nominator were to remove the AFC creation option, I would be neutral. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as much too broad. If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I do not think the editor in question is being malicious here. But whether intentionally or not, the serious problems with so many of these articles is creating an enormous amount of work for everyone else. The FTN Board is not exactly one of the more well traveled ones and we just don't have enough regulars to deal with well over a hundred suspect articles. (Sometimes we are stretched to handle even normal posts and issues that pop up.) Beyond which the editor's refusal to engage with the community and take some advice on board or show some regard for standards and consensus makes it almost impossible not to see more problems down the road without the new article creation ban. In short, I support the ban because I believe that without it we are going to continue to see the creation of questionable articles on a scale that will further severely tax the limited resources of the community to fix or delete. I am still trying to come up with a sane way of dealing with 160 articles that need to be checked and possibly deleted or mass migrated somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing position to Oppose based on compelling arguments from several editors, as well as closer examination of the editor's record by Salimfadhley, whose judgment I trust, and who concluded the issues are likely not as widespread or serious as initially thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Mixed view here. This seems like good content and it seems clear that the user knows a lot about Hindu astrology. The real problem here is that the articles themselves are badly written. Readers of WP should not have to be experts in Hindu astrology to get through even a single paragraph, but that's kind of the issue we have here. I think this user's material and knowledge are valuable but the articles he is making should spend some time in userspace being edited a bit. It doesn't have to be perfect by any means, but it has to at least look like it was written in English. Would anyone be available to help mentor or copy-edit this content? I can do some work with the grammar myself but I would like someone (perhaps from Wikiproject Mythology, Wikiproject Hinduism, or Wikiproject Astrology) to help out since they might have familiarity with the information and can offer more direct constructive criticism. Alicb (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A ban from creating new articles related to this topic might give this editor an opportunity to improve the existing articles to a point where they meet the WP:NFRINGE standard. I would prefer this than to have to manually review the hundreds of articles on this subject. My greater concern is that this editor feels that this subject (Hindu Astrology) is somehow exempt from the normal rules that govern articles about religious topics in Wikipedia. As a result we have over a hundred pages most of which would never have got past AFC review, this is a prime example [11]. The comment about Einstein in the lede is an automatic 5 on the Crackpot Index. Let's not allow articles about Hinduism to be of lower quality than articles about other religions. If editors were writing such blatant gobbledygook about Christianity or Judaism I think we'd be quick to delete it. I think we need to be consistent in our standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you think this would get stopped at AFC? It appears to have decent sourcing, and to someone unfamiliar with the subject, the only problem is the comparatively poor English. Most people at AFC are totally ignorant of Hinduism and other Indian philosophy (not complaining; I am too), so if an article's not badly sourced, they have no reason to object to it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I do not know where to begin from.

    I started my exercise of creating new pages by first locating the most important and relevant topics that had not been earlier dealt with by any contributor, and having done that one by one I took up those topics, worked on them and created the pages on Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology, the subjects that are known to me. Nowhere have I expressed my own thoughts or done original research; I have based all information included therein as has been available to me online and in the texts that are in my possession which texts also find an online mention. I never thought my well-intentioned efforts would one day cause the kind of problem they have. As an ardent follower of Indian philosophy I was merely obeying the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. Knowledge is the light that reveals the true nature of things and removes ignorance; knowledge purifies the mind, that mind which involves all human beings in duality to suffer the pangs of pleasure and pain. It seems I have failed in this task for I have not been able to convey properly.

    Friends, I am not a preacher and I am also not a teacher set in the mold of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Ramana, Varahamihira, Vaidyanatha or Kalidasa. I am an ordinary human being. Philosophy and astrology are difficult subjects to handle. This I know. They are all the more difficult for those who do not know these subjects. Where to begin from I simply do not know. It was long ago said – "they do not know who know, those who do not know, know" - which paradoxical situation will always remain due to the limitations affecting our thoughts and acts.

    It has been nice meeting you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I think that you are making a lot of useful contributions of information that is badly needed on Wikipedia. There are a few concerns with language that I think we can address but as long as you provide the sources for the information that you provide (either a link to a website or the names/page numbers of print texts) then that should be good enough for other editors to work on. It may be time to call on the users at Wikiproject Hinduism to take a hand in working on these articles. Alicb (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Alicb, no information in my 160 odd articles is without a direct reference to the source. I have dutifully provided the relevant links to the websites, given the names of the books, their authors and page numbers. I have neither promoted myself nor anyone else. There is no problem with the language either, because as far as is possible I have used the same words and expression that has been used by the authors of those very books and articles. Why should there be a problem in accessing those sources, I fail to understand. Moreover, there is already talk of difficulty in handling 100 odd intended AFDs pertaining to the pages I have created, doubt has also been raised about the ability of the editors who had reviewed those pages, and to top it all, my efforts have been termed as utter non-sense and a hoax and therefore already stand summarily dismissed. Then, I do not understand why so much time and effort is now being wasted just to prove my efforts are a bunch of trash. Even if all 160 pages are deleted I stand to lose nothing at all since I have already gained a great deal by way of revision of my knowledge while writing these pages, which revision has served as my Upasana (contemplation). And I am sure some readers must have also gained and improved their knowledge. Through your agency I request for the charade that is being presently played out to end, it is sickening to say the least. Already some very harsh and bad words have been used belittling my efforts, the kind of words I never use; that is enough, there should not be any more of it. There should not be any further delay in deleting my 160 odd articles. I hope you will speak on my behalf and have all 160 pages created by me deleted soon. After the requested deletion is done I shall quit Wikipedia and enjoy my liberation. Nice knowing you.Aditya soni (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. There is a beautiful passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad (in the ninth Anuvaka) dealing with this. Learn and pass on the knowledge. That is what Wikipedia is about. That is what humanity is all about. But we cannot present the Vedas here without presenting them in the correct (for Wikipedia) form. In the Western phrase, we do not cast pearls before swine, for they will not, cannot understand. More work is needed to aid understanding. For those that are willing. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now per Fiddle Faddle/Tim.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Fiddle Faddle/Tim. As a side note, talking about tin foil hats in this context should be blockable. --John (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see any substantial problem here. It looks like Aditya soni is doing a pretty good job with the sources though a little more explanatory detail in some of the articles would be helpful. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    super strong support; unless those "opposing" actually pull their fingers out and hold this editor's hand through the process. However, I feel Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE, and it requires its competent editors to be editing competently rather than holding the hands of someone who cannot write a coherent sentence in the forlorn hope that something might be salvageable from the inevitable mess. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Barney, the editor seems to me to have written some very coherent sentences, right here, in this thread. Better, grammatically, than some of the comments from native English speakers on this page, and certainly better than I could do in a language that may not be native to me. Sure, there are problems with English in some of the articles - it's complex content, with difficult translation issues, I'm sure, and it seems it may need someone to help him work through those issues (if he's still willing). It's probably important that he stops adding new articles until that can be worked through, to keep things manageable. Seems we may need someone who is familiar with the subject matter, and that's obviously not you or me. Maybe nobody will come forward to do that. If they do, I suggest it's not up to you or me to tell them how they should volunteer their time. Speaking of which - I thank Aditya soni for the substantial time he has so far donated in an attempt to create and share this content, and I hope we can help clear up any issues. Begoon talk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sort of "ban" at this stage, for clarity, per my comments above, in case anyone is "!counting". (Sad reflection on us, in my very humble opinion, that we leap straight into a "ban" vote after one line of non discussion, then try to hold the discussion we should have already had within the !vote. I hope I'm never subjected to that, and I suspect we all hope that for ourselves.) Begoon talk 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, Just to clarify - nobody is proposing a 'permaban'. Nobody is proposing to wholesale delete 160 articles which are obviously the result of hard work and research. Some of us are asking this editor to cool it, and respect the norms of notability and sourcing on Wikipedia. I note that at least four of Aditya soni's recently created articles on Hindu Astrology are all subject to AFCs for broadly the same set of reasons: Incomprehensible articles on ultra-niche that are loaded with WP:OR and rely on unreliable occult/esoteric sources. This editor has not yet pledged to do anything differently even in light of the considerable attention criticism in AFD discussions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Observation: Today I was glad to note that an esteemed editor had approached one page i.e.Rasasvada, with the intention of improving it. But just see what he has done. He has deleted the entire section – "Obstacles to Samadhi and their removal", in which part I have cited Sanskrit passages from Vedantasara that provide definition of the term – "Rasasvada" – in the context of Advaita Vedanta and are the basic reason as to why I decided to create this page. The editor in good faith has extracted the very heart from the body of this essay and killed it. The reason he gives is that the passage is original research based on ancient source. Three drawbacks are evident – 1) the editor does not know Sanskrit language, 2) he does not know who Sadananda was, and 3) he has never read the work of Sadananda titled Vedantasara belonging to mid-15th century, which systemizes Sankara’s Advaita philosophy. Since then, this work has been translated and commented upon by many learned savants. I chose to cite from the translation and commentary by Swami Nikhilananda which was first published in 1931 and which translation and commentary is available online, the reprint I possess is of a recent date. I have conducted no original research.Aditya soni (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    UserAditya soni, I believe that you are acting in good faith, hence any bans or threats of bans may be unwarranted in your case. I have reviewed your older articles and found some of your work on Hinduism and Buddhism in general to be of good quality and potentially useful. I remain concerned about recently created articles such as Trikasthanas (astrology) which as I have previously stated are incomprehensible and fail to articulate any kind of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. None of the sources I was able to verify appear to be particularly important or reliable. None of the sources I could verify seem to deal with the subject matter in any significant depth. The reason I am pointing this out is not to criticize your scholarship, but to encourage you to apply your considerable intellect to an appreciation of Wikipedia's rules. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • support I have mixed feelings about this, but I think in the end something has to be done about in the form of review and guidance. To some degree my issues with the Hindu terminology articles can be ascribed to my lack of familiarity with the material, but I also get the impression that a lot of what I'm reading is slight paraphrasing of near-to-primary source material. It's rather as if our articles on Judaica were constructed from reworded passages of the gemara. It's not an appropriate approach to a general interest encyclopedia. The astrology articles are worse, bordering on incoherency. I've said over and over again that we need people who know the material to write these Indian articles, but the articles need to be actually readable too. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was still weighing this one up and believed the editor in question could turn over a new leaf until this comment which is just completely at odds with how WP works and suggest the editor just doesn't get it. An editor has no place here if they refuse to participate in discussion, especially about their own problematic editing. St★lwart111 00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Friends, I have already stated that I chose Wikipedia to share, with all those who are willing to know, the knowledge that I had fortunately gained through the intensive study of numerous scriptures and texts, guided by a Guru. For more than two long years I waited and kept on waiting for some good soul to turn up so as to help me improve and expand the contents I had posted. No one turned up. You will agree that most editors who are so very vocal in professing extension of aid, guidance etc., when they do appear on the scene come out with all their guns blazing, firing at will all ammunition that are in their possession ranging from code, technicality, procedure and so forth, in such a discouraging and insulting manner that persons like me who mean no offence are made to feel - "Why have I entered the dangerously dark abyss called Wikipedia, only to be unceremoniously driven out?" At least one really concerned editor ought to have long ago, or even recently, in a polite and purposeful manner pointed out my mistakes and volunteered to help and guide me; then he and I could have happily re-worked and re-written the 160 odd articles bringing them up to the set norms and standards. I would have been only too pleased to do so. But, now too much water has flowed down underneath the bridge, the bridge has collapsed, I have exhausted my patience, there is a very bitter taste in my mouth which I am unable to wash out, and I find my heart bleeding and genuinely crying out goading me to quit Wikipedia the soonest. I am being asked to turn a new leaf; I have failed to understand what is meant by this phrase. I have not rebelled. But, enough is enough. Please, for God’s sake, stop the farce which is being played out at my expense. I was here not to win praise and stars, and later become an Administrator, but all the same I have a feeling someone is being a sadist. I thank you all for allowing me to share my feelings. Be good and help the needy. Allow me to take leave. I had never had an opportunity to meet so many on a single stage; it has been a great learning experience. I have vowed not to create any new page ever.Aditya soni (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support purely for lack of a better alternative. If somebody were to offer to mentor this user, or some such, I would be far better satisfied than with a tban. Essentially, to me the user is eminently competent, but unable to distinguish between what they know and what the general reader can be expected to know; their articles are written for others like themselves. This is also borne out by the lack of wikilinks in their articles. This also raises an unusual sort of NPOV issue; though the articles may be written neutrally, their lack of context, or WP:INUNIVERSE if you will, make them harmful, because the vast majority of readers are not familiar enough with these topics to judge for themselves. To me their English is a trivial concern, and not a factor in voting "support;" there are armies of editors out there with far poorer English. Aditya soni, whichever way this turns out, I suggest you do not take this personally; take this as a break in which you can familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. A Block is not infinite; it can be appealed, and if you can show that you've addressed these issues it will likely be overturned. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose It is clear to me that Aditya soni is highly knowledgeable on the topic, but needs to familiarize himself with WP guidelines. A break from creation and a focus on article improvement would be great. However, by the bitter tone of his reply, I am concerned that a tban like this might make him leave WP altogether, which would be pretty bad, as we would be losing an editor with great knowledge on a niche topic. However, I do not see any good alternative. Changed my mind based on discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Kingsindian (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia does not come out of this with glory. As Wikipedians we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor and are causing them grief, a lot of grief.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way they have approached the creation of articles, they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive. They simply failed to engage with us in the way we expect usually. We must not have tried hard enough.
    Now, we are voting on whether they should be allowed to continue. That appalls me.
    Patently, they have a great deal to offer. And, equally patently, we are driving them away.
    This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory. It seems pretty mainstream to me. The folk there needed the help of an admin, though I am wholly unsure why that was. This type of issue can almost always be handled by experienced editors without invoking the bucket and mop, but here we are, at the big ban hammer board, voting on how much hammer to use.
    I am ashamed of our behaviour towards Aditya soni, and feel he deserves an apology, one I am giving him on my own behalf for any hurt I may have inflicted on him myself.
    We need to guide him, yes. He needs to be content to accept guidance, yes. Requesting him to use WP:AFC for his next couple of drafts may well be a good idea. Mandating him to do so is not. This whole process is very WP:BITE, and we need to correct this now. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. [Non-administrator opinion.] I have not examined every article created by Aditya soni but I have extreme difficulty making sense of many of those I did read. I think it is fair to assume from the responses of others that I am not the only one. I reject the assertion that this is simply due to ethnocentrism, or as another editor has suggested elsewhere, a discussion of “my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery”. While I have little experiencing studying the major writings of any religion, including Christianity, I am still able to comprehend articles that touch on obscure topics of a wide variety of religions with much greater ease that this group of articles. The fact that this issue was raised in WP:FTN is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether Hindu astrology is a fringe theory or not. I would have the same opinion if this was brought up in WP:FOOTY. With that said, I oppose a topic ban on Aditya soni. It is apparent from his/her edit history that this general topic is his/her only area of interest within Wikipedia, and a topic ban would ensure that we would loose him/her as an editor. As problematic as I find these articles and as much as I would like to see him/her attempt to work with others, I do not see any history of objectionable behavior (e.g. edit warring to prevent others from trying to fix the articles) that would warrant that action. Location (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One way in which the issue of whether Hindu Astrology is a fringe theory is very much relevant is with regard to the four articles currently at AfD where editors have raised WP:NFRINGE as a policy reason to delete them, among other reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal house system (Hindu astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here appears to be whether or not Aditya soni can put together articles - regardless of the topic - that are reliably sourced and somewhat easily comprehended. Location (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dougweller: I am not sure what you mean by that. You mean the decision should be based primarily on one article? If so, I disagree. If not, as Salimfadhley, who has spent much more time than me on this says, there are many contributions, especially older ones, which are decent, and should be considered as well. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian: That's good to hear. I'm not saying base it all on one article, I am asking if we want this one and if it is in any way typical. What do you think of it? Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dougweller: Too much detail, very dense, impenetrable to people not familiar with the subject. Probably should be deleted, but I am very inexperienced in such matters. Definitely large sections should be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from creating articles directly in article space. This seems to me very much the kind of thing the Articles for creation review process was created for. If the user creates articles via that process only, it'll be an advantage both for Wikipedia and for themselves. However, in view of the user's goodbye post above, I suppose the issue may be moot. But if they should change their mind about leaving, I do believe we need to insist they use the AFC process. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    No, we don't need to insist on anything here. This does not even begin to rise to the level you are suggesting. I understand this is your opinion, and I will respect that, but Fiddle Faddle has this correct. We are not really trying very hard and I think a good deal of this is because some editors just don't understand the subjects and don't feel compelled to collaborate. I think that we need more patience with editors. I see no reason for admin intervention or community sanctions here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I previously voted support and now continue to support this. Aditya soni is clearly an expert in certain aspects of Hindu culture but feels that this expertise provides an entitlement to disregard some of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This editor resigned in protest not just because of this discussion but because of the numerous AFDs and the growing consensus that his recent Astrology articles were not up to the standards of wikipedia 1, 2, 3. Aditya soni has never conceded that any of the criticisms of these articles were valid and his refused to make use of AFC (and other processes designed to assist new editors). Now faced with a possibility of mild and temporary editorial review Aditya Soni has resigned in disgust. In the immortal words of Cartman: "Screw You, I'm Going Home!". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for those words, which serve to escalate an unpleasant situation. As experienced editors our role is not only to create and edit articles but to provide a place where the less experienced can grow and become more valuable. I am thanking you for the Cartman quote, in case you are in any doubt.
    People have driven away an editor whose understanding of the somewhat arcane topic appears to be great, but who is not quite working in a collegiate manner. I have read a number of the articles. They are difficult to understand. So is particle physics. They are not well referenced. Often, nor is particle physics, in that each has references from within the universe in which the topic exists. So what? We, the self styled great and good, are meant to be capable of editing the arcane and impenetrable to make it available to the ordinary reader. What we have said and are continuing to say to this editor is "Betake yourself and your topic that is difficult to understand, and go!" We disguise that as some sort of topic ban. Go us!
    The wisdom of crowds often creates something far more unpleasant, and I believe we have seen it here. We have a posse and lunch law here. Yes, 'lunch', because we will have this editor for lunch.
    The adult approach is to put this to bed as an understood but unwise proposal which will not be implemented, and to attempt to salvage something from the mess - we need to try to salvage this editor's feelings. I'm sorry that I asked them to come here and comment. As you see on their talk page they feel savaged the more by having done so.
    For clarity, I have never met them before this, and never read their work. I joined this discussion because I felt then and feel now that this is a grave injustice being perpetrated on an ordinary person, someone like you and like me. I remain ashamed of us for doing this.
    Are we not meant to guide and encourage the less collegiate editor, the less experienced editor? Or do we throw them under the bus when we don;t quite 'get' what they are trying to do? Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I disagree strongly with Timtrent that we are seeing articles created that are simply written by someone who understands the subject but writes articles that are difficult to understand and need better referencing. They are in fact articles which have Wikipedia stating in its own voice that astrology is an objective fact. The author even says as much at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) - " But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination; it has a restraining and at times destructive effect." Now he has the right to believe this all to be true, but not to create articles in which Wikipedia itself is asserting these things to be true. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia presents many things as facts. A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc. If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. We use the Edit button and make judicious edits. We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI. If we did that we would have very few editors left and the WP:AFC backlog would go up tenfold at a stroke. Not all articles are excellent. That is why we edit as a community. We don't chuck them away unless and until they are shown to be hopeless cases. We certainly do not throw their creator under a bus.
    If we are very lucky we may be able to salvage the editor as a contributor for years to come, but I do not blame him at all for being extremely upset with the way he is being treated. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this guy clearly knows his stuff. He needs some help fitting it into our way of doing things, but this is exactly the sort of material we could do with more of. I'm disgusted at the behaviour of those who want it gone because they don't understand, it's foreign, it's arcane or whatever. I know a little about this sort of stuff, and while it's very hard to get into, especially on a sleepy afternoon after lunch when I listened to a chap explain this area for a week, it's valid within the limits of the subject. We shouldn't be presenting it as fact, but we shouldn't be deleting this very real scholarship. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pete,I wish you had made your appearance earlier. I have stepped in mainly because of you. Whatever be the opinion of the people in the Western world about astrology as a pseudo-science or a hoax or a non-sense, but you know that Astrology has been a part of Hindu life and culture for the past 4000 years or so, and it still continues to play an important role in our life. Even those Indian skeptics who vehemently speak and write against astrology, in fact, secretly approach priest-astrologers in the time of need. I can vouch for this fact because I am in this field though not as a professional. After the introduction of British method of education by Macaulay, who divided the world into the educated and the barbarians, the longstanding Indian method of thinking changed; everything ancient was questioned and even rejected, which situation worsened because of the influence of Karl Marx. Hindu astrology also took a severe hit and the number of those rejecting it as a science grew larger and larger, and also because of the support extended by the then political establishment. The vexing question, whether astrology is a science or not, was finally settled by the Supreme Court of India which court on 05/05/2004 ruled that astrology is a science, and even directed the Indian Universities to teach this subject. This judgement was delivered in the Case No. Appeal (civil) 5886 of 2002 P.M.Bhargava & Others. Vs. University Grants Commission and Another. You can access the court order at Govt. of India website - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=26188 I am sure you are aware of this court ruling which is now the law of the land. Please enlighten all participants especially those who are against Hindu astrology and eager to bury my four articles already listed as AFDs. You have read the Indian Sanskrit texts. Our ancient thinkers did not use many words, they were very brief while defining and explaining the various astrological and philosophical principles. The later translators and commentators were in no position to change that method of expression lest the true meaning became lost. Hence, the language appears arcane and difficult to understand. I have not digressed from the available and referred to texts. This is it. My objecting friends should have directly asked me to re-write and if possible simplify what I had presented all that which is now under their scrutiny. They did not and you know the rest. They have driven me out.Aditya soni (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, am glad to see that you have chosen to reengage. I found the reasoning of the Madras High Court (quoted approvingly in the decision linked) particularly apt for an encyclopedia: it had "held that the very purpose of imparting education is to gain knowledge and therefore there should be every scope for making a study on very many subjects in order to enrich ones craving for knowledge. Any such attempt from any quarters in furtherance of that pursuit should not be stultified. The learned Judge further held that it was for the pupil concerned to select any particular field or subject in furtherance of his future career, and merely because the subject has got its basis or origin traceable to some cult, it cannot be held that the same would only result in propagation of a particular religion." I, for one, believe that your articles can be edited so as present knowledge more neutrally and not necessarily only result in propagation of a particular religion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial block-evading, disruptive user on a spree

