Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:SubSeven - Violation of Wiki Civil and more

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

---

Used the comment box to refer to me as an idiot. When I warned him of 3rr revert policy he was going to soon violate. [1]

Used the comment box to speak to me in a demeaning manner, called me slow. [2]

Wikihounded me by following me into an article he has never edited at. [3].

Is engaging in an edit war amongst many users in the Royce Gracie article. Seems to be have a claim of ownership. Engaging in Wiki:Own

CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question for you. Please do so next time when you submit an ANI report. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to give a hoot about UFC, but stuff like this, while not a hanging offence, is really not on, regardless of the circumstances. Note that this discussion would have shown up on User:SubSeven's notifications since the editor who brought this here included his name in the opening post. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

• 1) an edit summary on my talk page is not a message directed at you.
• 2) I didn't call you slow, you may want to re-read that.
• 3) you may also want to re-read WP:HOUND, here is a quote with relevant parts bolded: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
• 4) 'edit war amongst many users'. Nope. Just you, actually. --SubSeven (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot was quite unnecessary. [4] CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) His response to another user who had the same issue was "take it up with the ufc" [5]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen (CrazyAces489—SubSeven), you can't fight in here, this is the octago... oh wait. Don't make me pull out the WP:GS/MMA ceremonial mace and brandish it against both of you. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Been a while since the MMA articles poked its ugly head up again. @Hasteur: best beat that ugly head down with the mace. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• SubSeven, you are being a pain, if we are honest The problem is that you are taking a disagreement and turning it into antagonizing and ad hominem, per Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Attacking the individual instead of their argument. That said, I think the "slow" comment wasn't disparaging mentally challenged people, just saying someone isn't paying attention. It could be taken both ways, but I see it in the least offensive light. Calling someone an idiot, however, wasn't smart and is technically actionable. I'm not prone to block you today because it was a singular incident and we all err, but I strongly suggest you avoid being a pain in the future, or a block is more likely. I want to also remind everyone of this [6], which authorizes broad and sweeping powers to admin in the MMA article area, as a General Sanction. That means one warning, then a person can be indef blocked, topic banned, or any other creative sanction the admin decides is appropriate, and only the Arb Committee or the entire community (WP:AN) can override that sanction, and let me tell you, the community isn't kind when it comes to disruption from MMA articles, they are sick of it. The community's patience for problems in MMA articles expired a long time ago. My suggestion is that we all lick our wounds, go write some articles, use the talk page, get a consensus, live with it when most people disagree with you, and try to keep arguments about the merits, not someone's personality. Then you never have to worry about sanctions. Dennis - 2¢ 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After the 24 hours passed for 3rr violation warning had passed [7], SubSeven simply went right back to deleting all the sourced entries I placed in [8], [9] and one other place. I have no problem taking things to the talk page [10] , I have also asked him to initiate a RFC [11] (I believe would give the community to decide what the article should state). I only want to give an objective article and continue on creating articles for everyone to enjoy. [12] CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought this inquiry was about my lack of civility? I have stated my position exhaustively on the talk page. You just exited the conversation and continued reverting. --SubSeven (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When I first added reliable sources and additions to the page Royce Gracie you simply reverted it and stated that it wasn't a true full rules fight. I placed it on a separate section stating that it was a limited rules fight with a source. You simply reverted it. [13] When I put in a BJJ match with a source in a separate section, you reverted it. [14] You stated it wasn't his total record. Every posting I have made reliable sources are put in. You simply reverted it. At no point did I exit the conversation in the talk page as per [15]. Your last posting was on Oct 26, while I posted on the 27 and the 29th. I have repeatedly asked you to open up an RFC as this is apparently an old issue that has shown up many times on this page. [16][17] [18] [19] CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• You both need to stop editing the article and use the talk page to get a consensus with other editors. I thought I made it clear, but let me make it brutally clear: if you both keep warring, you both will get blocked. Which of you is right? I don't know, I don't care. Let the interested editors on the talk page decide. But the constant reverting isn't going to be tolerated. And to be even more clear: You don't need to pass 3RR to get blocked for edit warring, that is just the bright line where there is no question. There are plenty of people who could join in the discussion. Go drop a NEUTRAL note at MMA Notability and plenty will join in and help you determine what is a real fight/official and what isn't. Or keep reverting and both of you will get blocked or topic banned. Unquestionably, if if keeps up, I will drop General Sanctions warnings on both of your pages, which is one step away from a topic ban. Seriously, I don't want to do that but I absolutely will. You must go and POLITELY work this out on the talk page and stop warring. Dennis - 2¢ 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thank you. All I want is other opinions to be placed in. Also how do I do an RFC, which I believe has many editors put an opinion into a topic so a consensus can be made. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Go read up at WP:RFC, there is a template, it isn't that hard. You just have to make sure it is neutral. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis Brown I already rattled the saber in the sheath and they continued to misbehave. I've dropped GS/MMA warnings on both of their pages so now these editors are now on notice that they need to significantly shape up. Hasteur (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No apology needed, I can't blame you and this is exactly what the General Sanctions are there for. Hopefully, nothing more than the warning will be needed. You and I both remember the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, and we certainly don't want to go down that road again. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown and Hasteur, Subseven dropped a posting on my talk page to try to get some sort of consensus here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Dispute_on_Royce_Gracie_page So we are finally getting some sort of positive movement on the article. This was before Hasteur dropped his warning on both of our pages. I thought an RFC or third opinion was the only option. Apparently this an option also. I have never heard of the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, can you please show me somewhere I can read it. It seems pretty interesting. Thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The ANI and AN archives are littered with MMA skirmishes from those years. There were virtually weekly appearances by the usual suspects that general sanctions had to be applied. Blackmane (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The MMA War was literally an attack on the project by a faction of people striving to delete as many MMA articles as they could, which sent the entire community into a frenzy. This is... a content dispute that happens to be in an MMA BLP article. If you really think this could launch another war, let me set your mind at ease, because it seems to me that CrazyAces489 and I are the only two editors who care about the state of this article at all. --SubSeven (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you mischaracterize the Great MMA Wars. I did a great deal of mediating back then, as I could give a care less about MMA, so I was neutral. There were plenty of people trying to include the most trivial facts and unsubstantiated articles as well. It wasn't one sided. The main point is that the tolerance for ANY fighting in MMA, whether it is related to that previous war or not, is very low. Overwhelmingly, the community stays out of the notability and content issues there and doesn't force any standard on that area, other than behavior. It boils down to "you stay in your yard, I'll stay in mine". Understandably, the community is very gun shy about any MMA problems that make it all the way to ANI. It isn't even about the individuals, we just know how easy it is for that particular walled garden to burst over into the rest of the place. Once General Sanctions were issues, allowing any admin to swing the hammer as needed, most of the problems magically disappeared, making that decision one of the most successful applications of General Sanctions we've ever seen. As for consensus, however you build it, we are fine with it, as long as it doesn't spill back here. Dennis - 2¢ 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any place I could look at the sanctions or just about the wars CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The archives at MMA Notability and the archives here at ANI. There were also a number of SPIs and RFC/Us filed. There is no single archived that catalogs the entire debacle. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown Once the hammers started swinging faster than new soldiers could be recruited to the war, the external communities decided to take their toys and go home by establishing their own wiki where they can nitpick and document to their own heart's content at http://www.mmawiki.com/. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect idea for a topic like this. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 2¢ 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [20]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three avenues you may want to take. First, if one of the editors behaves disruptively, he or she can be reported here or at 3RR Noticeboard, depending on the situation, or eventually even at arbitration enforcement. I would say there is very little chance for smth to happen - for example, once I was trying to deal with the editor who was adding {{fact}} templates to figure captions, and wanted to get references for the Constitution of Russia (you know, with ISBN etc), and I could only get him blocked from the fourth attempt, and my first attempt resulted in someone lecturing me that this is a proper behavior, and I am attacking a good-faith user. Furthermore, if this is a purely content dispute (and if you ask me, I would say it currently is), WP:DRN is at your service, and then mediation. I am not really looking forward, since you are in minority, and the majority can simply ignore the dispute resolution attempts, but you can try nevertheless. Finally, the most difficult route, which so far nobody tries to take, is to take every single source and get consensus elsewhere on whether the source is reliable in this situation. For example, if you think RT is a reliable source - take it to the corresponding noticeboard, insist that it gets evaluated, and if it is concluded to be a reliable source as far as Ukraine is concerned, info from RT can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a bad idea about the RS noticeboard. Thanks!!! USchick (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But always do the search. This particular source was discussed numerous times, most recently here and becomes less and less reliable every day. Disputing questionable sources on the RS noticeboard is enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that RT is generally fairly trustworthy, and is most trustworthy where it reports on things that are not directly connected to Russia, and most useful when those trustworthy reports concern news stories that are deliberately under reported (or not reported at all) by media sources in the US (or, in Britain, by the BBC). It quite clearly delights in pointing out the biases and untrustworthy nature of some US and European reporting on some issues, which sometimes means it misses the point in its reporting, emphasizes the wrong things, and gives that reporting an unprofessional and rather amateurish tone. I think the idea that a blanket "trustworthy" or "untrustworthy" label can be given to a major media source that reports on many different subject areas in many different countries is always going to be unsustainable, which is why that particular discussion was called "a giant waste of time". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User explicitly claims that they are using sockpuppets and sophisticated tools to deliberately introduce copyrighted material into articles