    Can someone please block 90.201.155.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for more than 31 hours? He's on a massive edit war spree, and he's spreading his disruptive editing out to dozens of articles. He's already blocked as 2.220.251.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and he has a long history of evading blocks. He has been previously discussed in this community ban proposal, which resulted in a decision to file a long-term abuse case, which has not yet been posted. The discussion for that is ongoing at User talk:AddWittyNameHere#Martial arts vandal back again?. Previous reports to WP:AIV after level-4 warnings have resulted in short blocks which do nothing to stop his continuing disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: vandal has been blocked. I count over 80 articles in which this editor is currently engaged in edit wars, and that doesn't even count the vandalism that he dabbles in. There are a few people watching these articles, but we could use more eyes, especially from admins. This user has been disrupting martial-arts related pages for years now, and it's a pain to see him warned or lightly reprimanded when it's obvious that he's not going to stop. I'll try to see that the LTA case is filed soon. As an aside, is there a better place than AIV to report this user? Not all of his edits are vandalism, and many consist of pointless disruption, such as genre warring. ANEW seems poorly equipped to deal with this kind of widescale disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking through the contributions and seeing the mass disruption - I'd support a block of at least one year. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that wouldn't really accomplish anything more than blocking for a week, as the vandal's dynamic IP address changes too often. Very short blocks (24 to 31 hours) don't really stop this user, but a week long block is usually enough to give us a temporary breather. I think one of the problems is that we don't have a long-term abuse report yet, but AddWittyNameHere is working on that. I don't know how to concisely summarize such widescale disruption (80 articles in one day) without overwhelming the admins with potentially irrelevant information. It seems like maybe I've been erring on the "too concise" side. Advice would be helpful. I guess I could post a brief LTA report myself while we wait for AWNH's more in-depth report. Would this be helpful to the admins? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly apologize for the time it's taking me to create the full, in-depth report. Unfortunately, with frequently targeted articles ranging over a hundred and (to the best of my knowledge) at LEAST thirty different IP-addresses that have been in use by the editor, AND information from an old SPI archive and multiple ANI threads, as well as several types of problematic behaviour by this serial vandal that is not obviously problematic at first glance and may even look benign (though their current behaviour of revert-sprees is of course a bit more recognizable) it's a lot of work to get the proper documentation done. Every time I think I have everything that matters, I stumble upon yet new IPs in ranges I had not yet discovered, or a whole new cluster of articles, or slightly different behaviour that still warrants a description, etc. Add to that the difficulty of formatting a LTA report for a non-named user, the lack of proper tagging of the many IPs that have been used by him (many do not even have a clue in their block-log that it's him) meaning everything has to be double-checked and the sheer mass of edits involved... then there are a few cases that may or may not be him, because the typical edits are there but there are strong differences with his normal MO... And that's ignoring real life interference by means of health issues and the fact that I do spend time on Wikipedia doing other things than chasing this bugger down about four years of history on a hundred pages. Let's put it this way: collecting all information, selecting what is important and what is not, and noting it all down in a way understandable for those not familiar with him, has so far taken roughly eighty hours of time. @NinjaRobotPirate: Please go ahead and post a shortened version. I can't even give proper updates on how long it will take me to get everything done because of the sheer mass of edits, IPs and articles involved, and I'm too much of a perfectionist to upload a partial LTA report myself. (But maybe it'll be easier for me to add the stuff I already have when there already is a partial report in place anyway? We'll see. In any case, it won't hurt to have something to refer to) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal is back

    The vandal is back as 2.216.206.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and he has currently disrupted 50+ articles. Can someone block this account, too? He seems to use each IP address for several days before he's reassigned a new dynamic IP address, so a block of 72 hours would really be the minimum that is feasible to stop his disruption. I'll try to write up an LTA report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    94.0.242.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also has similar recent unexplained serial edits/reverts to martial arts film articles, albeit only about 8 edits so far. Dl2000 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar user is using numerous number of IP addresses to vandalize wikipedia pages.In order to stop his disruptive editing we have to block all IP addresses under his talk page.Or else make articles semi-protected (Articles he is interested in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChamithN (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Am currently editing from my boyfriend's home and pc, so I do not have access to the full set of information on the IP-vandal that I've gathered, but I've put up whatever I have easy access to in my userspace, at User:AddWittyNameHere/Martial Arts Film Vandal. At an estimate, I'm missing about 20-25% of his used IPs there (possibly more, or less, depending on how accurate my guess as to the number of so far undiscovered IPs is—I do know I have found a few in the past that I could not easily trace down right now and which I'll add once I'm at home); about 70% of his repeatedly edited articles; at least one other sockpuppeteer that he shows slight overlap with (but that, like the one I've already mentioned, I'm also reasonably certain is not, in fact, him—just someone he might be confused with); a more specific description of his behaviour;the set of illustrating diffs I have gathered; links to previous ANI-cases, an AN-case and an SPI-archive; the ranges his used IPs (or some, anyway, as I don't have the ranges for all of them yet) fall into; and quite probably other information. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Talkpage violations at Talk:Historicity of Jesus

    No way you want to hear more about problems at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. But, I see no other good alternative.

    John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the person I'm having difficulty with.

    Background:

    1. John Carter has posted some oblique "warning" messages to me at Talk:Historicity of Jesus-- 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.
    2. John Carter started an ANI a few days ago, accusing me of “tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus. He provided only one diff – to a comment totally unrelated to me, and provided no explanation of his claim. After I pointed this out, the ANI was closed, as I'd done nothing blockable. (The ANI is long and stupid. Please don't feel like you need to read it all.) diff to ANI
    3. On my talk page, I asked John Carter (several times) what POV he thought I was pushing, since he never said. He doesn't seem to want to tell me, though he does go on at length about my personal failings. (You don't really want to read all this either, but I provide it to show that I'm trying to stay on topic, and am met with hostility.) diff to talk page about ANI
    4. John Carter was desysopped several years ago, with the reasons listed pretty much corresponding to his recent behavior. [12]

    Current issue:

    1. John Carter deleted one of my Talk:Historicity of Jesus comments, without my consent. diff to first deletion
    2. When I reverted the delete, and pointed out that he knew better than to delete other users' comments, he deleted it again. diff to second deletion
    3. At this point, I consider it an edit war, of sorts (if Talk pages can have those.) If I reverted again, so would he.
    4. He posted this “final warning” to my talk page. diff to user talk page warning
    5. He added this warning to [[Talk:Historicity of Jesus] ], misrepresenting the talkpage guidelines. diff to talk page warning

    Looking at WP:TALKNO, John Carter has:

    • Made ad hominem attacks against me,
    • Threatened me,
    • Misrepresented my comments,
    • Deleted my comments,
    • Misrepresented WP policy and guidelines, and
    • Presented himself as if he has some authority – possibly as an admin.

    Administrative action requested:

    Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He has been among other things arguing that nominal Christians and Muslims are incapable of approaching the historicity of Jesus objectively, but that others who have more often than not either rejected some of the Western Christian social morays are, which is at best a dubious assertion considering the psychology of conversion, or that adherents of faiths which would regard the Christian incarnation as basically heretical have no similar biases. Having myself studied religion, I can say everyone in class were much more "nominal" believers than society as a whole, and might like him to meet some of the monks and priests I've met who have in their 40s or 50s acknowledged becoming agnostics or atheists but stay for retirement benefits and their religious friends. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not just a POV-push, it's a violation of "no original research". He's betraying his own biases to draw such a conclusion. He has no evidence to support such a broad-brush claim. Deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that based on a thorough examination, or just on taking someone's characterisation of their adversary at face value? Formerip (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the debate a few days ago, he's claiming that a Christian or a Muslim cannot objectively write about the historicity of Jesus. He's got no evidence to support that claim, it's strictly his personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (e-c)It's something that has some support in some circles so its probably more POV than OR. And I forgot to mention the 2 nuns and several non–Catholic agnostic/atheist nominally Christian ministers I've met as well. It was an an arranged meeting of the local "qualifiers" if anyone's curious. I've myself never been a religious and I was there basically as an outsider. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That highlights one of many core issues in this discussion. Precisely what IS a Christian? Another is the matter of what Historicity of Jesus is really about, whether Jesus existed, or whether there is any "scientific" evidence that he existed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:John Carter is completely misrepresenting my position, and my actions. The diffs don't lie: [13]
    Beyond this, POV, or what is a Christian, or any of this content related stuff is not an issue in this ANI. The only thing that is at issue is User:John Carter's hostility.Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also this diff which you recently removed from your user talk page with the problematic "Off–topic comments" section in which Huon talks about your other recent micsconduct on the same talk page and your other problematic recent conduct still on the talk page. WP:BOOMERANG indicates that much as you apparently think otherwise your behavior is open to review as well.John Carter (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with John Carter. Let's stick to his hostility: He's been accusing me of POV pushing, both in the article talk page diff1diff2, and in another ANI diff to ANI, and he's provided no evidence to substantiate it. Zippo. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you'd lose. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness that Huon had to call you on it before and it very clearly still hasn't apparently gotten through to you yet. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in the last discussion, this article might benefit from a page move to Academic history of Jesus or something of that matter to determinitively distinguish the difference between religious/faith-based history and scholarly/scientific history.--v/r - TP 01:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll send you a talk page message regarding the article. I'd really like to keep this ANI focused on John Carter's hostility towards me, as it's really getting in the way of improving the article. (He even said that my suggesting the scope of the article should be "the historicity of Jesus" was POV pushing!) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the editor conduct deserves a reality check, and the language that is being used, even in this ANI post is not acceptable. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness... It's ridiculous. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read WP:TPG and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius... is wholeheartedly unacceptable and uncivil language while not exactly swearing and not exactly 'confrontorary' language, is anything but civil. Indeed, comments like We have talk page guidelines for a reason whether you are capable of understanding them or not. If you can't understand that please read WP:CIR which is implying that the user is not competent enough to understand policy or guidelines. unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible is also in my view is unacceptable. This kind of language is what is ambiguously dealt with on noticeboards, and what needs to be policed and enforced more. I advocate that John is put on warning for these comments and should be reminded that he is to act civil and delve into the real content and sources, not about other editors. Tutelary (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've avoided commenting on this before, but based on the while history of this dispute at WP: In my opinion JC is alleging wide-spread biases without evidence, trying to dismiss the work of almost everybody who has ever contributed to the academic or popular discussion of the subject because his own views are different. He has continued doing so to the extend that it is disruptive. His arguments here, that he can not be biased himself against Christians because he has talked to people of that religion, does not make sense to me. (It is even possible that my own views on the matter may be the same as his, but it remains the case that the position at the moment is very much a minority position, tho I would not go so far as to call it fringe, and I don't think it reasonable to pretend otherwise.) TParis, the term universally used for the RW question is Historicity of Jesus. It's not an assertion that Jesus was historically real, it's just a statement that the problem is whether he/He was historically real. "Academic history of Jesus is meaningless. The subject is precisely the question whether the faith-based account corresponds to the biography of a real individual. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TL;DR version: what DGG said.
    The reason why the historicity of Jesus is such a problematic topic on Wikipedia is that the historicity of Jesus is a problematic topic. It is an intersection of scholarly study and religious faith. Gospel scholars can debate whether Mark 13 contains an interpolation of a C1 eschatological text unrelated to the Jesus story or whether the Q-source existed despite there being no contemporary or patristic mention, without matters of faith coming into play.
    The historicity of Jesus is different. It involves very deeply held beliefs about the very nature of the world and of existence. For adherents of the Christian faith in its many forms, the historicity of Jesus and its relation to the Jesus of Christianity is something that is perhaps one of the most important things in their lives. For people of other faiths, the historicity of Jesus and its relation to the Jesus of Christianity is - I will not be so presumptuous to make any comment. For non-believers, the historicity of Jesus can be a scholarly topic but often also involves very deeply held beliefs about the very nature of the world and of existence.
    In short: JC - please stop making allegations of bias because someone simply disagrees with you.
    Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I commented at the talk page, Talk: Historicity of Jesus, earlier this month, that it appears that the combined content disputes (now about whether to split the article into multiple articles) and conduct issues that interfere with resolving the content questions are likely to go to the ArbCom. Unfortunately, that again appears to be the case. Can you (multiple editors) put aside your anger to avoid having the topic area (including any future articles that are split off) placed under discretionary sanctions? Regardless of any other details of an ArbCom final decision, they almost certainly will include discretionary sanctions. For background, there was a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It was declined, with the advice to take the content issues to mediation and the conduct issues here, WP:ANI. (I am not sure that mediation is the right vehicle, but that is my opinion.) I see two editors here, FearOfReprisal and John Carter, who obviously do not like each other, one of whom has been previously sanctioned by the ArbCom with respect to the history of religions. Both FOR and JC: Be civil. Equally importantly, be concise. Long WP:TLDR posts here are a common but useless practice, because they aren't read in detail. If you aren't willing to resolve your issues here, be concise, because the ArbCom doesn't accept walls of text. Enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My issue with John Carter is resolved as soon as he stops accusing me of misconduct.
    As for fixing the longstanding intractable problems with the article -- here are the subjects we need to reach consensus on:
    1. The topic of the article. i.e., the "Historicity of Jesus"
    2. The definition of the term "historicity" (see Historicity)
    3. The article's scope, i.e., the "historicity of Jesus"
    4. Topics that are outside the scope of the article, e.g., religious belief, Christ Myth Theory, Historical Jesus
    There is currently dispute about every one of these items. So, I suspect that discretionary sanctions will be required in any event. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @FoR, arbitration is the way to proceed. This ANI will likely close for the same reason as the last one - it's not ANI's purview to resolve complex disputes that are a blend of conduct and content issues. Imo, there have been plenty of prior attempts to resolve both issues for ArbCom to take the case. I don't agree that filing a case will result in discretionary sanctions - the Arbs are wise enough to understand that a dispute between two parties isn't going to undermine the encyclopedia. Ignocrates (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I came here solely with a conduct issue. It's everyone else who has added in content issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here. While I believe that there is a very real question whether Ignocrates has once again returned to edit only in regards to something in which I am involved which may qualify as a violation of his interaction ban and I would welcome input from others on whether involvement in this discussion as his only edits in weeks as can be seen here qualifies as stalking and/or other sanctionable conduct as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 in their eyes. I also think much if not most of the problems at the article would be resolved if Fear would indicate the sources to establish the notability and weight requirements as per guidelines and policies because I've never seen them clearly indicated. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that Christians can be objective about Jesus is silly. If you think someone is the son of God and walked on water and rose from the dead, you're not exactly objective. If you believe denying his historicity will result in eternal torment, you're in no position to be objective. But so what? Does fearofreprisal want to ban Christian editors? I'm not sure how the lack of objectivity can be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to try to be as concise as possible here. John Carter continues to be hostile, even in this ANI ("You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here.") This is nothing new. Here are a few relevant diffs:

    • Blocked for violating sanctions, Jul 2013: [14]
    • ArbCom sanctions personal attacks, Nov 2013: [15] "John Carter has made personal attacks against Ignocrates during the arbitration case"
    • Tells ArbCom that he can't control his temper, Nov 2013: [16] "I regret to say that over the years dealing with the comments of others I acknowledge that my temper can, and particularly sometimes around Ignocrates does, get the best of me."
    • Resigns as Admin, because of ArbCom, Nov 2013: [17]
    • Admits to trying to drive editors off WP through incivility, Nov 2013: [18]
    • ArbCom admonishment for disruption and incivility, June 2009: [19]
    • Desysopping discussion, Feb 2008: [20]

    I'm perfectly happy to try and work with John Carter to improve the Historicity of Jesus article. However...

    • If he can't drop the condescension here in ANI, why would I think he might do so in the article and talk page?
    • Over his long history on WP, he's not yet contributed a single word to the Historicity of Jesus article. [21] Why would I think he's going to start now?

    With no reason to believe that John Carter will change, the only reasonable resolution I can see is for him to be topic-banned from "historicity" related articles. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you are going to the trouble of posting details back to 2008, perhaps you wouldn't mind showing a couple of links for current problems? The couple I looked at in the OP show dime-a-dozen commentary that is standard for many contentious topics—they certainly do not justify a topic ban. I don't understand DGG's above comment regarding "bias"—is that something at ANI or a talk page somewhere? I can't see it (certainly the comment at 00:24, 19 August 2014 above shows no problem). I see no link which shows anything unexpected for a topic like this. ANI is for behavior, but my preference would be for someone to point to something that matters, such as who-is-doing-what in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted mostly issues that have happened in the last year. I posted the 2008 diff to show that nothing has changed. It's about context. His "chilling admission regarding the ways he attempts to drive editors off the project through controlled incivility" should give you pause. JC is an experienced former Admin, who uses his knowledge of WP rules to attack users who disagree with him. While JC's comments, considered individually, may be dime-a-dozen commentary, taken together and in context, they show that his pattern of intentional disruption continues.
    I accept that it's likely that nothing will be done here to encourage JC to drop his incivility. But I've established a record. If, as he admits, he can't control his temper, we'll be back here soon enough. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)provd[reply]
    What you completely failed to do is post any indications of your providing the required reliable sources to give reason to make changes as per WP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. Should you continue to engage in such behavior in violation of conduct guidelines we will probably be back sooner than you think very possibly regarding your conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup

    It's not gotten much better. User:John Carter started a section at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#"Historicity” of Jesus or “Historicity of Jesus”?, where I can't figure out what he's talking about. I asked for a WP:THIRDOPINION, and that person couldn't figure out what JC was talking about either. It probably wouldn't matter -- I could just ignore him -- except his incivility is distruptive. The problems with this article are going to eventually go to ArbCom, but I'm trying to get things as cleaned up as possible before then, so we can deal with just one or two fundamental issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but you are going to have to explain an actual problem more clearly. At Talk:Historicity of Jesus we see two sections: "What is historicity?" (in which Fearofreprisal asks for people to share their understanding of what historicity actually is), and the section linked above (in which John Carter lists several sources along with a comment which requires some missing context to understand). I don't see how you could claim the section is "incivility"—it is obviously missing a couple of sentences to explain what it's all about, but is that such a problem? Just ignore it or reply with something like what I've said here. Why would you then add a third section (here) about the same point? My third opinion would be that you all stop talking about who-knows-what and focus on the article. What is the problem in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI is about conduct, not content. I'll save the discussion on content for ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not right. Arbcom follows a strict (and often counter-productive) policy of not even thinking about content. Perhaps the arbs privately ponder what would be best for the encyclopedia, but public discussions must not deal with content (see WP:Arbitration). At ANI, anything goes. In general, content is not discussed here, but if necessary people will consider underlying issues and might, for example, offer an opinion that an editor should be topic banned because they are adding unhelpful text to articles (with a brief explanation). That's fine here, but does not happen at arbitration. It's unlikely that third parties will want to spend the time becoming familiar with all the background so it's up to people claiming that a problem exists to show links and brief explanations as to why there is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct. ArbCom will not deal with the content issue. I'm not sure all of the talk page discussion is appropriate, and I do see editors throwing "notaforum" back and forth. Editors trying to decide "What is historicity?" make me uneasy. Although it would be nice, as one editor asks, to have a " universal, clear definition for the term,", I'd be amazed if all the sources who think that they have written on this subject agree. It's just not up to editors to make these decisions. Sure, they can discuss which sources that discuss the meaning of "historicity of Jesus" that they wish to use, but they shouldn't be looking at sources that only discuss "historicity" without discussing Jesus. That's just the way we roll, and if we start opening the door to sources that don't discuss the subject of the article... But the issue is really "What conduct issue are you bringing here?" I do agree with User:Johnuniq - what incivility? Focus on the article, not abstract questions about historicity. And don't add huge templates at the bottom that belong at the top and seem to be there only to be used whack each other over the head. Hm, thinking about that again, Fearofreprisal was being pretty uncivil with that - see Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Need WP:RS citations that show "historicity of Jesus"= "existence of Jesus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You once again demonstrate a pronounced lack of understanding of wikipedia in the above comment Fear, as you did in the above sections which raises serious WP:CIR issues about you which are not helped at all by the lack of understanding of several policies and guidelines you have already repeatedly displayed on the article talk page. That specifically includes your presumptuous citation demands on that talk page. The fact that you also seem to be insisting on immediate gratification of all your demands is another cause for concern. I have yet to finish the full research of this topic I had previously indicated I was working on and find these rather tendentious demands for immediate gratification of your every whim to be both counterproductive and completely unnecessary. As I already said on the talk page your cause would be much better served if you could find the sources sufficient to establish the notability of the article you want. It is perhaps a not unreasonable question whether you may not be able to establish sch notability on your own and that might be driving your rather disruptive and less than productive postings here. The article was not built in a day nor is it reasonable to assume that major changes to it should be made in a day. Honestly, I believe your conduct in this matter in general raises much more serious concerns about you than anything or anyone else.John Carter (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossing outs and changing names without providing citations

    Hey there I want to inform that 78.86.173.85 keeps crossing names of articles even after I warned him.He also changed names of some articles without providing valid references.Here are some links kept crossing out name even after I warned him Look at his contributions you can clearly see that he is not trying improve those pages. other articles:

    1. Difference between revisions
    2. Thorney Island: Difference between revisions
    3. Poole: Difference between revisions
    4. Airport: Revision history
    5. Airfield: Revision history

    He edited many more articles.I hope you would look into this and provide a solution.ChamithN (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs are coming out malformed on my side, so I've fixed them below:
    1. Larkhill (#1) (He's been doing the same edit back and forth for a few days.)
    2. RAF Thorney Island (A bit different than the diff provided above)
    3. RM Poole
    4. Farnborough Airport
    5. Hullavington Airfield
    - Purplewowies (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The same editor appears to have used IP addresses 78.86.173.81 and 94.193.131.4 (see history of Hullavington Airfield article). ISP and location are same or similar to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Long-term unsourced additions by an IP 94.193.131.142 which resulted in a 2-week block - also similar in undoing their own edits, sometimes repeatedly (78.86.173.85 on Hullavington Airfield, 94.193.131.142 on HMS Agamemnon (S124) and other 94.193 IPs on Bere Alston railway station). Peter James (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block this user from editing.He is so annoying and keeps undoing reverts.We already warned him like 5 times yet he still keeps vandalizing pages.Also I notified him that we are having a discussion about him.ChamithN (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It now appears the user has moved to "78.86.173.249". They have not been notified they are discussed here on this new IP address. Gavbadger (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Single purpose account POV-pushing against academia and common sense, probable troll

    NAC:User:TheLeopardTree indef blocked by TheBushranger. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone who ascribes belief in a scientific 'god' to atheists, even after it's explained that atheism is, by definition, the absence of a belief in gods or the active rejection of a belief in gods, must be a troll, right? That or we've got a WP:CIR block on our hands.

    TheLeopardTree (talk · contribs) has continued to push for that position at Talk:God#Inaccuracies_must_be_rectified, along with the idea that Christianity (regardless of the doctrines of its churches) divides divinity among God and Satan (that'd be Manichaeism), and that Buddhists view nirvana as God instead of being non-theistic and seeing nirvana as extinguishing one's existence (as per the sources in all our articles on the matter and any introductory work on the religion) -- all as part of a replacement for the current introduction, despite more than one user explaining why that's a bad idea. The current lede is sourced to a variety of philosophical encyclopedias and other academic works. His replacement is only sourced by the 1973 Webster's, Wikipedia, and etymonline.com and his admitted ignorance regarding Buddhism. He is aware of the disparity, but continues to advocate for his view.

    If it wasn't for the atheism bit, I'd assume that he's acting in ignorant good faith and ask for more eyes. The atheism bit leaves me so unable to assume both good faith and competence from him that I would rather see at least the serious threat of a topic ban. He is either a troll or a Dunning-Kruger case study POV-pusher who needs a WP:CIR block or ban from theological topics.

    New user who doesn't understand a topic? I'll be glad to explain how to use Google books to quickly find WP:RSs, and paraphrase to avoid WP:COPYVIOs. User who knows nothing about a topic and acts like their opinion is WP:THETRUTH? No use for them. Ian.thomson (talk)

    I'm not sure it's trolling. This wouldn't be the first time I've heard atheism called a religion. Although, most often that's in the context of getting atheism treated the same way as religions in regards to the law. I'd lay this down as more of a CIR issue than trolling.--v/r - TP 01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I could understand arguing that atheism is a religion (an atheist friend and I both tend to discuss New Atheism that way when bashing fundamentalism of all sorts), but that's not what's going on here. This individual is suggesting that atheism actually has a sort of god-figure (theism, the opposite of atheism), which is different and distinct from religious belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed.--v/r - TP 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The only single-POV contributor here is the plaintiff. Review the proposed edit; once you understand the diction (which plaintiff has demonstrated he cannot) the edit is abundantly clear, precisely accurate, and does not shake any pillars of any religion - nor atheism. TheLeopardTree (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    No, you are wrong. Atheists do not worship science nor do they have to take science on faith. Scientific facts can be reproduced and demonstrated. There is broad consensus on this. The POV is what you are pushing. Can you demonstrate with reliable sources that your view is the predominate one?--v/r - TP 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@TheLeopardTree:, do you deny that you wrote that Christianity divides god into God and Satan? Do you deny that you wrote that atheists "adopt a scientific god?" Do you deny that you are proposing a re-write of the an introduction based (so far) on two sources (one of them Wikipedia!), even though the current introduction cites multiple higher-quality sources (including the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a number of works from university presses)?
    Do you deny that you have refused to acknowledge the sources that demonstrate that what you wrote about Christianity and atheism are patently wrong?
    I've understand your diction, what you proposed is simply wrong. That you continue to push for it and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you might not be right, even though all the sources in the article and almost a dozen additional citations I provided (not opinions, but academic works) point out major problems with your claims, is why you come across as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a court of law. There is no plaintiff. Please develop a sense of proportion, along with research skills and patience. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I never insinuated athiests worship science. That is a religious holding, not philosophical. That is 'precisely' why the article needs revision.

    In fact, I never even stated all athiests believe in science, nor do I believe that to be the case.

    Furthermore science can, and has been, proven inaccurate; faith is something you believe to be without quantifiable proof. The topic in question, god, houses both schools-of-thought because both attempt to explain the universal essence of being; theism versus atheism cannot do this. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    Again, do you deny that you wrote that Christianity divides god into God and Satan? Do you deny that you wrote that atheists "adopt a scientific god?" Do you deny that you are proposing a re-write of the an introduction based (so far) on two sources (one of them Wikipedia!), even though the current introduction cites multiple higher-quality sources (including the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a number of works from university presses)? Do you deny that you have refused to acknowledge the sources that demonstrate that what you wrote about Christianity and atheism are patently wrong?
    Refusal to answer these questions, as with your refusal to acknowledge the article's current sources as well as the ones I brought up, and your sheer inability to listen to anyone are not good signs. They don't come across as conviction, they come across as a problematic editor who shouldn't be allowed near the topic.
    Wikipedia paraphrases and summarizes reliable sources. It is not the place for original research. We do not care what you think is the truth, only what published academic works say (without addition or alteration). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian you simply don't understand the diction yet. I imagine this is exactly what happened to Galileo during the inquisition, or various others who believed the world to be round. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    Galileo's problem was that he made fun of the Pope for asking for more evidence. Your problem is that your diction and its message are wrong, and you've got your head so far up yourself that you've confused your bowels for heaven and assume anything pulled out your arse must be Gospel.
    Verifiability, not truth, is the standard here, the founding standard. If your claims are not backed up by academic sources, it doesn't matter what your claims are. That your claims go against academic sources only makes things worse, as does your inability to acknowledge that. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TheLeopardTree - you might be 100% right. However, Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus and scholarly consensus just doesn't support your idea - at least yet. When it does, your changes can be incorporated. Until then, Wikipedia is not the place to push minor viewpoints.--v/r - TP 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being extremely unclear as to what you mean by 'the diction' here. As this is a written medium, no-one is doing any actual speaking, which is what 'diction' usually refers to. WP:FLAT ironically deals with your round-world example. By the by, the world had been known to be round since classical times; Galileo provided no new evidence on this front. I'd suggest that on Christian theology, as on linguistics and the history of science, you lack the necessary competence to contribute here. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair point, --v/r. I am yet satisfied, but fair. How does one source diction other than with a definition? I have done so yet remain rebuked for 'lack of citations'. Alex, by 'diction' I mean simply that - diction. Ian hasn't grasped the language well enough to understand the thought. There is nothing inconsistent between my proposal and any established (academic or otherwise) interpretations of faith, religion, theism, atheism, science, physics, etc. The introduction stands alone on diction, the citations are for further evaluation, explanation, and reference libraries. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    If your diction is unclear, you need to improve it. You haven't really tried that. And I presented several sources pointing out a very big problem with your treatment of atheism and the inherent definition. You also haven't presented a solid source for your suggestions, which is your job. No sources, no additions, per the foundational policy WP:V. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not that my diction lacks clarity, it's that you refuse to understand my words.

    Again, what do you want me to source Ian? It's a dictionary definition, not an academic treatise on what god is. God is what you choose it to be, and as an atheist I understand your intractable refutation of this concept because you believe it opposes your ideals but I assure you - it doesn't. You simply cannot grasp the diction and for that humanity suffers. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    Bollocks on the claim that I refuse to understand them. "You wouldn't understand" is a cop-out by bad writers and pretentious hacks.
    The bits about Christianity, atheism, and Buddhism are not from the dictionary, and are counter to the majority of sources (including dictionaries, and many other higher-quality sources).
    Wikipedia is concerned with simply repeating academic sources. Get it through your skull. We do not say anything beyond what is in those sources, nothing in addition to them, not even elaborate interpretations of them, just summaries of academic sources. If you don't want to do that, go somewhere else. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "You simply cannot grasp the diction and for that humanity suffers." - We're here to write an encyclopedia here, not save humanity. You're using language in a highly idiosyncratic way. I'd encourage you to write more plainly. What do you mean by 'the diction', please? AlexTiefling (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say "you wouldn't understand", Ian. Your argument is weak, at best. You have no place in the realm of academics and I will gather sources as required for administrator approbation. Ian, what is god? G'day chap. TheLeopardTree (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    Would you mind answering my question? AlexTiefling (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Sorry Alex, I'll relent. He can have his last word if he chooses. Apologies for the delay I wanted to get this right the first time.

    By 'the diction' I am addressing the meaning behind the word. For example: anarchists often decry the "State" as the source of all societal misfortune but when one understands the diction you realize that a 'state' necessarily must exist for society to function in any organized capacity because the state is defined as 'organized society'; there is nothing coercive about a state, the state simply facilitates the transmission of knowledge. Essentially society is a body of people, the state is the social-hierarchy that creates a productive framework to pass on knowledge, and government is the body of people within the state that enforce law. Most anarchists don't want to destroy the state, they want a new State where they feel utilized; nearly all want to dissolve the government. Most athiests aren't at odds with god, they are at odds with supernatural deities (God[s]); very few believe there is no explanation at all for the universe (that would be, loosely, nihilism).

    Diction is crucial and it pains me to see people fighting over scraps before first consuming the meat. TheLeopardTree (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    Topic ban for TheLeopardTree

    I propose that TheLeopardTree be topic banned from all articles relating to theology, broadly construed (so including mythology, magic, divinity, religion, philosophy concerning the prior), due to continued tendentious editing, including continued acknowledge POV-pushing, refusal to acknowledge that said POV is contrary to academic sources on the matter, refusal to accept independent assessment, refusal to cite sources for his suggestions, and pretentious claims about diction. We've wasted hours on him, and he's given little to no indication of improvement. Yay or nay? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the above off-topic display of apparent cluelessness, [22] I'd have to suggest that a topic ban is insufficient, and that TheLeopardTree should be blocked indefinitely as displaying no evidence of being able to contribute towards Wikipedia in any useful capacity. Whether this is a genuine lack of competence or trolling I have no idea, and frankly don't think it's worth wasting our time trying to find out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at least a topic-ban, wouldn't mind indef (never infinite) either per WP:NOTHERE... the message that Wikipedia isn't for airing one's personal theories isn't getting through. We're supposed to be here to communicate well-supported, pertinent information clearly and this contributor just doesn't seem to be able to do any part of that. Zad68 04:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    “This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.” ― Dalai Lama XIV

    The Trial of Socrates Stone, I.F., 2009. 978-0385260329. is an interesting read. In it Socrates postulates that only "the one who knows" can know, and that knowledge cannot be taught. Some will understand, then know, but knowledge cannot be taught - according to Socrates.

    If you're going to delete my thoughts from this website you are harming humanity. My thoughts are cyclical, as are your actions if no one will step in to support free, academic expression.

    Smith, Huston. The World's Religions, 2009. ISBN-13: 9780061660184.

    Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions, 2013. ISBN-13: 978-0205956401

    Morford, Mark P.O., Lenardon, Robert J., Sham, Michael. Classical Mythology, 2010. ISBN-13: 978-0195397703 TheLeopardTree (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo[reply]

    • Yeah...given the above it's pretty obvious that at the very least we have a terminal lack of clue here. Block has been applied. If it becomes evident that clue has been gained, and that the 'not here' or 'trolling' options can be dismissed, anyone can unblock without asking me first. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin is vandalizing

    BOOMERANG
    71.202.1.48 blocked for one week for harrassment and abuse of editing privileges. Deb offered a good faith explanation that the removed content was not believed to be verifiable. Don't think there's anything more to add. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    The user Deb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deb) is vandalizing the May 22 wikipedia page by constantly reverting to her edit which deletes many legitimate entries. I have tried posting on her talk page and she still continues to revert to her edits. Her edits are illegitimate deletions.

    This user must be stopped. She is behaving in a malicious and inconsiderate manner, yet she is also an administrator. Where can I solicit help for this situation? I tried posting in the AIV page but an administrator told me that they were not going to block another admin.

    Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1) Vandalism is a bad faith attempt to deface Wikipedia. Deb's edits are good faith attempts to improve it whether you disagree that is the result or not. 2) This report comes off as a personal attack. Stick to the facts and support them with Diffs. 3) There is no way in hell any administrator is going to block Deb for reverting you once whether Deb is an admin or not.--v/r - TP 02:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look again. She not only made a reversion once, she also made two seriously negative edits. Look at the history and the recent red marks on the page for May 22. I believe she is performing vandalism as it is done in bad faith--an attempt to deface a part of Wikipedia by deleting legitimate content. Deb's edits are not done in good faith. She is attempting to make it look like she is deleting things using deletion criteria but I looked at the criteria and none of what she removed matches it. This is an illegitimate deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why Deb is editing that article the way they are, it does look potentially problematic, but it is definitely not vandalism, and looks like a content dispute combined with a lack of communication. The first thing you need to do is start a conversation with Deb, either on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article. If after talking it out, there is still a problem, try WP:DRN. If you have a problem after that, maybe bring it back here. Monty845 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @IP: WP:NOTVAND.--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic problem is that the IP never uses edit summaries except when they are defaulted. Some editors routinely revert edits without edit summaries, especially from unregistered editors. My advice to the OP is, first, create an account, second, use edit summaries, third, desist from the personal attacks, and, fourth, take a less hostile attitude in order to avoid being indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, she is deleting legitimate content. Look at this diff page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621890314&oldid=621873503) which is just the latest content she attempted to remove. Please take a look at the CORRECT diff pages, otherwise you will think she is only making minor changes. She is making serious, major changes, not only to this page, but to several others as well. It's difficult not to take a hostile attitude when she is attempting to undermine other people's contributions illegitimately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to be clear, she has made other deletions before to the May 22 page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&action=history). This is just the latest attempt she has made to partially deface the page. I believe that she is using the lack of edit summary as an excuse to revert that single edit. But previously, she deleted even more legitimate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks this conversation is also going on here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to deal with Administrator who is vandalizing.3F. Whether this is a simple error or WP:FORUMSHOPPING I suggest that one of them be closed and merged with the other one to cut down on confusion for those dealing with it. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP's forum-shopping aside, is there any justification for Deb's action? Surely the criterion for retention is whether the content is any good, not whether edit summaries are used? That can be addressed by admonishing the user, rather than undoing a constructive edit. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already admonished the user, but she made a revert after I warned her. Please move this conversation to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard). You can look up the diffs on that page and see how her editing is actually quite disruptive. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, you are the user I was suggesting should be admonished, for not using edit summaries, if that were appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone already mentioned the lack of edit summaries. I believe Deb should be admonished, not me. Please continue the conversation on the other page linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK...I didn't see this. Now this is forum shopping. You need only one report to An or ANI...not both.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do admin have reviewer rights as part of their tool kit? If so....I would say this could be misuse of admin tools in the same way it would be misuse of reviewer rights to decline a perfectly legitimate contribution that did not violate any of the pending changes issues the protection is for. It gave Deb a huge advantage to keep their opponents edits out.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The May 22 page isn't the only page that she is disrupting. Look at her history to see recent edits she made to other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether or not reviewer rights come with the tools, abuse of reviewer rights would not be abuse of the tools, as it is a seperate right. (Not saying that has or hasn't happened, but nipping that train of thought in the bud.) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If Deb used reviewer rights to decline the other editors contributions while adding their own that were automatically accepted...that is a misuse of the reviewer right. But if admin have reviewer rights as part of their tool kit it may not be a misuse of the admin tools (that seems to be the point you are trying to nip) but it is indeed a misuse of the reviewer right and does indeed look as if Deb was taking advantage of that. Blockable? No. Enough to take that tool away or ban them from further reviewing. No, not unless this was a pattern. Could it have been a simple mistake? Yes. Is there anything for an admin to intervene on here? Well...perhaps a warning to the OP to stop harassing Deb on her talk page and if not they may need an interaction ban or a possible short term block for WP:IDHT.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the IP is right/wrong in their use, or lack thereof, of edit summaries. I find it highly problematic that someone, admin or otherwise, is reverting on that basis alone. AlanS (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't know that. She hasn't posted here yet. Has anyone even notified her? I'll post something on her talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we may be conflating reverting and reviewing when we talk about this situation as "reviewer abuse". Any editor can revert an edit if they feel they have a good reason (terms & conditions may apply, etc, but this is just to an approximation). That's just how we edit - BRD. Now, if the page is under pending changes and the reverter is a reviewer (or admin), their revert is auto-accepted by the software, but they've reverted an edit, not declined it. That the reviewer right kicked in is a side effect, not something they deliberately did.