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

---

I was looking back through some discussions when I landed on User:Kainaw's talk page. This user, who I know used to be extremely active on Wikipedia, and a very competent Wikipedia user, has taken on what seems to be a personal vendetta against Wikipedia as a result of the blackout a couple years ago that protested certain bills in the US Congress. While I understand that this claim was made more than a year ago, I feel like I should bring it to your attention. In particular, what I find concerning is the following statement, which I am copying directly from their user page here.

"So, instead of editing Wikipedia, I develop tools to convert Wikipedia pages into copyright infringement pages by using multiple registered accounts in multiple passes, changing only a few words at a time. I made multiple offers to make tools to help Wikipedia in exchange for an honest answer as to why Wikipedia was blacked out, but I only called many terrible names for not worshipping Jimbo. I figure that eventually someone will figure out that there is tons of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, but as open as I am about it, I don't think they will make the connection that it is being put there on purpose. -- kainaw™ 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)"

Given the fact that this claim, in which Kainaw appears to admit to vandalizing Wikipedia in a sophisticated way, was made at least 1½ years after the blackout, it clearly is not just a momentary temper tantrum. I have no idea if Kainaw is still active in this way, or if they still have strong feelings, but I do think that it may be worth at least a bit of investigation. If Kainaw spent 1½ years stewing over this, it is possible that they may still not have worked past their obsession.

I have not been a very active editor the past couple years, and I really have been away from most of the drama and politics of Wikipedia during that time. I do not plan to personally pursue this any further (and really, I wouldn't know where to begin), and I make no claim that I feel like I personally need some kind of resolution in this matter. I am just leaving this with you on this board to do with as you wish.

Here is the permanent link to the page as it is at the time I am making this post.

Falconus^{p t c} 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The user has not been around for 1 year and 3 months since their last edit. I would say a warning for suspected sockpuppetry and vandalism (and even a block if necessary) would be in order if they were active, but the user is inactive, making even an indefinite block pointless.

Why is this being brought up now instead of when this was posted anyway? Isn't it a little late for any action now? Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) He said he would use multiple accounts to carry it out, so, lack of activity on the Kainaw account wouldn't necessarily mean that he hadn't followed through. --SubSeven (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius: of course I would have mentioned something sooner... Except I didn't read that until yesterday. SubSeven: That's exactly my concern, that the other accounts may still be active (assuming that Kainaw was serious about that in the first place). Falconus^{p t c} 10:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds fair to block the sockpuppet accounts, if they can be found. Falconus, do you have a list of any suspected sockpuppets? A list and diffs may help make your case for a possible sanction of Kainaw. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, you pretty much have all of the information now that I have. I interacted a little bit with Kainaw back in the day, before they left, but I really can't think of anything else that's relevant at the moment. They were a highly active editor, maybe moreso than any Wikipedian that I have encountered since, so Kainaw would definitely know intimately the ins and outs of Wikipedia (at least the way it was a couple of years ago). I have never investigated any users in any kind of depth, so I am afraid that it is up to other editors to pursue this (or not) further - I really have no idea how I would even begin to try to figure out Kainaw's activities. Let me know if you have any other questions, but for now that's all I've got. Falconus^{p t c} 21:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)A person can claim to be doing many a thing. Regardless of kainaw's scripting and programming skills (such skills are mentioned on his talk page a lot), I doubt such a "tool" is really possible, and if possible it would be ineffective unless it were done on articles nobody else ever edits or looks at. If he were doing it, would he be telling people so openly he was doing it? And if he's been doing it, he's been doing it unchecked for the past 2 1/2 years. To not much effect so far, it seems. Maybe better first to get some expert advice to decide if the thing being claimed is even possible. Do you think if kainaw had stated that he was developing a rainmaking tool so that it would rain continuously on the head of Jimmy Wales, an incident would be raised! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Kainaw account itself was never blocked. This edit shows that this was likely part of a stunt (or else someone actually planning on suing would be a complete idiot to destroy his credibility with this) but we could add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems if anyone else there's anything there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor

Ahmedzaibaloch1121 (talk · contribs) was blocked 3 times between August and September this year (last time for 1 month) for disrupting Wikipedia, but he continued to carry on with the same work, filling Baloch-related articles with very large amount of unsourced nonsense that is based on WP:OR. When it was blocked IPs starting with 39.48. [21] as well as Balochfaisalyar (talk · contribs) and Mohammadhassanibaloch (talk · contribs) were editing the same articles it was editing. I'm very sure these are all the same person, promoting Balochism by whatever means necessary.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a giant hatchet to Baloch people so I expect to see these editors come out of the woodwork soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, it was beyond repairable for me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not give such a vandal/sockpuppeteer a free pass to disrupt the project. What he has been doing is just disgusting.[22]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Ahmedzaibaloch1121. There has been no talk or user talk page edits at all so until there's actual evidence that the editor is paying attention (rather than just waiting these out), I don't see the point in a time period block. As long as he acknowledges the issues, he should be unblocked but I find these things to be standard fair for ethnic articles unfortunately. As for the IP address, there's either WP:DUCK or WP:SPI if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

72.49.36.201 - promotional spam in article text

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

---

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

IP promoting a book called "Threads of Faithfulness" along with some odd conspiracy theories:

• At Mothman [23] [24]
• At Silver Bridge [25] [26]

I've reverted twice and warned on the IPs Talk page but it may not stick. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Let us wait a bit, they did not edit after warning. Additionally, it is awlways a good practice to add the welcome template, may be they could read the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions

• (diff) 10:13, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Turn the debate it into an RfC so that a broader consensus can be sought)
• (diff) 12:27, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (→‎Moving forward: I never put forth an RfC. Don't use my wording with an RfC.)
• (diff) PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• (diff) 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

From the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

From the history of the page:

• 13:31, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!

The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.

If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never been put in a situation before where an editor claims copyright on wording such the proposals for general sanctions to prevent an RfC being held on whether those general sanctions are acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community. But how else is one meant to understand I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you.

I think that the proposed general sanctions are badly drafted because the UK is not defined and potentially covers hundreds of thousands of articles. If one looks at list of general sanctions they are tightly focused on an issue or on a specific area, this proposal is neither. Therefore I think that a decision on whether to impose the sanctions should not be restricted to the dozen or so editors who have expressed an opinion so far.

Now that there is a definite draft I think it should be put to the community via a widely adversed RfC. User:RGloucester had twice reverted my attempts to start an RfC and seems to be determined to continue to do so. I think that this is unreasonable and I would like to see what the consensus is here at ANI is:

1. On whether the language highlighted in Green is reasonable
2. Whether it is desirable to hold an RfC on such a wide ranging (and I think badly drafted General Sanction)

-- PBS (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are an informal process, as it says at the RfC page. Such a process cannot be forced upon a proposal by one heavily-involved editor. You've expressed your objection to the proposal, as is your right. However, that does not overwrite the views of other editors who do support the proposal, and do think that the UK is adequately defined. Your one objection does not trigger an RfC, nor does it overwrite the standard procedure for establishing general sanctions, which is to start a discussion at WP:AN. There is no reason why this proposal is any different from any other general sanctions proposal. I will not take part in any farcical RfC requested at your behest. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will not accept one editor's insertion of an RfC template before my words, without my consent. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I can't see any evidence of anyone 'claiming copyright' on anything. What I can however see is an out-of-sequence construction of a RfC around a comment made in another context. I'm not surprised that RGloucester objects to you misrepresenting his posting in this way. If you think an RfC is merited, start one in the appropriate manner, in your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the general sanctions proposal is to stop the bizarre disruption of UK related pages by advocates and opponents of the metric system of measurement in the UK. Both sides have often paralysed a series of articles, whilst converting backward and forward to / from their favoured measurement system. A clear consensus had formed at WT:MOSNUM there was a need for this, there was a clear consensus at WP:AN to enact it and now progress is being prevented by PBS in what I can only describe as filibustering. This wasn't an RFC, it was refactioring another editors comments - something that in normal circumstances could well lead to a block. It is a bizarre demand by any standards that you be allowed to refactor another editors post to become an RFC; so much so that I question whether PBS still has the WP:COMPETENCE to be an administrator.