      That all said, "no edit summary" is an extremely strange reason to revert otherwise-acceptable content, and Deb does seem to have removed perfectly good, bluelinked content. If I didn't know better, looking at this diff, I would figure she'd gotten into some sort of weird edit conflict with herself and accidentally removed the stuff; as it is the whole thing seems to track back to an apparent desire to "globalize, aim for more even chronological spread". Seems to me that Deb is trying to curate the list so that it's less western-centric, but she's doing that by removing content without discussion, and it has come to her and the IP blanket-reverting each other instead of talking. Neither of them is vandalising, but neither of them is going about things in a way that's going to resolve this, either. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • As others are saying, 71.202.1.48 is being unnecessarily hostile (WP:BATTLEGROUND) towards Deb. Deb does seem to have made some suboptimal decisions, though there's no reason to think that was malicious. Pending Changes is a pretty new thing and there's not much body of established practice regarding it, but overall it's best not to reject an edit that contributes good info just because an edit summary is missing. Deb, it's best to accept pending edits unless an edit's problems are bad enough that they would lead you to revert the edit if it had been made in a non-protected page. For a minor problem like a missing edit summary, I'd say just accept the edit and leave the contributor a polite talk message saying how to do better next time. 71.202.1.48, please consider yourself gently reminded that edit summaries are a good thing and try to remember to use them in the future, and also to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and be nicer to other editors. You're apparently pretty familiar with Wikipedia technical and DR procedures by now, so if you continue to make bad faith assumptions or persist with elementary errors/discourtesies like omitting edit summaries, it can come across as WP:POINTy and result in your getting blocked. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to "override" her "contributions" which are not really contributions but involve her deleting legitimate stuff then adding something minor to use an excuse for her deletions. That is a "hidden" form of disruptive editing. I do know that she is engaging in disruptive editing, which BORDERS on vandalism, which is why I brought it up multiple times. People need to please stop defending her. It seems that admins aren't doing enough around here. Imagine someone coming along and deleting all your contributions that you've made over a few years and then someone declaring that you are guilty of edit warring and being hostile for trying to restore the previous edits and reporting that person then telling you that you can get blocked.71.202.1.48 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have provided diffs already. Here they are again. She has made some serious deletions THREE TIMES. It is a pattern. And she is not just doing this on this page, she is doing it on several other pages. Check her history.
    1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621890314&oldid=621873503
    2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621599760&oldid=621449085
    3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=620641489&oldid=620283312

    71.202.1.48 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You have also been deleting her contributions.
    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621873503&oldid=621671438
    2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621957289&oldid=621890314
    GB fan 18:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was restoring things to the previous version. There is a difference. If you actually read what I posted, I stated that she is making a minor "contribution" but making serious deletions, so I tried to revert her changes.71.202.1.48 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you look at the reverts you made, you restored information that she removed and removed information that she added. In her reverts she removed information that you added and restored information that she had added. Both of you need to look at what you are doing, and make sure it is what you want to do. If you think the information you are removing does not belong use the talk page to discuss why it does not belong. GB fan 19:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you actually know what reverting is? If someone deleted 100 entries then made 1 "contribution," and you reverted the edit this person made, would you consider that edit warring? I am not edit warring. I am simply trying to restore what she deleted, and the easiest way to do that is by reverting.
    Yes I do know what reverting is. I would consider it edit warring if two people are going back and forth changing things back to what they think should be there as the two of you are doing. You are both edit warring. Yes reverting the edits is the easiest way to restore the content you think belongs, the best way is to do what I did and incorporate both sets of edits into the article. GB fan 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Assessment

    Here is my assessment. There are two editors who have been edit warring, the unregistered editor and Deb. Deb wasn't notified of this discussion until a few hours ago, so that we don't know what she has to say. I know more than I want to know about the unregistered editor. There has been no discussion on the talk page, Talk: May 22 by either editor. Deb has been advised to discuss the unregistered edits rather than reverting them and to stop edit-warring. Because she was only recently notified, we need to wait for her response. The unregistered editor, by contrast, has repeatedly been advised to use edit summaries, to assume good faith by Deb, to desist from personal attacks, and to take a less confrontational approach. The unregistered editor has disregarded all advice and continues to be confrontational. This strikes me as arrogant, and the idle use of the term "vandalism" after being otherwise cautioned raises issues of whether the editor cares how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified Deb right after the discussion began last night. I also noted that on the thread at AN. I also notified the editor of the thread at ANI last night.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for notifying. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend a Block

    My thought is that the unregistered editor has had long enough to listen and has refused to listen, and needs a block. I would recommend an indefinite block for a registered editor who refuses to listen and is disruptive. For a Verizon IP address, which lasts about a week, a one-week block is in order, with the understanding that a proper unblock request (not another assertion of rightness) should be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I have taken more time to discuss this situation with the editor and they simply refuse to listen. Alright.....we now have little choice but to discourage further behavior of this nature so...
    You claim that I made personal attacks. Where is your proof? I did not make any personal attacks. All I did was suggest vandalism, and I dropped that suggestion after I discovered what Deb was doing was really disruptive editing. It seems extremely unfair that after going through all this, you guys ended up by suggesting to block me. I don't believe this is fair at all, and in the future, I may actually complain about your behavior, in threatening to use a block against me and not reading all my posts before making a reasonable response. This is directed at McClenon, who was so rude and hostile towards me. 71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't believe this is fair at all, and in the future, I may actually complain about your behavior" I don't think threatening editors is going to help you. It is just a great deal more rope you are pulling on....--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a threat. It's a warning.71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Odd that we would edit conflict on this at this point... but what are you talking about now and who is that directed to exactly? You seem not to know when to quit as my post was going to suggest closing this if there is no response...but now....I'll let you have as much rope as you need.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read through the whole post?71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually have, and I've actually gone through Deb's talk page as well. As Mark said above, you're hanging yourself here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain your reasoning for supporting a block. Also, take a look at the diff pages if you haven't. Looking at Deb's talk page doesn't really provide adequate evidence. 71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I have to justify any further, a good place to start is that you don't seem to be here for the right reason. You've been rude, hostile, and arrogant throughout pretty much this entire thread. You've developed an unnecessary vendetta against Deb and simply won't drop the stick. Instead of trying to speak with her directly, you immediately jumped here. That, in itself, in my opinion, is behavior unworthy of an editor. Deb's actions have been reviewed and she'll be spoken to upon her return to editing (I doubt you bothered to check to see if she's edited recently). I'd continue with more, but quite frankly, I'm annoyed just typing this out. Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And how have I been rude, hostile, and arrogant? I was referred here by Mark Miller and some other admin. If you find it annoying just typing that out, imagine how much more annoyed I feel typing all the stuff I've written out. I did attempt to warn her by posting on her talk page. I have actually checked to see if she's edited recently (she hasn't), so please stop assuming things because you're wrong. 71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've entirely proven my point for me. I'm done now - thank you :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh have I? Because you haven't explained anything. Your reasons make no sense.71.202.1.48 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you plan on making soup out of the horse you are pounding to a pulp?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, I thought you didn't want to have anything to do with this anymore. You even told me not to post on your talk page. So why are you making snide remarks that don't help?71.202.1.48 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Sorry I wasn't here sooner - was away overnight. It is perfectly true that not everyone agrees with me about how to deal with recentism and USA-centricity on these pages, and yes, I've brought it up before, and it's been discussed and there is no consensus. The problem I had with the anon was not that he/she disagreed with me on that, but that he/she seemed to have a thing about May 22. Check out his/her contributions and they all have birthdates of May 22. In some cases, there is no evidence that the person in question was actually born on that date. The edit I rejected was just an undoing of my own edits with no explanation and I felt that the page was protected for a reason and an edit like that shouldn't be accepted, because it was basically a clumsy attempt to conceal the undoing. Deb (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deb's reasoning was not just that information was not verifiable (that is not a decline reasoning for Pending Changes) But that the information was BLP related (birth dates) and since there was no evidence of these dates being accurate they were a BLP concern. That seems to be what she is stating above and I endorse that action.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack, deletion of sourced informations, edit-war and vandalism by 139.174.198.184

    WITHDRAWN
    Closure requested by originator, plus IP already blocked. --Ekabhishektalk 04:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    139.174.198.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted the sourced informations many times despite the explanations.

    His first attempt: 1 and later he deleted the sourced content 12 times. And he said to me "O.Ç." which means "son of a bitch" in Turkish-a shortcut for it- here. 149.140.40.10 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:PERSONAL, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:HA, WP:OWN and WP:VANDAL. 149.140.40.10 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A content-dispute/editwar and, apparantly, an unwillingness or inability to resolve it by means of dialogue seems more pressing than the occasional uncivil abbreviation. WP:DRN would be appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP who vandalised the article is already blocked by PhilKnight and the page is protected by another admin. So it can be closed and archieved. 149.140.10.166 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    See [23] with the edit summary "character defamation. the editor could be sued for this." (for citing comments by the ADL). Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not clear the quote was used in context, and the example used to justify it is a blog post, not a published work, so I did some editing. But putting it in did not amount to character defamation, and in any case saying an editor could be subject to a legal threat is absolutely unacceptable. Is this an isolated posting from that editor? DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, That's a new editor. But what he reverted was "Several of his articles there have been cited as examples of Press TV antisemitism by the Anti-Defamation League. sourced to [24] so how does "blog post" come into it? I plan to restore it but if you say there's a problem... And what quote? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was merely the subject's blog post, not a formally published article. using it amounts to cherry-picking. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm still confused. I'd call 'Views' more of a column, eg the latest one is from Kevin Barett headlined "ISIL head-choppers serving Zionists". It's a statement by the ADL and I'm reinstating it. Especially since the editor's last edit has the edit summary "Wikipedia is a tool of the Zionists.". That's enough for me to block even if anyone really thinks ""character defamation. the editor could be sued for this." is not a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban Review

    Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing++ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing++ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment and troublemaking by ClaphamSix

    A new account, ClaphamSix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped up to continue the same disruptive behavior and harassment that Festal82 and his sockpuppets carried out before his ban. The CheckUser admin on the SPI page believes the account to be another sock, but this is awaiting a behavioral evaluation by the clerks. In the meantime, this user is flooding the metamodernism talk page with as many alarmist comments and page-long screeds as they can, obviously to give a false impression of conflict--where there has otherwise been considered, calm discussion and consensus since Festal's ban--and to obscure the relevant discussions that have been taking place there. His tactic seems to be to drag in other editors from the WikiProject Philosophy page that may not be fully aware of the history and frustrations we have all experienced on this page with Festal's POV pushing, to cause chaos and bring into question the integrity of the discussion there.

    The user has continued Festal's malicious, unfounded and serious misrepresentations of mine and other editors' edits (see previous ANI incident here), trying to falsely Out me by bizarrely claiming he knows my IP (which he obviously doesn't), from which he's spreading the lie that I live in a tiny village I have never even heard of (!?!), seemingly to try to discredit my transparently consensus-led edit history, and slinging a vast quantity of mud in the hope that some will stick. He's also dragged the CheckUser admin into the discussion, being seriously condescending about their actions, which is why they advised I take this matter here and request another admin look at this, to avoid a WP:INVOLVED conflict. As his latest posts seriously break just about every rule with regards to WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:NOTHERE, please could someone help here with a swift block, and save us all the headache of having to constantly defend against the barrage of lies he keeps spreading. Esmeme (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For information, there has been a long dispute over the metamodernism article. It has ebbed to and fro with at least two socking users getting themselves indef blocked, and it is currently focused on two antagonists - Esmeme who posted here and ClaphamSix about whom they are complaining. Both are WP:SPA editors to date and inexperienced in Wikipedia's habitual ways. While one involved Admin suspects ClaphamSix is a sock, this user's very first edit was an appeal to the philosophy WikiProject to review the situation, so I think that suggestions of WP:NOTHERE need to be treated with caution.
    Although pots and kettles spring strongly to mind, especially with respect to harrassment and outing, both editors have so far been constructive in helping me work towards a resolution at Talk:Metamodernism and I'd suggest that this ANI is a bit premature. IMHO the less smoke and heat the better. I'd personally rather wait and see how things develop for a while. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Steelpillow, please take at look at Festal82's edit history, and his repeated baseless attempts to smear my name and accuse me of being various people associated with the article (which I am plainly not). There is no doubt in my mind that this new account is the same user, and his tactics are the same. The repeated, blatant violation of WP:OUTING is surely more than enough to warrant a ban. The discussion there has not so much "ebbed and flowed"--it has simply been Festal's sockpuppets trying to give the illusion of conflict in order to push a POV that only he holds. On the other hand, I believe you will see that my own behavior here has been nothing but exemplary (and that I did not make the edits he accuses me of), and I am now fairly familiar with wiki's processes, having had to deal with Festal's devious edits for many months. It should be clear that none of the banned sock accounts have any relation to me or the neutral POV I have tried to uphold. From your comments, it worries me that some of his mudslinging is having the desired effect, so I urge you to investigate every one of his statements, and I think you will find the majority turn out to be deviously misrepresenting the facts. We all welcome your input and that of other editors on the page, but these abusive and mudslinging sockpuppets need to be clamped down on. Esmeme (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to reassure you, I am not looking at unsubstantiated mudslinging as anything except just that. I have seen no serious suggestion that any of the socks was you. As yet, the suspicion that ClaphamSix is a sock of Festal82 remains unconfirmed, I am just not prepared to second-guess the outcome. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification Steelpillow, I appreciate your position entirely. What we can say at this stage is that the admin has stated that ClaphamSix is somebody's sock. Esmeme (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add that the user is back with more lies, bizarre WP:OUTING claims and disruptive screeds [25]. Please can someone take a look at this urgently, as the account is obscuring and severely disrupting the genuine efforts of editors there. Thanks. Esmeme (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple Hoaxes

    Hi. Hope this is the right place. User Minioletroj has been creating hoax articles of non existent footballers. If you look at their talk page there are a number of deletion notifications. I am not sure what the criteria are before blocking someone but can someone see if they merit a block? Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wayne Watkins is not a hoax, just a very poorly written article about someone potentially non-notable. See Google for evidence he exists. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I had earlier CSD'd one that was definitely a hoax and saw that Wayne Watkins was using similar references. My apologies Gbawden (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisP2K5

    ChrisP2K5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Addition of unsourced content to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) ([26]):

    • No source for "...Judge Judy, which had been removed from the WCBS lineup two years prior when WNBC-TV picked it up."
    • No source for "...as most of those stations filled those slots with talk shows, court shows, or syndicated reruns. BVT asked WCBS to reconsider, but they did not", and added in-between a statement referenced by the cite news link that is now after the unsourced statement
    • No source for "...with the only exceptions being WLS-TV and KABC-TV (the show airs on WPWR and KNBC in those markets)."

    User has recently been warned multiple times for adding unsourced content to other articles:

    And for warned for disruptive behavior in other recent edits:

    User repeatedly blocked between in 2008 and 2009 for edit warring and disruptive editing. Blocked indefinitely 9 April 2010, but given a second chance 27 September 2011 following multiple requests to be unblocked (User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive6#Notification). Within four months of unblock, user warned again for adding unreferenced information.

    Following unblock in 2011, user has clearly evidenced a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior and despite multiple warnings and 3RR noticeboard incidients, continues to engage in disruptive editing. AldezD (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    millionairetv.com is my source for listings. The Hollywood Reporter article cited clearly states WCBS was asked to consider another timeslot and it's clear they did not do so because the show left. The TV listings confirm Judge Judy had been airing on WNBC. I don't see the issue here, at least not with the first two facts. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We're well past the point on this wiki where it's okay to add unsourced content to the articles. Please add your sources when you add new content or make extensive changes to existing content. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain the info he removed was properly cited, at least where the airing stations and dropping of the show were concerned (which, as I said, is in the article). Since I don't currently have a guide to cite regarding Judge Judy, I'll withdraw my position until I do. And apologize for the editorializing regarding what was left. I will properly cite the millionairetv.com entry, but challenge the removal of the consideration request made by BVT because evidence already cited in the article says it happened. I will quote the portion of the article. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been around for well over five years (including blocked time). The user knows what is expected and what is appropriate behavior. Despite this, the user continues to make unsourced edits even after multiple warnings and does not follow WP:V. At what point is the disruptive behavior stopped? Is the user WP:COMPETENT to be a contributing member? AldezD (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits in this case were properly sourced, with the noted exception. Bears repeating. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I know nothing of the current dispute, but I wanted to add that there was a lengthy DRN which the user promptly violated and had to be warned repeated to stop (see past user talk page discussions here and here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrelevant to the current discussion, and I said in the DRN that I did not support the wording. Rewording the info, which I left intact otherwise, does not constitute a violation. You were also cited for multiple violations in that discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, hold on a minute. I was under the impression that the Millionaire local listing page had been taken down when AldezD challenged my sourcing of it claiming that WLS and KABC don't air Millionaire. The dropdown menu on the page says the show airs on WPWR in Chicago and KNBC in Los Angeles. If you cross-reference every O&O ABC has with the cities listed in the dropdown menu, you'll see that WPVI, KGO, KTRK, and WTVD all air the series. I can't help that there's no actual list, but the dropdown is the same as a list and it supports my contention, so what's really going on here? Even the Hollywood Reporter piece, which I introduced into the article to begin with if I'm not mistaken, clearly states that BVT sought a reconsidering of WCBS' position and since Millionaire switched stations the next season, it seems clear enough that the attempt failed. It's the last sentence before the cutoff. The only issue to me here is the inclusion of the Judge Judy piece and as I said, I withdraw until I can find sourceable info. So again, what's really going on here? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding the user's comment "The edits in this case were properly sourced, with the noted exception. Bears repeating.": The edit made by the user was not properly sourced. In this ANI the user mentions the drop down at millionairetv.dadt.com/local-listings/ as the source, but that source is not linked in the sections edited by the user. Even if that source was intended to be used for those edits, because the information is not static on the page and requires another user to verify information, some sort of notation discussing the dropdowns would likely be required using parameters within Template:Cite web.
    • Regarding the user's comment "Since I don't currently have a guide to cite regarding Judge Judy, I'll withdraw my position until I do.", the user has been warned three times within the past 90 days about adding unsourced content prior to this ANI. Withdrawing and/or claiming it was inappropriate to add that content to the target article only during the process of this ANI does not negate the fact that the user has engaged in a pattern of disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings and earlier blocks.
    • Even while this ANI discussion is going on—which is specific to the user's pattern disruptive behavior of adding unsourced information—the user made additional unsourced edits:

    AldezD (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the three edits on Millionaire done on 20 August (diff, diff, diff) included the addition of any sources. In fact placing new content immediately before an existing citation gives the illusion that the material has a citation when it may actually be unsourced. The presence of supporting citations elsewhere in the article is irrelevant; each piece of content should have a supporting citation immediately following. That's the current standard we are striving for, in our goal to become a world-class resource for our readers. ChrisP2K5, what you need to do is to start following that standard on every edit you undertake. That's the desired outcome of this report. Will you make a commitment to do that? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree at all that this is the desired outcome of this report. I believe the desired outcome is for AldezD to have me permablocked from editing. I find it just a little unsettling that he reverted an edit I made to my hometown's page. That's bordering on stalking, and I'm not going to accept that.

    I think that my additions to the article, especially with the cited info, prove that I have already made that commitment and my complete history of editing will show that.

    The last two edits you cited were largely a rewording of information that was already cited and in the article.

    As far as the Tournament of Ten thing goes, there were ten participants and considering I'm the one who added much of that information in the first place, specifically the list of the participants which I found through the about.com article, I don't see why it's irrelvant to the article to list the people who qualified, considering that it was the first time Millionaire did something like that.

    The info on the station list is reference #77. The info on the entire WCBS/Millionaire debate, including the asking for consideration which they obviously didn't get and had to move to another station, is marked as reference #75. As far as the readding of the time slot info, I removed it in advance of WABC changing its daytime lineup and moving Millionaire out of that 12:30 slot, which they've announced but haven't made official yet (they've begun airing commercials to that effect, but DADT hasn't changed the schedule info yet and likely won't until the move is made official), and thus it's ceasing to be accurate. I think my commitment to improving the wiki is more than made clear, if one is willing to take my entire editing history into account. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • "I find it just a little unsettling that he reverted an edit I made to my hometown's page. That's bordering on stalking, and I'm not going to accept that."—Further evidence of WP:BATTLE, an issue that lead to the user's earlier permanent block in 2010. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (What would you call it then? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • "I think that my additions to the article, especially with the cited info, prove that I have already made that commitment and my complete history of editing will show that."—The user's edit history clearly shows a pattern of making unsourced edits, even after the ANI was opened. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (I said my complete history, you're cherrypicking. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    (I wasn't talking to you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • "As far as the Tournament of Ten thing goes, there were ten participants and considering I'm the one who added much of that information in the first place, specifically the list of the participants which I found through the about.com article, I don't see why it's irrelvant to the article to list the people who qualified, considering that it was the first time Millionaire did something like that."—Again, WP:COMPETENCE, as the user fails to understand that information needs to be sourced.

    AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    --...which, if you could have been bothered to look, was. I introduced the info to the page with proper citation some time ago. The rest of my responses to you are noted in parentheses above. You made a claim I was adding unsourced data, I'm showing you where the sources are, that they were there beforehand, that I withdrew anything that might cause a problem, and that you jumped the gun. And instead of admitting your error in judgment and apologizing, you're continuing to badger me over it.

    As far as the sources you're so desperate for, you're welcome regarding two thirds of that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • "you're cherrypicking", "I wasn't talking to you", "you're continuing to badger me over it"—further evidence of the user's WP:BATTLE pattern of disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • When making edits that add unreferenced information, the user continues to claim references are either already in the article or were once there and had later been removed, but the user fails to understand basic principles of WP:V, and that any information added to the article must either accompany a reference or be tagged using WP:NAMEDREFS. AldezD (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying that, but where in the already cited sources is the info I have lacking? The dropdown menu on the already cited local listings page says Millionaire airs on every ABC O&O outside of two, as I've said. That's indisputable. The Hollywood Reporter article, which I added to the page some time ago, says that BVT made a request to WCBS to reconsider the dropping and since they sold Millionaire to WABC, the request proved unsuccessful. That's indisputable. And thus meets the verifiability criteria. You ARE cherrypicking information to support your case, I was talking to User:Diannaa and not you in the second portion of the argument, and if you aren't continuing to badger me over these two and the tournament of ten pieces that you falsely claim are uncited,.then what are you doing? I don't understand why we're still having this discussion and ask an admin to close it because all AldezD is doing is recycling the same three sourced items he claims are uncited and using them to try to get me permablocked because he wasn't successful in doing so over an earlier incident where he insisted on leaving inaccurate information on The Joker's Wild page because of difficulty with a potential COPYVIO violation. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm seeing here is a lack of understanding on your part of the need to add citations whenever you add content. The fact that you're denying that you added unsourced content shows that you still don't understand what you are doing wrong. I repeat: Every time you add content, you need to add a citation to your source. If the source is already used elsewhere in the article that's fine, use the same source again. If you don't know how, please refer to the content guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources, and for re-using sources, there's info at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. Could you please make a commitment to do this in the future? -- Diannaa (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know about using the same source more than once. I've done it multiple times before on various articles, and know how to use it. But here's the issue that I don't think you understand. I'm contending that when I'm using the source in the same sentence (as the Millionaire listing page and the request made by Buena Vista TV), to cite it twice back to back is redundant. If there is a significant gap, then sure, I'll note it more than once. But in the same sentences there's no point. If I'm doing something wrong by doing that I'll try to steer clear of it in the future, and please let me know if I'm not steering clear. Bottom line, the station list is cited properly, the tournament is cited properly, and all the info I could glean from the WCBS fiasco is cited properly. If there's info in there that's challengeable (which these are not), then it should be removed until it can be verified. That's the way I see it and I think that we all should see it this way and close the discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When I'm using the source in the same sentence (as the Millionaire listing page and the request made by Buena Vista TV)"—That source was not in the sentences the user revised in the edits from 20 August.
    • "The station list is cited properly"—No reference to the station list was included in the user's edit.
    • "To cite it twice back to back is redundant"—This is the crux of the issue and why WP:NAMEDREFS is used.
    After multiple requests by an admin to commit to adding references, the user acknowledges the request and agrees to comply—then changes position in the same response and says it is not necessary and/or redundant to include named references when making edits that (in the user's opinion) are supported by citations elsewhere in the article. AldezD (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisP2K5, if you add content to the same sentence that already has the source at the end of the sentence, you don't need to add the source again. But you could mention your source in the edit summary. If the source is already present in the article, please use named refs, as already discussed. If the source is a new one, add the source at the time you add the content. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Belfield

    Please could I request that an administrator looks at the recent history of the article on Alex Belfield. In the month of August this year the article has suffered from repeated disruptive editing by IP users, who persistently remove fully cited references with raw urls and change consistent date formats into inconsistent date formats. The IP users also regularly change his surname "Belfield" to "Alex" and introduce unsourced and poorly sourced promotional style content into the article. Would it be appropriate for me to request page protection for this article? Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It would. I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. If this recurs, the place to request protection is WP:RFPP. Although disruptive, I don't think the IP edits were intended as vandalism, and I see that they have not been given any warnings or explanation. I will do that. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for you assistance with this. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc.

    User:Newmancbn is a new editor edit-warring over several religious articles, adding OR, restoring copyvio in at least one article after it was deleted by User:Diannaa (he responded to her warning with " You are not prejudice are you?" - he's also suggested other editors are racist). Everyone is entitled and in fact has a pov, but this editor is pushing it. There's been a long discussion at Talk:Israelites about RS, OR etc which he has basically ignored. I took him to AN3 earlier and wasn't planning to come here until I discovered that he's going through about 50 articles changing "Yahweh" to "YHWH" because he thinks that "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation" and "linguistically insipid". He's been warned on his talk page by several editors and Admins besides me. His changes include [27] at Origins of Judaism where he changed "the worship of Yahweh" to "the worship of YHWH" which is a major content change, not a linguistic change. At Asherah he made a similar change (Canaanite deity to YHWH) which again is a major content change and changes to quotations. I haven't yet had time to go through all the articles he's changed. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted his addition to Tetragrammaton, where he wrote in the middle of the article "his is an article from the Christian perspective and should use links to their terms." Not on the talk page, in the middle of an article. I'm thinking we need at least a topic ban covering at least Judeo-Christian topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Needs a block to slow him down. His edit notes and comments on talk are arrogant and claim personal authority on these matters; he doesn't seem to understand the importance of WP:VERIFY and WP:CONSENSUS and should be leashed until he does. Has aggressively made major changes and edit warred to keep them in. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also edit-warring at The Exodus and Ipuwer Papyrus to insert a religious fringe theory. Zerotalk 14:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And Tetragrammaton, though he's quit re-adding the comment about the article being a Christian article. For the record, despite suggesting a topic ban, I'm fine if he's just indef'ed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and blocked them for 24 hours since they continued to edit destructively and got enough warnings. Anybody is welcome to overrule me and to reduce or to increase the duration of this block if there is consensus in this discussion to do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I really don't think that will change his behavior, although the block was clearly a good block. I'm also thinking a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the idea was to at least minimize the damage. A topic ban seems to be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a case to be made for YHWH, since no on knows how it was pronounced. Yahweh is a made-up word just as Jehovah is. However, convention has been Yahweh for a long time now, so an editor ought not defy consensus like a bull in a china shop. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is someone who's been registered since 2011, despite only editing sporadically, new? Blackmane (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Less than 50 edits prior to the spring of this year. Could be just now getting back into it, or could be an alternate account. Has any other editor been doing this during the last year or so? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends if we're looking at good hand bad hand accounts. It'd be quite painful to have to scour 50 articles if that is the case. Blackmane (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did miss his earlier handful of edits. Hard to say whether he's made other edits using another account or IP. I've seen similar edits but couldn't trace them now, but they could be anyone. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Newmancbn

    By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, Newmancbn (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all articles relating to the Tanakh/Old Testament, Abrahamic religions, and pre-Constantinian Mesopotamian, Levantine, and Mediterranean cultures, religions, civilizations, mythologies, and nations. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I formally propose that Newmancbn be topic banned from all articles relating to the Tanakh/Old Testament, Abrahamic religions, and pre-Constantinian Mesopotamian, Levantine, and Mediterranean cultures, religions, civilizations, mythologies, and nations; due to his tendentious editing and edit warring in articles and talk pages such as Talk:Israelites, Ipuwer Papyrus, The Exodus, and Tetragrammaton; as well as repeated indications that he seeks to push a POV he believes to be "the" Christian one ([28], [29], [30]). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I would be open removing the Abrahamic religions from the topic ban provided he agrees to a 1rr ban on all articles, since the other portions cover what he's been messing with so far. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't think a 1RR ban will stop him from the massive changes he's made, both quickly going through articles (he could do that daily), and the way he makes very large content changes with one edit and then covers the talk page with walls of text. His unblock request is basically "I'm right - you're wrong and prejudiced". Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, on second thought, it wouldn't really help. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's looking like we've got a consensus here, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    @Newmancbn: Since the above conversation has been closed this belongs on your talk page underneath the notice that The Bushranger left you. I am going to suggest that you move it there. If you don't someone else may come along and do so - or they may remove it entirely. Just a suggestion and you may proceed as you wish but IMO this isn't helping your case. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that threats of canvassing/meatpuppetry won't win you any points. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Bushranger the Zionist Israeli scholars I may be amassing would be qualified Israeli scholars from Hebrew University and Bar Ilan university so I don't think that is the same as 'meatpuppetry'/edit vandalism --Newmancbn (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also breaking his topic ban at WP:AN. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

    Two and a half years ago (February 2012) user:Skäpperöd made some major contributions to Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) [31]. After an intense discussion with User:Volunteer Marek and user:MyMoloboaccount (From Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Recent edits down to Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Another problem with sources) a compromise was reached, which led to a stable version for 2,5 years. Different viewpoints (the topic is one of the traditional Polish-German conflicts) were presented in a neutral manner, opinions were clearly marked as such and attributed. As a secondary product of that discussion the ref section featured large quotations of the sources. These quotations were provided because Marek asked for them.Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)#Sources; [32] [33]

    In August 2014 Marek returned to the article and deleted more or less every single addition Skäpperöd had made two years ago. He argued, that “block quotes” should be avoided (those quotations he had asked for in Feb. 2012) and deleted not only the quotations but the whole sourced info from the article. He regards a critical view of a monument erected in post-war Poland as WP:Cherrypicking and in general anything not supporting his POV as WP:UNDUE.

    I have removed the quotations from the ref section and some minor problematic parts (though WP:TRUTH wouldn't require that). However Marek, who was joined by Moloboaccount [34], continued to delete what he doesn't like [35] [36] [37] and ignored my attempts to find a compromise in a detailed discussion [38]. He was supported by MyMoloboaccount, who blindly reverted to VM's version and declared that the reasons to remove large parts of the article had already been explained [39].

    In my opinion his "reasons" to delete large portions of the article are actually just attempts to mask WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and the way he ignores attempts to find a compromise are typical WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

    I had started a request at WP:DRN which was closed without a real response[40], unfortunately my patience in waiting for some neutral input was mistaken as "stasis". HerkusMonte (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately Herkus doesn't want a dispute resoluation as he stated that this is a "waste of time"[41], even when advised to seek mediation by the closing admin, which he didn't pursue.
    Herkus accusations found no response on DRN after people he accused responded.It's just an attempt to reignite a case that was already ignored.
    Herkus is incorrect in stating that there was a "compromise"-the article was simply left alone.
    I don't believe that sources that were used by Herkus and are based on writings by people like Werner Conze or Theodor Schieder both of whom were dedicated Nazis propagating ideas of German supremacy, nationalism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against Poles should be used as sources for articles about Polish-German history. We had issues before where such sources were repeatedly removed and Herkus is aware of them, having participated in defending them before and naming such publications as "highly reputable"[42], which was not accepted by WP:RSN and such sources are not considered reliable. Contrary to what Herkus claims, I have not "blindly" reverted but explained why Nazis shouldn't be used for source for Polish history[43].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you are unaware of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is perfectly reasonable to say that citations from such authors should not be allowed to dominate articles. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Saying that sources by post-war West German academics are unreliable does not seem reasonable. Saying that they have a minority point of view that needs to be balanced by what is the currently accepted mainstream point of view, is reasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ay. First, it's not very nice to condescendingly lecture long established users about WP:NPOV using passive agressive language like "apparantly you are unaware..." Second, this is a content dispute, not "disruptive editing" as in the misleading section title, so why is this at AN/I? Because Herkus didn't like the closure at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (I sympathize)? Hence, while your comments may be irrelevant, this isn't the venue for them. Third, if we are going to talk content, then yes, you are precisely right: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" The whole problem was that this is NOT what the article was doing. It was presenting minority sources in disproportion to their relevance, like including extensive quotes and text from an author whose (self published?) analysis contradicts established consensus of historians on the subject. That's one example. Another is the overly extensive use of works one of whose listed co-authors is a (perhaps mildly reformed) ex-Nazi. I mean, ok, if we take WP:UNDUE seriously then maybe, just maybe, we include something to represent this "minority point of view". But not for most of article. Apparently you are unaware of Wikipedia:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, that these "extensive quotes", which were not part of the main body but just mentioned within the ref section, were provided because Volunteer Marek asked for them. These quotations have been removed meanwhile but VM still keeps deleting content which was based on these sources. VM is not even trying to rewrite or whatever might be necessary to improve the article, he just deletes large portions of the article (in fact, German research only).What Marek calls "minority views" are actually just scholary views not supporting the traditional Polish POV, while they are not at all a minority in Germany. VM and Molobo are also still refusing to discuss in detail what might be a step to improve the article based on WP:COMPROMISE and WP:CONSENSUS, instead they are pushing through their version. The "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and the "repeated disregard of other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is certainly disruptive and not just a content dispute. The usage of different policies (UNDUE, CHERRY) is actually just a random listing without any precise rationale (WP:GAMING).
    As a reaction to this request Molobo followed one of my latest edits at Template:Did you know nominations/Mendelsohn house, which had already passed the DYK process and added a (not even a , right into NO) falsely claiming that a certain fact was not supported by the sources. Actually everything is well sourced and easily accessible. Adding "unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable" is also a matter of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.
    Regarding the disputed source. I already suggested to bring it to WP:RSN but Molobo carefully omits such a step. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nazi sources have been debated already before on RSN and the consensus is that they are not reliable sources for information on Polish history, Herkus is well aware of that as he participated in these discussions[44],[45] and his attempts to defend them as source for articles on Polish history were rejected by the community. Herkus's edits on Mendelsohn house included unsourced claims that Poland destroyed Jewish cemetery because it was anti-semitic. Such claim obviously requires a good, reliable source which I requested.I have worked with Herkus DYU nominations before, and unfortunately sometimes they violate NPOV, take for example last nomination and article written by Herkus[46],[47], which presented a nationalist racist activist as opponent of Hitler, while completely absent of information about his involvement in biological warfare and terrorism and racism which I had to add to the article[48].Current nomination unfortunately follows the pattern, with strong claims remaining unsourced and organizations named in the article as having "unbiased research" implying those with opposing views are biased.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PS:Do note, that the closing admin on DRN suggested to Herkus to take this issue to formal mediation[49], which Herkus refused to do so, claiming such efforts are a "waste of time"[50]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We are talking about a book by Hartmut Boockmann, Professor at the Universities of Kiel (1975-1982), Göttingen (1982-1992, 1995-1998)) and Berlin (1992-1995), an expert in Eastern European medieval history and especially the history of the Teutonic Knights. To describe Boockmann's publications as "Nazi sources" is simply unbelievable. Consequently, your "examples" above refer to a completely different book (which I never used, btw; I just participated in a RSN discussion).
    This is not the place to discuss the Mendelsohn House. Every single detail is based on sources: the destruction of the remains of the Jewish cemetery in 1968 as well as the role of the Borussia Foundation, which received the Lev Kopelev Prize [51] in 2004 because of their attempt to research the local history unbiased and without the traditional taboos of Polish postwar historiography. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.
    Regarding Rudolf Nadolny: I'm not going to answer your unbelievable assumption of bad faith, however your statement shows that your recent contribution wasn't accidental but you purposefully followed my edits in order to add an completely unjustified "citation needed" tag (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) and a without even trying to resolve whatever you might regard problematic. You are constantly repeating your claim that I used "Nazi sources" in the past and that I was warned about it [52][53] [54], which is a) utter nonsense and b) offensive. I already told you that I regard this a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK.
    WP:HOUNDING is described as: "If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Are you aware of that policy? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Taboos of Polish postwar historiography"? Oh dear, this is obvious heavy POV.
    And we are talking about a book co-written by Werner Conze who "envisioned a social policy based on racialist principles in German "Lebensraum"; he demonstrated his concepts on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where he accused Polish peasants and their "petty peasant instincts" of revolting against "German order". In doing so Conze mixed his deprecating views with empirical results and transferred racialist concept of society to agrarian situation in Central and Eastern Europe. He viewed Polish population as "degenerated" and engaged in "vegetative reproduction", and blamed lack of social progress of rural population on Jews"
    The book btw is based on sources from Nazi Germany such as Theodore Schieder's publication from 1941 or Rode's from 1944. Now Schieder "During the Nazi era he pursued a racially oriented social history (Volksgeschichte) and warned about the supposed dangers of Germans mixing with other nations.[4] The primary purpose of Schieder's research was to justify alleged German supremacy.He was the author of the "Memorandum of 7 October 1939",[6][7] calling for expulsion of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians and other nationalities from Eastern Europe in order to create "room" for German settlers.[4][8] His suggestions were later incorporated in the German Generalplan Ost".
    These authors are well known Nazis who aren't reliable sources of information on Polish history.
    As to" You are constantly repeating your claim that I used "Nazi sources" in the past and that I was warned about it [55][56] [57], which is a) utter nonsense and b) offensive"
    I will just point as an example that you inserted a reprint of map by Nazi Walter Kuhn and were warned about it are you seriously trying to put in a map based on the work of a Nazi propagandist into the article?
    The Nazi Walter Kuhn"
    tried to determine "biological strength" of German peasants and pointed out the "weakness" of "intermarrying with Slavs" which could lead to "de-Germanisation".[2] Kuhn viewed himself and his colleagues as "bearers of civilization" and his goal as "to transform the instinctive feeling of superiority and pride towards the surrounding peoples(...)into a true national consciousness".[2] He also published works regarding Poland which were aimed at presenting its western territories as German[6]"There are many publications in Germany Herkus. You tend to support and defend a fringe minority that is either connected to or written by Nazis like Kuhn or Conze. Why not choose from hundreds or thousands of publications that have no Nazi connections? Nobody will oppose insertion of trustworthy, reliable sources not connected to Nazis or nationalism.
    add an completely unjustified "citation needed" tag. An unsourced claim stating that Poland destroyed Jewish cemeteries because it was anti-semitic is rather a heavy accusation that requires good reliable sources Herkus. A request for citation for such a claim is neither "endentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" but a perfectly justified request.
    Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not getting more true just because you repeat it on and on. Hartmut Boockmann was the leading expert in Eastern European medieval history. To delete his publications would ignore a significant part of modern scholary research, which seems to be the purpose of all this. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with "new" user

    Indefinitely blocked as an advertising only account - all his edits since his first in May 2007 have been promotional. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's some shenanigans going on with Thies (talk · contribs). They keep recreating the same article, and then when it is tagged for speedy deletion, they immediately move it to their userspace. They have created the same article today under at least two different titles and pulled the same game with both. I asked them on their talk page why they moved the first article, the response was that they got confused, but then they've repeated the same action after that. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not new, he's been promoting his software since May 2007. Indefinitely blocked as an advertising only account. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Coordinated vandalism on music articles

    Just a heads-up: over the last couple of days, there has been a wave of vandalism from new accounts (probably 4chan or something like that) changing the genre of children's music groups to death metal, and changing death metal groups to children's music. Please be aware and revert/block on sight. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editor

    User:Simonmana has been reverting my changes [58], reinstating info that is clearly against WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NONENGEL, ignoring my edit summaries where I explain this. Eik Corell (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not against WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:NONENGEL other Articles have this kind of information
    WP:VGSCOPE sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry
    WP:NONENGEL Outside of citations,external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English. Simonmana (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Simonmana, Eik Corell is right. Your edits are violating WP:GAMEGUIDE (there is no need for Wikipedia to detail the scoring details) nor is there any need to provide the non-English language websites you've been adding when an English language one exists and the official one in the original language exists. Stop edit warring, both of you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not state that a scoring is uninmportant considering its a vital part of the games mechanics.And those are official sites of S4 league regardless of language. Simonmana (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving details on how many points you get by doing something in a game is a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE and it doesn't matter how many official sites there are in other languages, this is the English Wikipedia and if there's anything beyond the original language and English then it doesn't matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Might as well delete the page if its going to be an unfinished censored mess then. Simonmana (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the removal of the official sites. Since in most cases only the English and the one from the country or origin is included. I also don't see trying to equate removing gameguide material with censorship as helping your case since that term has a specific meaning that does not apper to apply here.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Simonmana talk has repeatedly placed and restored a speedy deletion tag on S4 League apparently as a tantrum against the current AfD on that article. The article clearly exceeds the standard for A7 deletion and I have declined speedy twice, but he has again restored it and I cannot revert again without violating 3RR. An administrator look would be appreciated. Safiel (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for requesting this whole thing is dragging along too slow.Simonmana (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the A7 It's been removed multiple times and I think it's best to let the AFD run through.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we can just let the AfD run its course.--Nowa (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Simonmana is presently disrupting Wikipedia because he lacks the maturity to contribute constructively. I requested multiple times that he properly indent in the AFD and even fixed the indents only to be met with this. I believe that he is not here to contribute constructively anymore and should be blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see i am fully capable of Indenting if i wanted to add them i would have.Your edit was unwanted so i removed it simple.I am here to contribute the problem is you are in my way. Simonmana (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you're just violating WP:POINT amongst other rules. You were told your edits were wrong in various places yet you persisted in making them. Calm down and let people look at the article rather than feel like you're being attacked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I let people look at it some even vandalised it.I do not feel like iam being attack.but the article is being scrutinized by you and others.Guidlines are Guidelines they can be ignored. Simonmana (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They can only be ignored if there's a good reason for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the guideline states in the first place that it is circumstansial.I dont like using other games as a point(nor do wiki guidelines aperently ), but it really is the only way.Alot of other games have huge lists for expample the character list for Mass Effect,but it states that such list are unneeded yet a popular often visited (i would presume) wikipage has a guideline diviation or violation (depending on how you see how absulute a certain guideline is).Another example is the wikipage for WoW.It has its own soundtrack page and asubscription page (the later of which i am positive is against the rules).Another is Ever quest its goes too deep into the games classes something the wiki guidelines dont by your definition permit.And ofcourse that isnt a reason for us to do the same thing ,but then again your argument for removing is that it isnt interesting to you( ie notable) well if you played the game you would know that everything in the wikipage is true.We arent here to provide false information about the game.Welp that should be enough if it isnt go play it.Simonmana (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The characters of Mass Effect are a major part of the game. The scoring system on a free to play MMO which has no critical coverage anywhere are not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How major something is is subjective.None of the charachters in Mass effect are major for me since i havent played the series yet it isdor someone who hasSimonmana (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough of this bullshit. Simonmana is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He should be blocked immediately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please dont use vulgar language.I am not here to fight with you or do i seek conflict of any kind.I am here to build an encyclopedia and i have done it multiple times only to be met with your persistant actions of removal.Please dont take it as a personal attack against you.Simonmana (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but engage in petty vandalism and edit war. I think Ryulong is right. This is getting tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be right except that edit was not intentional hence why it wasnt repeated.But you failed to see that.And if you looked at me as you claim you would know i had and still have no reason to vandalise something like papa YGs entertainment company wikipage.In short claim is invalid.Simonmana (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Esteban And Company

    Hi, editor Esteban And Company claims on their user page to have an admin account and I was hoping an admin could look into this. Some of his recent edits are unsourced[59][60], dubious[61], and incorrect[62]), which suggests that he is attempting to pass himself off as an admin. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the admin and checkuser icons from the page along with the statement until information is presented tying the account to an account with admin/checkuser rights. GB fan 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to resolve it. Chillum 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the SPI results can be found here.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at Rape statistics

    NAC: IP blocked by Chillum for edit-warring Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An IP editor [63] is repeatedly removing material cited to Amnesty International from the article on the basis that AI is using a "non existent study" to support its statistics. The IP provides no evidence of this but just repeatedly asserts it ("You're quoting the article, but the study mentioned by the article can't be found. You're quoting a non-existing study"). It's not obvious vandalism since the IP may well sincerely believe what s/he is saying, so I don't want to break 3RR, but the edit warring needs to be stopped and, IMO, should not be rewarded. I have read the source and left a detailed discussion of it on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attack

    Situation appears to be resolved. No admin action required.  Philg88 ♦talk 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, User:Moonraker™ has made an unprovoked attack on me when vandalising the Manchester United page, which was brought to my knowledge by a very useful Wiki editor. Here is the message that alerted me of this, [Also, you need to revert User:Moonraker™'s last edit to the Manchester United F.C. article as not only has he undone several days' worth of edits, he's also clearly acting in violation of WP:POINT. – PeeJay 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)] And here is the link to it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=622113319&oldid=622094224 Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User was warned and the edit has been reverted. I'd suggest that both of you stick to editing, and if you disagree on something, let's take it to the talk page instead of jabs in the edit summary. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100%, and I am not perfect far from it but just what jab did I make? Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Know more about United then you mate. isn't exactly the nicest way to say that you disagree ;) Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well it wasn't meant like you think and as I said above his was unprovoked, can't say the same for mine. Does that make it right no but do I deserve to be attacked when I am volunteering here and taking my own time to help keep these articles as best as they can be. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We're all volunteers, and each editor deserves the same amount of respect. He was warned, you haven't been - I'd suggest moving on and continuing those awesome contributions of yours :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed and thank you for taking the time to look into the report, I appreciate it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Various user accusations

    There is nothing for an admin to do here, at least not until the WP:BOOMERANG starts flying, which I think can be avoided by early closure. To summarize: please don't refactor others' comments unless...well, I don't know, but there was nothing wrong with Duff's. And if you do it once, you probably shouldn't do it again. And if you do it again, you probably shouldn't come here to complain about it. Perhaps Duff was hasty in saying "bad faith", but your refactoring certainly was bad manners. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently i asked the user Duffbeerforme politely if he would participate in a proposal. He indeed did, however, the first thing he done was to accuse me of venue shopping, and appeared in his arguments, to ignore the entire previous proposal discussion. He also posted his comment at the bottom of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=622006484&oldid=621935959), with each of his several assumptions in a single line, thus i removed the blank spaces, and moved his comment in the discussion space. Today, i retracted my proposal, when he claimed in his edit summary, where he again posted his comment in single lines(though this time not at the bottom of the page) that i would act in bad faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)&diff=next&oldid=622123693). I tried to explain to Duftbeerforme, that i brought it into line with all the other comments. He then went to my user page and accused me of disruptive behavior.I one time reverted his edit, including a proper summary and comment into the discussion space, why. However, he went on to ask me again why i did this. After i told him that i did not edit/delete his comments, instead just changed the layout, he claimed i would lie (See my talk page).

    I have no idea what's wrong with this user, i never had contact with him before. There are no reasons to bring up so many accusations, and which are baseless. I took a look at WP:Forum shopping, and it should be obvious that my proposal does not apply to this rule, nor my actions. This should be clear to everyone who participated in the discussion. I assume the user did not even bothered to read previous discussions. I would ask the board for an interaction ban. Thank you. --prokaryotes (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    prokaryotes repeatedly refactored my comment from discrete points presented separately to a strange run on mess. That is not acceptable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing the layout is editing the comment. Duff is correct to say so. Is there a good reason for refactoring Duff's comments? Reyk YO! 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He posted it in a manner which was not easy to follow up, there was a section above as well, just take a look at the edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=622006484&oldid=621935959). However, i don't see how this qualifies to state i act in bad faith or lie or his claim i would venue shopping.He also claimed it was disruptive editing, which also does not apply. I done one edit, two days ago and one revert today. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP:46.229.193.141

    Hi, I need some administrator intervention, according to the manual of style, we are not a programming guide, I have tried to remove any information that violates policy is wikipedia, but all it does ip is reverse my edits without any reason, and in my edit summary've clearly put, because I have removed this information.

    Here I give some links: La impostora, I'm talking about this. If you look at the contributions of the ip, they will realize that all it does is revertirme without explanation. I do not want to violate the rule of the 3 reversals, so I'm asking for help because they do not know.

    Ohter articles:

    1. Mentir para Vivir: Revision history
    2. Rosa diamante: Revision history
    3. The House Next Door (telenovela): Revision history
    4. Corazón valiente: Revision history
    5. Santa Diabla: Revision history

    There are many more items where the same thing is happening, I have not left any messages since the user; perhaps ignore, really do not know what to do. If they could protect the items or something.--Damián (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide notes

    Sez the pink box: If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What do we do with these such as this one here Talk:Suicide#Going_to_commit_suicide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm says to take all threats seriously. I have sent an email to emergency@wikimedia -- Diannaa (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eyes on Zoe Quinn

    Could we get some people watching Zoe Quinn, and possibly even more restrictive protection? It was previously set at admin-only which got people discussing at Talk:Zoe Quinn, but now that it's set to autoconfirmed users we've got a lot of back and forth reverting and serious WP:BLP violations. In particular, User:Crisis has been adding controversial statements based on a porn site and Know Your Meme, Reddit, and Imgur, and even blatantly misrepresenting a source. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    First, thank you for notifying me, second, I'd also like to call attention to the article myself, as anything that seems to be remotely negative about Miss Quinn is being removed citing unreliable sources or allegations, which is interesting seeing as one of the things removed was a blog from Quinn herself alluding to the allegations (TLDR: (Redacted)) Crisis.EXE 04:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a better solution than full protection would be the blocking of the problem users/issuing them one final warning and noting that if they add material like that into the article again they will be blocked. Let's not shut down the whole castle because a servant did something wrong. Added Note: It appears an admin just issued that final warning so if they revert again...well... Tutelary (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind that I'm involved here, so I can't make any administrative actions regarding the article. I won't be blocking anybody here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this is also at RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crisis blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations. Negative material sourced to reddit and a porn site are just beyond the pale and with this edit it is clear that Crisis intends to continue.--v/r - TP 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally wouldn't have blocked in this situation (if I were an admin, but I'm not), but it's on you. Since after the final warning Mr. Stradivarius gave him, he didn't revert again. Essentially a softer version of WP:ROPE (since they aren't blocked yet), where if they did just one more revert...they would've been blocked. But redundant now. Tutelary (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you were an admin, you should have blocked for it. I've revdeleted the porn stuff; I don't know if there's more in the history that needs removing. Thanks for blocking, TParis. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a pass back as far as the 16th and revdel'd a mess of stuff, but the links you got were likely the worst of it. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. Kudos for taking swift action. We shouldn't allow that sort of nonsense to continue any longer once the pattern of behaviour was identified. Daniel (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand WP:BLP, you seem quite personally invested in this particular issue too, is it possible that you don't like Zoe Quinn? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith.72.89.93.110 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of the article is currently being targeted for harrassment by users of 4chan and reddit, and they're doing their best to spread their campaign to Wikipedia. There's a great deal of back and forth on the Talk page which ranges from the tendentious to the straight up BLP-violating, and the intervention of an uninvolved administrator would be very much appreciated. While much of what is being debated is a content dispute, the rate of unsupportable claim are becoming rapidly unmanagable for most editors. 1.124.49.77 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --j⚛e deckertalk 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In connection to this mess, Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation (Fish' previous company) have just been hacked in relationship to Fish' strong opinion on the Quinn matter. Those pages might see activity similar to the Quinn ones, but nothing yet that I immediately see. Just documenting this in case that needs admin help --MASEM (t) 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Am more a reader than an editor, but wanted to say it's cool to see the encyclopedic integrity of the page being protected with such patience and civility and attentiveness from veteran Wikipedians during this onslaught of attention. I feel like I'm learning more about Wikipedia just by observing. 173.239.141.98 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Бучач-Львів

    After I undid the edit of this user in Kiev replacing Kiev with Kyiv (note that the topic was discussed extensively at the talk page, even having ts own subpage Talk:Kiev/naming, where I referred them to), he went to my talk page first leaving me a message in Ukrainian which I do not speak [64], which, if I get it correctly, says that Russians should not edit articles about Ukraine. When I complained that I do not understand they left another message in Russian [65] developing the same idea in more detail: if I am a "good" Russian I should change Kiev to Kyiv, and if I am "bad" Russian he does not want to lose time educating me, but he agrees not to change Moskva to Maskva. I feel that the discussion goes nowhere, and I do not see a single many constructive contributions of this user in a couple of months, so that may be someone (best not Russian) can teach them manners.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just undid the same sort of spelling variant change at Kiev Mountains. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dropped them a note and a "don't do it!" warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also this edit, where this user removes a request by JerzyL (talk · contribs) to rid the English Wikipedia of "stupid" 'Kiev' and to replace it with 'Kyiv' and then starts acting on it in the subsequent edits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 21, 2014; 12:07 (UTC)
    Now the user has responded at their talk page, and I am afraid we have a case of WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment:: [66] says:
    "What've you, nothing better to do, brother Slav? This is the Ukrainian capital we're talking about, after all; whereas you've your Moscow. (unclear): That should be quite enough for you."
    It Is Me Here t / c 12:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess (unclear) means "have", but I am not sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HBC AIV helperbot11

    Moved to Bot owners' noticeboard. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:HBC AIV helperbot11 is malfunctioning. Kept removing my report about an IP from WP:AIV claiming the IP has been blocked indef when it is not blocked and continues to vandalize. HkCaGu (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has been blocked by CambridgeBayWeather and article semi protected. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bot believed the IP to be blocked because the outdated Perl code does not handle unexpected Unicode in an IP address very well. Specifically, in your report, your {{IPvandal|58.97.142.152}} contained a Unicode E2 80 83 character at the end of the IP address before the closing braces. Google says this is apparently an "em space", which is invisible while editing the page, but still present - probably something you copied in from somewhere. The bot rendered it as "58.97.142.152â" in the logs, which caused it to erroneously match against other blocks and think the IP was blocked when it hadn't been. In the future, my advice is to re-enter your report by hand (without copy/pasting or reverting) if one of the helperbots repeatedly removes it. —Darkwind (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Edumacater

    User:Edumacater a new contributor, has been spamming multiple articles with conspiracy-theory material concerning the Rothchilds, the French revolution, the Illuminati and similar nonsense, either unsourced, or (after being warned about unsourced additions [67]), citing a crackpot conspiracy website [68] I'll not bother with diffs, as Edumacater's entire edit history is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that s/he is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Administrator. I have not violated any of the terms of services of wikipedia, and I am well within my rights to post factual information. If posters do not like my information, they are welcome to remove parts of it that they say is untrue. It is a violation of my rights as a user of wikipedia to be "shown the door" as the arrogant user above states. If he has a problem with facts that he doesn't like, Wikipedia is not the website for him. (Edumacater) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edumacater (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under a fundamental misapprehension as to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have no 'rights' to do anything here - this is a privately-owned website, and individuals are permitted the privilege of contributing only as long as they do so in the interests of the encyclopaedia. And filling it with the same old half-baked conspiracy-nonsense that has been crawling the sewers of the 'civilised' world for the last few hundred years certainly isn't doing anything remotely encyclopaedic. Sadly, there are still plenty of forums where such drivel is considered acceptable - I suggest you find one, and slither off there, where you will no doubt feel at home... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Edumacater:: Although the word "right" really has no place, as a member of this community, you do have the ability to suggest edits to try and obtain wP:CONSENSUS for them. This ability remains yours as long as a) the suggested edits are properly sourced to a provider that is considered by the community to be reptutable, and b) as long as other community members concur that the edits belong. Also, we do not necessarily accept "truth" (it's so subjective), we accept verifiable. By submitting anything, you agree that it might be rejected. You also have agreed to the Bold, Revert, Discuss process as a way to achieve consensus, with the understanding that in the long run, your specific edits to a topic may never be accepted by consensus. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the problems I had with Edumacater is that his text additions are too often inserted without context, breaking the flow and introducing irrelevancies. This is an outstanding example of how a sentence of Illuminati stuff was slapped onto an otherwise Illuminati-free article. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So pointless: just like Chuck Norris, the Illuminati are actually a part of every single Wikipedia article, even if they're not specifically mentioned the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Scholarly referenced content is being removed on Shudra

    This is with reference to this discussion on Talk:Shudra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shudra#Scholarly_referenced_content_on_this_page_is_being_removed.

    I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion. The editor @Sitush: instead of considering the research evidence provided is reverting the edits made by me. The article involves contentious material, including the use of the word "untouchable", a word considered illegal by article 17 of Indian constitution, and needs to be reverted to my cautiously phrased, neutral and evidence-backed edit. Since any change I make to this page would be reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest, to denigrate a large mass of Indian population (it has been a victim of oppression for centuries) which the Mandal Commission set up by Indian government estimates as constituting 52% of the Indian population. I think a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia is a serious problem and needs to be tackled at the earliest. Since I have already spent a lot of time and energy in convincing this editor who has no research backing his claims, and who makes sloppy statements like "we have spoken to a few lawyer-type people, they have told us the use of the word 'untouchable' does not constitute a crime" when I give him links to the article in the constitution (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1987997/)as well as an Encyclopedia Britannica entry (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618508/untouchable) I think responsible administrators should intervene and stop this horrible misuse and abuse of wikipedia by vested interests.

    See diffs

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621632984&oldid=621632225

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621633114&oldid=621633059

    My final edit every statement of which is backed by research evidence, some provided in the article itself and some provided on Talk:Shudra:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621635879&oldid=621633395

    I hope the responsible administrators here will take speedy action, and restore my balanced edit. Thanks. -Spark121212 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators do not get involved in content disputes - your edit issues seem to be a basic follow of WP:CONSENSUS. You're required to discuss potential changes on the article talkpage, otherwise follow dispute resolution processes the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We do get involved in matters of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, though, as you have been repeatedly told, Spark121212. It's funny how you seem incapable of discussing this, even here on ANI, without assuming conspiracies and disreputable motives ("reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest", "a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia"), no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's inappropriate. You're new, and I don't want to block you, but really, what's so hard? Please re-read my comments on your talkpage. And please re-read Sitush's explanations, too. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen:When did I attack anyone? My edits were reverted without any explanation, which is what made me question the motives of the editor. When you told me that I discuss the matter in good faith, I withdrew my statement, and discussed it extensively on Talk:Shudra. I have provided research evidence for all my claims, Sitush has provided none, and still his edit stays, and there is no response to my last comment on the Talk page. What am I supposed to make of this maintenance of the status quo? If you were really fair you would see that Sitush has lost the argument, he has no evidence for his claims, and would revert to my edit, or at least discuss the specific problems you may have with my edit. Instead you are trying to condescend by calling me "new", and saying "I don't want to block you", as if there is a reason for you block me, and asking me to re-read arguments which I have convincingly refuted. Again, what would I again by assuming bad faith and assuming disreputable motives? You are NOT addressing the real issue which is the Shudra article. If you say there is a consensus on the article as it currently exists you have to show me research evidence on which this consensus is based, otherwise all this talk of "consensus" is just hot air. From your comment it is clear that 1.You don't want to engage with the discussion on Shudra Talk page 2.You cannot see that Sitush has provided no research evidence, and therefore his claims are empty 3. You want to maintain status quo and let the article stay as it is. 4. You want to make an issue of my assuming bad faith which is a NON ISSUE, I am assuming bad faith because of points 1,2 and 3. It is regrettable that an intellectual discussion to reach consensus has been reduced to a power struggle ("Look we are the senior editors here, you are new, we can block you".
    Now that I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion on Shudra Talk page, I would like to know from you or @Sitush:, once and for all, whether you will revert to my evidence-backed edit or not -- and if not, why not? I hope you/Sitush will provide an honest answer and not filibuster again by throwing in links to wiki consensus pages. -Spark121212 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When did you attack someone? You attacked someone when you said the things I quoted above. Here, I'll make them green: "reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest", "a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia". Those are the things that you said that were attacks on Sitush and other editors, because those things assumed bad faith, and assumed conspiracies and disreputable motives. I'm sorry, I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Did you click on the blue link there? As I have also told you repeatedly, I have only engaged you as an admin, I'm not prepared to discuss content issues with regard to articles on subjects I'm not familiar with, and I will not revert to your version. Which version to use is a matter for the editors of the article, of which I am not one. See what I said about that on your talkpage. I feel like a gramophone record. Can anybody help explain? I'm done here, I won't post in this thread again to repeat myself further.
    As for "Look we are the senior editors here, you are new, we can block you": no, you've got it backwards. It's because you're new that I haven't blocked you already. New users deserve, and get, extra consideration and extra chances to adjust to the site policies. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Spark121212, this report is not going to end well for you. There are a host of policies that have been pointed out both here and at the article talk page which you seem either not to understand or not to accept. If you read nothing else, please read WP:BOOMERANG. We do tolerate the misunderstandings of newcomers but not indefinitely. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will leave you guys with a quote from good old Cicero: "Those who in a free state deliberately put themselves in a position to be feared are the maddest of the mad. For let the laws be never so much overborne by someone individual's power, let the spirit of freedom be never so intimidated, still sooner or later [the subjects] assert themselves […] Furthermore, those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate. […] And we recently discovered, if it was not known before, that no amount of power can withstand the hatred of the many." Cicero, De Officiis -Spark (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse and unsubstantiated allegations

    There is currently an edit war raging at Headlamp (outdoor) where Bgwhite is continually reverting an edit despite there being support on the talk page that the referencing is inadequate - but this is not the issue.

    In pursuit of this war Bgwhite has resorted to abuse and making allegations of sockpuppetry without substantiating them.

    The first unsubstantiated allegation is in the edit summary to this reversion. At this point it was not stated who he believed that I was a sockpuppet of.

    The second allegation is at this post to the talk page where he has now specifically identified DieSwartzPunkt as my alleged alter ego (and is the only person to have done so).

    It is clear that this allegation is a direct tit-for-tat for the recent SPI case that I raised against Bgwhite.

    I have little doubt that Bgwhite has latched onto this from DoRD's comment at the end of that SPI case where he suggested that an unidentified editor was editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, though no evidence has so far been forthcoming (and never will).

    I am perfectly happy for the admins to run a check user (or whatever it is you do) where you should discover that DieSwartzPunkt has never edited from any of the IP addresses in the group 85.255.234.xxx.

    I am stuck with constantly changing IP addresses through no fault of my own. This is down to my ISP. And before you suggest that I create an account, I never create accounts where I do not need to. It is a nightmare enough job as it is keeping track of dozens of usernames and passwords. 212.183.140.26 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I log on to find this mess. I can assist here. I will have to put my hands up and admit to this edit [69]. This follows the Wikipedia site crashing Internet explorer (as it does so regularly) so I was auto-loged out while making the edit, but failed to notice until afterwards (it not being possible to correct this after the edit). My IP address (86.150.137.204) is shown at that edit and, according to my router, it is my IP address now. I had hoped Geo-locate might further clear this up, but while it shows more or less right for my current location, it is of no help with any of the other IP addresses other than to show that they are not even used by the same service provider.
    I have no problem with a check user verifying that my IP address is as given above for this post and that I have not used any of the 85 series used in the subject article or indeed the 212 address above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And to verify, this post has been added after deliberately logging out. For the avoidance of further geo-location, I shall reset my router immediately following this edit, so any geo-locate will return the location of the IP address server, unless the address is allocated to someone else when you will get their location. 86.150.137.204 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Block by Dreadstar in need of review.

    Dreadstar has blocked User:NazariyKaminski for one week, claiming that they were "edit warring", after NK reported two other users at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Perry_article and has remained steadfast in his placement of an egregiously long block (1 full week) based on claims that he is allowed to "escalate" blocks based on a months-old previous content dispute.

    Dreadstar also claims as a justification that "I'm not seeing any BLP violations; you were edit warring, removing 'abuse of power' [1][2][3] when it is clearly stated in the reliable source provided. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)"

    The source Dreadstar links, however, states: "Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity"; Dreadstar says that the block was for "removing 'abuse of power'" when the edits actually change the title to reflect the official charge description, "Abuse of Official Capacity." [70] Whether or not Dreadstar intended to do so, his commentary is a misrepresentation of the edits he is using as justification for the block.

    Commentary by Cwobeel also indicates that the block is not intended for a valid reason, but is an illegitimate "cool down block" created for an overly long time period that does not serve the purposes of wikipedia or conform to Wikipedia policy.

    Per suggestion by Nomoskedasticity as an uninvolved, neutral party and as Dreadstar appears to have an axe to grind with the user per Dreadstar's commentary on the user's talk page, and as Dreadstar has refused to modify the terms of his block despite opposition to his action both on the talk page and on the BLP Noticeboard talk, I am posting here to get more eyes on Dreadstar's actions that seem to violate the blocking policy and the policy on actions by involved administrators.

    I'm not convinced that a block is warranted. The editor did not exceed 3RR. If you're not willing to undo it, I think it should be reviewed at ANI. I don't think the editor will edit again in the relevant time period, and I think they should be able to participate on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk)

    It is common practice that edit warrring/3rr block increase in duration if repeated. I don't have time now to look into the BLP claims. Chillum 16:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While that may or may not be true, it seems out of line to jump straight to a full week block based on something that happened over six months ago with no pattern. The commentary also leads to the conclusion that rather than being legitimately intended, the block was intended as a "cool down block" and such blocks are forbidden by policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3rd block for edit-warring certainly is a "pattern". One is supposed to learn before the first block. Additional blocks escalate accordingly on purpose. No comment on this specific situation, yet the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block. There's four instances where NazariyKaminski changed the phrase "abuse of power" to read "abuse of official capacity": diff, diff, diff, diff. While the official charges are phrased as "abuse of official capacity" and "coercion of a public servant", source at the Washington Post does use the phrases "indicted for abuse of power", "abusing his official powers", and "allegedly abusing the powers of his office". Other sources such as Fox News and ABC News are also describing the event as abuse of powers. The final two edits add unsourced negative information about a living person ("cursing out the officers that arrested her"). Blocks of escalating duration are usual for edit warring, so a block of 24 hours in January 2014, 72 hours in April 2014, and one week in August 2014 is not exceptional or draconian imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem: Dreadstar linked to [71], the Washington Post, which accurately describes the charges as "Abuse of Official Capacity" to justify his claim that removing "Abuse of Power" was incorrect. At very best that's a horribly lazy misrepresentation of the source. "Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony with potential punishments of five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 10 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:31, August 21, 2014 (UTC)‎
    The wording "abuse of power" does not in my opinion constitute a violation of the BLP policy, one of the few exceptions to the edit warring policy, as while it is not the terminology used in the official charges, it is an accurate reflection of the content of multiple reliable sources. My opinion stands. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Being right or being justified with a source are not exemptions to edit warring. Everyone thinks they are right - and so everyone would claim the exemption. You are supposed to stop and discuss the issue - not war over it. Escalating blocks are appropriate.--v/r - TP 16:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block I think it's unlikely there's a BLP violation rather than trying to shoehorn a preferred (less damning) wording in through BLP. While BLP requires accuracy, this isn't a case of inaccuracy. As an aside, consider that "abuse of official capacity" could reasonably be redirected to "abuse of power". As to the block length, the escalation is entirely reasonable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block. Edit-warring is the scourge of collaborative editing and NazariyKaminski has not learned from previous blocks of 1 day and 3 days already this year. Anything less than 7 days now would be out of line with current practice. It's worth noting that the claim of 'BLP' as a get-out for edit-warring is becoming an increasing problem and editors who abuse that should expect the community to take a dim view. As with any edit, if you're right, then others will agree with you; forcing your own view into an article through edit-warring, rather than seeking consensus through reasoned discussion, is the antithesis of how we write articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anything less than 7 days now would be out of line with current practice." Request for clarification: where is there any documentation of this supposed "current practice"? Because the policies as written do not support your view.
    Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_are_not_punishment
    "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of community principles in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 19:13, August 21, 2014 (UTC)‎
    Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment is a user-created essay, not a policy. The policy page is at WP:Edit warring. The section Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance says that 24 hours is the usual block for a first edit war, and escalating blocks are usual thereafter. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe a week is justified by policy - certainly it would be much fairer to users to go 1/2/3/4 days rather than 1 day, 3 days, a week which resembles illegal "cool down" blocking - but since there is consensus, there is consensus. I do however object to the uncivil way Dreadstar has now attempted to retaliate against me for listing this, especially as I am working very hard to discuss edits on the talk page, have requested helpers to assist me in finding compromises, and am in no way engaged in an "edit war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, your belief turns out to be wrong. Policy documents what happens on wiki, not reflects your personal ideas of "fairness". The fact is that when placing a block, the admin has a drop-down box to pick the block length from. The default setting in the mediawiki software offers "1 day", "3 days", "1 week", "2 weeks" ... "1 year" (doubling or tripling each step). That scheme enjoys consensus (or it would have been changed by now), so that's the reason why the three blocks that NazariyKaminski has garnered this year were 1 day, 3 days, 7 days. Of course it's justified by policy, because that's normal practice and here "normal practice" = "policy". --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    2.98.242.237 obviously WP:NOTHERE

    User blocked. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2.98.242.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cant report to aiv, not just vandalism, cant report to anew, not just edit warring, actions seem pretty obvious though. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48h, talk page access removed because of the previous abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mikemikev again

    Blocked by Ponyo. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mikemikev (talk · contribs) seems to be back in the guise of FrankRamsbottom (talk · contribs). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    76.28.9.36 + more

    The user 76.28.9.36 has already been blocked for persistent vandalism of the List of The Garfield Show episodes page. [74] However, it appears this same person is trying to evade the block by using other IP addresses to continue making the same edits on that page (which includes/has included adding in nonsense, removal of definitive articles from episode titles, removal of entire content, etc.). Most recent IP addresses which have made all too similar edits are [75] and [76]. I have previously reported this person on the vandalism board, but this time I was advised to bring the current case here. I should say that this person's activity on that episode page goes back to January of this year, and said person clearly seems relentless in making bogus edits- old and new- on there. I just wish it would be stopped (or at least significantly impeded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GVO8891 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an explicit legal threat, but perhaps an implicit one?[77] I thought it was at least worth bringing to your attention.

    This[78] is what she's referring to; note that at least 2 users other than me have reverted her edits, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They're skirting on the edge of it. Be sure the edit in question is supported by reliable sources. Then tell the user in question that legal threats are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NLT this would fall under "Perceived legal threats" and might need admin assistance to clarify, but I have seen editors blocked for less and unblocked after retracting.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This COI user is involved in an edit war at Venus Nicolino, and has just claimed to be the attorney of the article's subject[79], complete with a threat to sue if the (well-sourced) edits they object to are restored. Note that the user had been warned about legal threats.[80] cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor just also broke the 3RR rule, making a fourth revert [81] after being warned [82]. But that's probably irrelevant at this point, since the legal threat is very explicit and far more serious. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking WP:DOLT into consideration, I looked at the article the editor was clearly disputing the statement about Nicolino's struggles with psychopharmaceutical drugs. The sentence could be worded better IMO, and more reflective of the terms used by the sources. The sources do not outright state that she was "addicted" to the drugs. Also psychopharmaceuticals include drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and other illegal drugs. A tightening of the language would be helpful because the statement doesn't make it clear that the drugs either prescription or illegal. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice of images please

    I posted a request a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:AN#Advice_on_images_please but I have not gotten a reply nor any advice on how to proceed. I want to continue to assume good faith with this editor but after their response at User_talk:PNGWantok#Copyright, I'm not sure how to proceed. They are claiming that the images are different. They are the same but the photo they have uploaded has been reversed. I see they have uploaded many other photos too. Most of these need looking at too. I am reasonably new and have spent the last week reading policies and guidelines, but I could do with some advice here please. PNGWantok (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The dead giveaway as to which one is the original is that you can read the word "Wenger". On the one the guy uploaded to Wikipedia, of course, the word is reversed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes User:Baseball Bugs that is what made me enquire about how to approach this. The editor is saying that they will upload another photo. I have looked at their other uploads at Special:ListFiles/Wapacman, and I see many others. All of the photos are small in size. None have proper EXIF. This has EXIF stating the file was last change in December 2013, but the information template says it was taken on 1 August. Because the editor insists that the photo I enquired about is theirs, when that does not appear to be the case, how should I approach the issue on how to deal with the other photos which are likely copyright violations. Your advice would be appreciated. PNGWantok (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something here but there's a photo with exif that mentions some Adobe software, and has a timestamp corresponding to the edit date, which is understandably different than when the picture was taken. So an AGF interpretation would be tha like the person took the photo, cleaned it up or edited it a bit with the Adobe program, and uploaded the edited version. It might be nice to have the camera original, both to check the dates (note though that those are easy to fake) and for remix purposes; but on the other hand the person might not want to upload it, since it can have potentially private info like the camera serial number or other identifying characteristics. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm missing something too. Like what on earth has this got to do with ANI?  Philg88 ♦talk 22:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's the same image with some enhancements and horizontal mirroring. The EXIF data isn't all that big a deal on its own; the big issue is the mirroring and alterations taken with the uploader's claim that it's a different image by a different photographer. Those sorts of alterations might be done to hide the source for privacy reasons, but it's also one way to try to keep automated copyvio discovery programs from finding it (I don't know how effective it is though). I think it's discretionary whether to go with {{db-f11}} or {{db-f9}}. The fact that the uploader is lying about the image makes me lean towards F9 (it's simply not credible that someone who is an uploader AND author would make an honest mistake about the image being mirrored versus a different image by a different person). AGF is good and all, but there are limits. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK, the issue is that File:HIFI_Festival.jpg is obviously the same picture as [83] after being cropped and flipped, while the uploader says it's a different picture. Yeah the explanation is surprising and I think it's best to ask the uploader for further clarification and/or contact the the historicfilipinotown organizer to ask where the picture is from. It's not ok for someone to claim they took a picture themselves if they didn't, so if this can't be sorted with the uploader then we may may have a bigger problem than yet another jacked picture (added: I see now that this has happened with several other images from the person). That all said, requiring OTRS permission for uploads in general is news to me. I've submitted a few off-wiki pictures for upload through WP:FFU and nobody said anything about OTRS. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would only say that we do not need to contact anyone. If the editor cannot, or refuses to show permissions, than we don't need to go chasing after the image to save it. F-9 and move on. No one is going to mention OTRS until there is a question....there is a question and a refusal to document to copyright. So...I feel we have a clear enough reasoning to delete.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point it's not about deleting a doubtful picture. It's about whether we should block the user. That requires a higher level of evidence than just being unsure of where the picture came from. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I could certainly support a temp block...but no, it is not what the OP was asking. The thread is for advice on images.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I don't want to get the editor into trouble if there is something they can do to avoid it. I only want advice on how to deal with these issues when they arise. I initially asked in #wikipedia a few days ago and was told to post here. I asked in #wikipedia-en-help and they helped me. Can we please delete this thread as the issue seems to be resolved? Thank you all PNGWantok (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support F-9 If the image is on the internet elsewhere (reverse or not) the file requires permissions via OTRS regardless of whether the author is the editor or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important note: Based on the opener of this discussion asking on IRC, I've found and deleted at least 12 (yes TWELVE) blatant copyright violations by this user. They have very simple tactics: horizontally film image, crop, distort, etc. photos. Most of which I've had to pull into an image editing tool to find the copyvios and I haven't found one for every image uploaded. That being said, over 50% of the users upload's are copyvios and while they are claiming the images "were taken from different angles." I've given the uploader a final warning on their talkpage and if we see another uploaded copyvio, the uploader should be blocked immediately. I have half a mind to delete the rest of the uploads based on the pattern of copyvios. You can see his deleted images in his upload log Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on this, I think we should consider all the editor's uploads tainted, delete and indef. Copyvio because someone doesn't understand copyright is one thing, copyvio and taking steps to cover it up is something completely different. I'm of the opinion that this sort of conduct is worse than vandalism. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:James Foley (photojournalist)

    Hi - need neutral moderator help on talk page James Foley. See page history. Being used as a forum/soapbox for discussions Foley might not have been killed, CIA conspiracy etc... none of it supported by any source. Another editor and myself have been trying to remove this material on BLP and NOTAFORUM grounds, but are being reverted on grounds we don't have the right to delete someone's comments. -- GreenC 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please point out the NOTAFORUM, BLP or other issue in my own comment on that talk page. The one where I mention that BLP applies to the article in relation to an IP user complaining about vandalism. Per, WP:TPO you do not have the right to blank large sections as you did. Martin451 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Add back in selectively what you want rather than the whole bit and I can see what your mean. BTW I didn't do that mass removal that was someone else but supported it without taking the time to look through every comment to see if it might or might not cross the line, there may be some that can be restored. -- GreenC 19:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you made a large edit to a talk page, without checking to see what was removed. You now blame another person for this removal, and are not taking responsibility for your edit, instead reporting me. You have placed a wp:3rr template on my talk page after suggesting that I add parts back in. Martin451 19:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin451, you are now at 4 reverts. I don't think you should be blocked as yet but you need to work with people. There are clearly BLP and FORUM issues in that text, your constant restoring of that material wholesale is troublesome. -- GreenC 19:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is my fourth revert? Martin451 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    wrt. working with people. You removed a small section, Worldedixor then removed a large amount of text, including my comment. I reverted that text back in (first revert, followed by a dummy edit.) You then reverted me with the comment (Will take it to ANI if you keep it up. We have the right to remove BLP violations you don't have the right to misuse the talk page.) One revert and your threaten ANI action. That is not working with people. Martin451 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Martin451's comment is at the end of a chain of deletions. Someone started a thread ostensibly complaining about people showing up to call Foley a spy, assassin, and pedophile.. Then Martin451 says that maybe the people doing it are trolls. I Nobody is calling Foley that on the page. Perhaps that was deleted or the thread itself is a troll. Either way Wikipedia doesn't need anyone to talk about that on the article talk page, it is not discussion about improving the article. It's pretty typical when deleting a thread per WP:FORUM or BLP to delete the entire thread, including people admonishing the poster for using it as a forum, and people complaining about editor conduct, etc., because all those comments become meaningless if the original post is removed. So Martin451's comment got deleted in the cleanup. I don't think Martin should be restoring the objectionable thread just to preserve their own comment. If they have something to say and it's related to improving the article, best just start a new thread. I think the request that people stay on topic and not troll that talk page is already there, no need to repeat that. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried a different approach, as I have seen collapsing work better than outright deletes. Feel free to revert if you feel it is inappropriate. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou CombatWombat42. Martin451 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - that works. Good idea. BLP will not apply much longer if at all so weird conspiracy speculation in collapsed threads is just fine. So we're done? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikidemon:, policy states that "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." So no. BLP will apply for quite a while. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Croatian editor needs directions to hr.wikipedia

    Nenad_Erić_"Thomas" (talk · contribs) has added a lot of (unsourced) content to Dionysus and Histories (Herodotus) in Croatian. I've left him a link to hr.wikipedia, but since it was in English (sorry, don't know Croatian), he didn't seem to get the message. If anyone knows Croatian (or feels more confident leaving a machine-translated message than I do), it'd be nice to explain to him that there's already a a Croatian-language Wikipedia where his edits might be more valued, but otherwise... Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    {{contrib-hr1}} does that job. We've got a whole series of bilingual templates to notify such editors. They've turned out to be quite effective so I've put such a message on Eric Thomas's talk page. Let's see how that develops. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do my best to remember that next time, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough is enough.

    I am totally sick from an IP self-identified as "Martin" (and I think the same user as User:Nitramrekcap) who is getting really annoying now.

    Mr. Martin seems to have a severe problem with the fact I am a Dutchman living in Ireland. At least, he often rants about that fact. Beside that, Martin is busy with a slow edit war at List of Bloomsbury Group people, Ascension Parish Burial Ground and Cambridge Apostles where he keeps removing maintenance templates. Mr. Martin is often requested to give sources for his edits, what he seldom does. Instead, he claims that the fact are sourced in the article of the person involved. Even a minor check proves that that is in a fast majority not the case.

    And know his behaviour is going even more down the drain. Just read for yourself:

    There is no serious discussion. I am aware that there is a file on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group, but as expected "Martin" does not take part.

    By now, "Martin" was very quick in moving to another IP. Many warnings will be lost in cyberspace because of this. In my opinion the only solution to stop this is semi-protect List of Bloomsbury Group people, Ascension Parish Burial Ground and Cambridge Apostles plus a block for User:Nitramrekcap (when proven that he is identical). Last series of warnings at User talk:2.27.131.74.

    Hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected List of Bloomsbury Group people which has clear indication of disruptive editing which becomes clear after reading the talk page), but unfortunately I do not have time now to check the other two articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked what I think is the latest IP. I do not oppose more protection, since this person is apparently pretty determined. General block rationale is edit warring, personal attacks, and general, well, acting like a total jerk. Banner here may well be a Dutchie but that don't make him wrong all the time. Banner, I will be happy to continue blocking if this reoccurs: the disruption in these articles has been noted by other editors as well. Kleine moeite, groot plezier. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In general:

    Tx again! --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I semi-protected all but the Sanger and Brownlee articles, which seem less of a target. No, CU probably won't accomplish anything (we don't tie IPs to accounts), but an SPI is warranted since the IP hopping (without logging in) is a kind of evasion of scrutiny, and now that one IP is blocked any next one is guilty of block evasion, which one could call a type of socking. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Modernist

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

    User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. A while ago I cleaned up too many images in the article 19th century per WP:LAYIM, WP:GALLERY - over-image "stacks" that shoved images into the next section and an indiscriminate shoehorn gallery[90]. User Modenrnist reverted it back with the comment "seems ok"[91]. I reverted it back with explanation per guidelines[92] and left further rational in talk[93]. 8 months later Modernist is back reverting the same cleanup edit without comment[94]. Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it back and then User:Coldcreation showed up and reverted it back to Modernists' edit[95]. Modernist and Coldcreation seem to act very closely in votes[96], double team in discussions[97] and reverts[98][99][100]. Modernist and Coldcreation were addressed jointly about some of their edits by Curly Turkey[101]. This pushiness to make Wikipedia more of an image host has shown up in Talk:Claude Monet and Impressionism[102]. At Talk:Impressionism Modernist seemed to refuse to get the point via adding a further image gallery during the discussion[103], would give no other rational other than "The images are needed" or WP:MOREX arguments, and got quite un-civil re:"Lets be crystal clear - I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything. Who are you?", "Yeah, that's your opinion; you clearly have no experience working on articles in the visual arts - you are owed nothing - nothing". It also came off as a campaign to drive away a productive contributor (HappyWaldo). If these editors want Wikipedia to be an image host I wish they would take it up at the relative guideline and policy talk pages instead of warring it over many articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • The portrait images of very famous and important 19th century personages are fine to use in that article - The gallery contains a few other very important, famous 19th century portraits. The galleries used in visual arts articles like Impressionism and Claude Monet are crucial to our understanding of the subject of those articles. Paintings need to be seen. This thread reads like a personal attack against me...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree this is a content dispute. User:Curly Turkey and I had an argument - that was a long time ago - we've collaborated together long after that argument was history, and I supported his work on 2 featured articles...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no desire to re-open old wounds, especially because Modernist and and I have managed to work with each other amicably for some time now, but I have to disagree it's only a content dispute. Modernist, if you're going to continue making the kind of comments pointed out above, you can only expect people to feel they need to fight back. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you feel that the comments deserve admin intervention? Please...get a thicker skin. No one "deserves" any explanation (just discussion and that does not mean editors have to explain every action) and unless these comments crossed a line, fighting against them is just drama...drama...drama! Don't "fight" back. If you think he/she was being a dick than just ignore them. Fighting back against every perceived insult or incivil comment just drags out the drama. We are here to write an encyclopedia not right great wrongs and...we are talking about image galleries....not BLP violations! While I believe Modernist could be nicer...until they cross the line into personal attacks...there really is nothing to do here...and frankly...I would more than understand if your good relations with Modernist were now ruined. But that is up to them. But you sure jumped on this fast enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, we all work very hard here as volunteers without much appreciation - CT, me, and many many others who create this encyclopedia and its contents. I do my best; and I'm proud of the contributions made here by so many editors...Modernist (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No we don't always get much appreciation. In fact, many times we get the very opposite. Do I agree with Modernist on everything? Heck no, but I also see that editors are trying to ask for intervention for not being very nice.... but that is a far cry from incivility that requires intervention. I really suggest this be referred to the DRN board. I can't take the case because I have had interactions with Modernist on Neoclassicism as Amadscientist, but this seems very much like a simple content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images can be properly used, improperly used, or omitted. Modernist happens to have a good sense concerning the use of images in articles. Bus stop (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANI is not a place to discuss the appropriateness or not of images—that belongs on the talk page. What's being reported is the personal interactions. I get the feeling things have calmed down enough that the discussion can continue on the talk page now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Should these articles still be under the community place Syrian Civil War sanctions

    At[104] community sanction were placed on "All articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed". On January 7th this year User:Greyshark09 added the sanctions template to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [105] and at that point the article looked like this]. My question is whether this and the related article Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi should be considered covered by these sanctions (I added the sanctions notice myself to that article earlier this month.

    I'm not convinced now that "broadly construed" can be construed this far. The current situation is that the actions and existence of the Islamic State now are really far removed from the Syrian Civil War (ditto its "Caliph") and that the sanctions should not be seen as applying here.

    I also don't think that they are needed or a benefit, at least to the article on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where I am most involved. With a lot of new editors a number of problems that probably would be rectified quickly if people weren't under a 1RR restriction are never fixed. We have always had articles that are about events that are very 'live' in real time but have existed ok without 1RR, so I'm not convinced there is a purely local need for 1RR if the sanctions are seen as not applying.

    What friction there is has been more or less between two editors, one of whom is mainly involved in making gnomish edits, eg to footnotes and to English. The article has attracted a lot of new editors (and has few experienced editors, which is a problem), and not all of them can write good English and this required a number of minor edits to correct this. Complaints calling these 1RR violations led me to raise Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert and further complaints calling these violations were raised at User talk:Bbb23#1RR in 24 hours restriction and P123ct1. You can see there that I'm very concerned about the ongoing dispute between User:Worldedixor and User:P123ct1, and I don't expect all of that to be resolved by a decision on whether these articles should be covered by the sanctions. That is to an extent a side issue but that issue and my observations over the past few weeks are what has led me to suddenly wonder (I seem to come up with new ideas in the shower) whether the sanctions notice should still be seen as applying here. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw the notice you placed on my Talk page with your question about "whether the article the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be considered covered by the Syrian Civil War WP:1RR sanctions".
    I would certainly say yes, it must be covered by the WP:1RR sanctions, and I will explain why.
    First, I disagree with your argument that "The current situation is that the actions and existence of the Islamic State now are really far removed from the Syrian Civil War (ditto its "Caliph") and that the sanctions should not be seen as applying here".
    Second, please be advised that the Islamic State has more than 50,000 fighters in Syria and is actively recruiting more. [106]
    Hope this factual clarification helps. Worldedixor (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal of "dubious" tag on a citation

    In the article "Materialization (Paranormal)", user "LuckyLouie" refuses to let the "dubious" tag on his citation, removing it every time it is added. His citation is used to infer that materialization, in the paranormal sense, entails a violation of mass-energy conservation. On the contrary, from a basic physics perspective, paranormal or not paranormal, the production of new matter is allowed by laws of physics and does not lead to a violation of mass-energy conservation as long as new energy is used and converted into matter. The editor not only refuses to let the "dubious" tag, but would also refuse to discuss in the talk page why he believes his citation makes sense. He only declares that adding such a tag requires a consensus, you can check the talk page. Paranormal claims are clearly unproven, but this is not a reason to bring fallacious pseudoscientific explanations to invalidate them either. Thanks.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make things even clearer: the citation is from a book of Manuel Vasquez, who is NOT a scientist but a professor of business ethics at Santa Clara University.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ANI - are you asking for the editor to be blocked? Because if you aren't, perhaps you need to go to WP:RSN to discuss the source. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am asking him to be blocked, because he had many opportunities to explain his case but declined to do so. He never justified his citation nor his words. Instead, he would simply delete any form of challenge, including a simple "Dubious" tag. This is not what I call a correct attitude and this has lasted for too long. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute that seems to be under discussion on the article talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not under discussion: nobody discusses the content themselves. The only "explanations" are about Wikipedia procedures, as if nobody really cared about the problem. Deleting "dubious" tag and posting in the talk page that articles needs consensus and that I should go edit other articles than this one is not what I call a discussion. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. You can't prevent people from flagging real problems with an article on the grounds that they didn't have consensus to add a tag. That would lead to fanboys and cranks squatting on poorly sourced, dubious articles, shutting down any attempt to fix problems with them. Reyk YO! 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much suggest participants in this thread leave the procedural side alone and do the math (per Einstein) on a materialisation with a mass of 1 gram or even 1 milligram. Labeling "LuckyLouie" a fanboy or a crank because he did, is not the way to any form of consensus that actually makes sense. Kleuske (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in the talk page, you are not proving anything because (1) you talk about "1 milligram" as if it was a little, but nothing in the literature seems to mention a specific weight, so could be lower (2) you assume a complete generation of matter from energy, without reuse of the medium body nor the surrounding air, which is, too, not mentioned in the literature. And most authors talk about the formation of something "fluidic", so that would mean that materialization of spirits are more like plasmas in physics. I let you compute how much energy is required to ionize air and make it glow in a complete darkness, i.e. in typical spiritism settings. Of course it is dramatically lower than what you imply in your comment. My point here is that we don't know anything for sure about those materializations, if alone if they exist, so we cannot assume a violation of energy conservation. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pseudoscientific bullshit what does it matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you implying that because the article is about "pseudoscientific bullshit" we are free to write any nonsense, including things that are contrary to laws of physics just in order to disprove it? I'm not sure falsifying pseudoscience with pseudoscience is the appropriate response. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm implying that you need to find something better to do with your time than argue whether or not the rules of physics apply to something that doesn't exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Err right. Thank you for your input. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I point out that this is not a forum for discussion of the topic. I agree RSN is the correct place for this issue. Shouldn't the article in question have a discretionary sanctions flag? A disregard for pointers to the appropriate policies and guidelines seems to greatly diminish the allegations of the filing editor (to the point of WP:BOOMERANG perhaps). And I added a second source. - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBill3 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Your source does not relate to paranormal materialization per se. I have been forbidden to make "original synthesis" by mentioning existing physical processes that allow the production of matter on the ground it was not specifically cited as paranormal materialization, so there is no reason you would post original synthesis either. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. The whole activity of Anaphylaxis2014 around this article was to call people names (he also called me a kid who needs to study physics lol) and trying to push inside the article a nonsense paragraph. When he realized there was no consensus he proceeded with the tag, and is currently at three reverts within 4h and four reverts within 30 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting Ymblanter: " it is bullshit, and they apparently have difficulties understanding 1st year physics curriculum" (they = me). So if you want to accuse me of something, check your own side first. Please explain me what is the "nonsense" part of my paragraph, because the only reason it was removed was that it was "original synthesis". So much about distorting the truth. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at 5RR. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess everybody should relax a bit. As pointed by several others, this is a content dispute; not an action requiring a direct block. It should also be noted that, there are several other editors who think/act the same as Luckylouie in this matter. Had the source by Velasques contain any attribution to "paranormal materialization" or even just "materialization" in page 84, there would be no issue to discuss. If I'm not mistaken, there is only a discussion of "how can a supposedly immaterial mind control a material body" within the context of dualist view, in that page 84. On the other hand, -now been removed- second source added by MrBill3 serves the purpose, even if it might not be directly addressing "paranormal materialization". Readers can click on the source and see the scope of the article, and decide whether the scope can also cover paranormal or not. Actually the wording in Materialization_(paranormal)#Scientific_views does not necessitate such. Not OR to me. Logos (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that if you consider the wording does not necessitate the citation to specifically address paranormal materialization, I would appreciate that someone explain me why mentioning physical processes that allow the production of matter (for example the conversion of light into matter) was deleted on the ground it was original synthesis. I was told that I was the one making a connection between paranormal materialization and those existing and well known physical processes. So whether we can cite articles that are scientific but not addressing paranormal per se, or we cannot. But allowing one and prohibiting the other seems quite unfair to me. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hangeron9999

    Editor with only three edits in all, initiates an AfD.[107] Also a SPA. Suspicious behaviour. Experienced oversight solicited. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless you think this is a sock of someone, and you have evidence, there is nothing suspicious whatsoever about someone creating an acct solely to AfD an article; IPs cannot do it because you have to create a new page. Let the AfD run its course -- that's how you determine if your article is appropriate. Not by running to ANI at the first perceived slight. By posting here, you will inevitably draw much more attention to the AfD than you probably intended, so suggest someone box up this thread with a nice neat {{archive top/bottom}}. Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD may be justified, if the effort is to attain artificial notability via Wikipedia. The suspicion about the SPA, though, is why would someone be so desperate to get some minor thing deleted, that they would create an account just to push for that deletion? It sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest on both sides. P.S. Thanks for tipping us off as to your location. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's location (and presumably the editor Hangeron as well), by an amazing coincidence, is from rural Missouri. This could well be a POV-push in connection with the Michael Brown situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    'Twas not I that created the AfD -- not my modus operandi to create a one-off acct; I'd simply tag it and then ask for a hand at HD (done it before). However, I do know that you are anti-IP, and basically anti-anyone-who-doesn't-100%-agree-with-you, so: Nice talkin' at ya, B. You can get in the last word if you like, and then respond to yourself a few times, and then generally be a pest, starting....NOW. Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not anti-IP. I am anti-suspicious behavior. And it's written all over you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK everybody, he got in the last word... Now let's see how many times he responds to himself... --64.85.217.167 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Preposterous the suggestion that both sides have a COI, what COI do I have? Secondly there is a strong suggestion that the IP itself is a seasoned editor Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't know what COI you have. As to the IP, yes, it's obviously a veteran troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dearest B, I've been here since 2005. To see how this troll rolls, hop on over to the current edition of AN and search for 64.85. That is how this troll rolls, B. Much more productive than, oh IDK, you? How're those i-bans working for ya? Kindest of all Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The I-bans are working fine. I-bans are good. What do you think about establishing an I-ban between you and me? That is, between any IP from the 64.85 range as well as any and all of your registered accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're funny. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I-ban?

    Following up on the previous section, I would like to request an interaction ban between myself and every IP under the prefix 64.85. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you think an i-ban on a dynamic IP range will accomplish? Are you suggesting everyone in this range is the same person or that the same person only uses this range? Chillum 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was the IP's suggestion. Maybe you should ask him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to your request. The one you put at the beginning of this section. I have already responded to the IP. Chillum 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP put the idea in my head, and it seems like a good one. If you're not willing to do it, that's OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked that you explain your request. It does not really matter who put the idea in your head, you are the one making the request. Chillum 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Yes, the entire range. Any obvious non-troll from that range could be exempted. Case by case. But I can't of any reason why I would ever need to interact with someone from that range. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this proposal, but suggest extending it to all IP's. That way, we wouldn't have to put up with Bug's recurrent accusations of bad faith from every other IP he encounters. If some of them are trolls, his responses are only feeding them anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I call it "exposing" them. However, I find your proposal excessive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting aside that the person making the request does not seem to want to justify it, this request is not practical. I don't know if this is a serious request or an attempt to make a point but I don't think it is productive. Chillum 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's not practical, then forget it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    The proposed ban on anonymous IPs interacting with Bugs is of course impractical - but a ban on Bugs responding isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How can bad-faith behavior be recognized if someone doesn't point it out? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban Baseball Bugs from AN/I (again)

    Bugs shows up out of the blue 16 minutes after my first post and, without evidence or diffs, accuses my own dynamic self of sockpuppetry. I believe that is considered a PA. Bugs has then derailed the above ANI thread completely. This is entirely BB's m.o. I propose Bugs be topic banned for 6 months from all admin notice boards, broadly construed. Again. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not unreasonable to see a webbed footed aquatic bird quacking and call it a duck. Your proposal is absurd and seems to me to be an attempt at trolling. Chillum 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying it's duck season? Au contraire, it's wabbit season. You see, the thing is, I didn't start the AfD, I'm not Hangeron9999, and I've never seen the article before AN/I. I read AN/I most days, and stated to the OP that his thread was basically frivolous ("my" article is being AfD'd by someone I don't know) and should be closed. The responsibility for the deletion request was then taken over by an established editor at AfD. But then here comes BB sniffing around the tree to see what kind of crap he can dig up. Whenever an IP posts at ANI Bugs immediately begins to try to discredit their statements through no means other than SOCK/DUCK/IPSSUCK or whatnot. This behavior must change if Bugs wishes to continue posting at such notice boards. Also, he needs to retract the PA where he accused me, with no evidence, of being Hangeron9999. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your own statement, "search for 64.85. That is how this troll rolls" is a loud quack. That is why I say it is duck season. I don't know anything about the AfD. Both you and BB have generated more heat than light in this discussion and should probably take your beef to one of your talk pages. Chillum 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually search AN? I guess I should have followed that statement with "</sarcasm>" because there was no trolling. Regarding your second question, it is impractical to take it to an ever changing dynamic talk page, and impossible to take it to the perpetually semi-protected talk page of the problem user. You should also retract your sock accusation, although I believe you were acting in good faith when you made it. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm will cause misunderstandings, if I misunderstood then apologies. The fact that sarcasm requires tone of voice and is not even present in all cultures makes it problematic in an international text based environment. Chillum 16:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only real beef is the IP's sudden appearance to defend a nomination for deletion which, given the IP's location, looks like a conflict of interest or POV-pushing. However, there is a meager possibility that the Missouri IP troll is only trying to make it look like a bad faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^^This is what people are talking about with you, B. Always digging deeper. You need to take a 12-step program to leave IPs alone. You can call it "IP-anonymous". See what I did there? Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Trapdoor5252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has threatened to file contempt charges against me, in order to prevent me from travelling internationally (?), on my user page.[108] Trapdoor5252 has given me 24 hours to revert this edit of mine,[109] though they had actually reverted my edit themself, and in turn been reverted by another user who agreed with me - that Trapdoor5252 is adding negative unsourced information without explanation. I won't edit the Colin Winchester page again, but Trapdoor5252 has been reverted by at least two users other than me, so the edit war and legal threats might continue. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty clear legal threat. Given the underlying content dispute, however, I think this is a WP:DOLT situation where we should consider whether the issue that led to the legal threat has merit. The issue is, evidently, the statement in Colin Winchester that David Harold Eastman was convicted of Winchester's murder, but that this conviction was later overturned/quashed. Trapdoor inserted the term "falsely" before "convicted" in the Winchester article. While a clarifying statement may be inserted in that sentence (such as "this conviction was later overturned"), there doesn't seem to be any grounds for the term "falsely", and the entire drama of Eastman's appeal is pretty thoroughly described in the section immediately following that statement. I think this is fine. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also the issue of adding, in the lede, that Winchester was "corrupt" and a "known drug dealer." This was unsourced, so it seemed like a pretty clear NPOV violation. It might be true, I have no idea without a source, so assuming good faith, I left a "Welcome! But please source your edits!" message on Trapdoor's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He's currently at 4 reverts as well. And this revert, where he changes the characterization of Winchester's killing from "murder" to "execution" is pretty blatant POV pushery. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:11raccoon1 Personal attacks

    11raccoon1 (talk · contribs) has attacked Plarem (talk · contribs) (me) and United Union (talk · contribs) on multiple occasions, with me issuing relevant warnings on the user's talk page. The relevant diffs are:

    I would like to ask for someone to review User:11raccoon1's conduct. Thank you. – Plarem (User talk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=622358485"