1. Yes the proposal is reasonable and there was no need to forum shop it elsewhere.
2. No, I don't see a need for an RFC on the proposal. WCM_email 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump If the statement "I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours." is claim of copyright, then what it it?

@Wee Curry Monsternon one is proposing to "forum shop it elsewhere". I did not redactor anyone's comments indeed if anyone refactored anyone's comments it is User:RGloucester for removing text -- but given the circumstances that is not a question that needs addressing. The question that needs addressing is does one editor have the right under the relevant policies and guidelines to prevent another editor starting an RfC with claims of ownership over both a process and text that that editor states they own? -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with this "line of questioning", I can assure you that. This is starting to look like pure badgering. RGloucester — ☎ 12:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to push this forward to some sort of conclusion, and again we're going down a side issue Doesn't "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." that appears under every edit window have relevance here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Havin been party to the GS discussion, I found it decidedly odd that PBS would unilaterally try to wrap an existing discussion into an RFC. As Andy says, PBS, just start a new RFC. RGloucester has stated their objection to your use of their words in the way you wish. You may have the legal right to edit any text on wiki but wrapping RG's words into your RFC when he's indicated his opposition would be ethically wrong.Blackmane (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I think someone uninvolved might consider closing this and the AN discussion possibly as well, if he finds consensus has been reached.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: If you think you can add the RfC tag to his proposal and then have it take at least a week (and default of a month) before closing, you are wrong. If you just added the RfC to try to get more interest from other editors, I can understand that, but if he doesn't want it to be an RfC, the RfC tag should be removed from his request and start your own. He cant stop you from creating your own RfC thread using whatever words you wish. But don't expect him to stop the building of consensus for his proposal and wait for your RfC to finish (by the time the RfC finishes it is unlikely to matter anymore). --Obsidi (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm starting to get quite fed-up, here. PBS has now started a new "RfC" at WP:AN#RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another. Instead of making his own proposal, he copied mine as I told him not to do, clearly in bad faith. This is absolutely absurd, and I don't know why it should be tolerated. There is no reason why I should be badgered like this. I followed the standard procedure for general sanctions, I worked hard with many editors to ensure that their concerns are dealt with. That's why I have consensus in that AN thread to establish this proposal. It doesn't matter, what I've done, however, because some lone-wolf guy called PBS can come in here, assault me for trying to resolve a serious and long-term problem, and destroy my proposal. Now we have a duplicate joke RfC, and there is nothing I can do about it. I'd like to seek sanctions against PBS. Perhaps he should be blocked, perhaps admonished. I don't know. But this is clearly unacceptable behaviour, and behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. It is childish, and stupid. Please close this farcical RfC, and do something about PBS's behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 13:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: What is your problem with him starting his own RfC? It doesn't stop you from continuing to do what you were doing before. --Obsidi (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

His own "RfC" on the wording proposed by me, disregarding the ongoing discussion that we've been having above, all the input people have put in there? His own "RfC", requested unilaterally by himself as a bureaucratic block on my proposal? His own "RfC", in defiance of the standard process for general sanctions, which is to have a discussion at WP:AN? His own "RfC", an attempt to force his opinion on everyone else because he just doesn't like the proposal? His own "RfC", despite my telling him explicitly that I don't support such an RfC, and that I didn't want him to use my proposal for his own purposes? It is not a legal question of copyright, but one of ethics. This is pure bad faith behaviour, essentially badgering. There is absolutely no justification for this behaviour at all, especially coming from an administrator. It is pure disruption. If he wasn't an administrator, he'd likely be blocked for such behaviour. He's likewise topic-banned editors for doing similar things in articles under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions. The fact that this nonsense is being tolerated by the community is absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it is "bureaucratic block on my proposal"? They operate independently. If your proposal gets consensus, it gets closed and enacted. At that point in time the RfC becomes moot (as already enacted), and gets closed for that reason. Doesn't stop or block you at all. --Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. There are now two discussions about the same proposal, one of which is illegitimate. Nothing can be done with the upper proposal until this "RfC" is closed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? You proposed something using the normal process, and he proposed something using the RfC process. Same words/different words, doesn't matter, two different proposals. Normally fractured conversations like that are bad, and we like to merge into a single process, but if people cant agree, then there is no requirement of having only one. I don't see how the RfC prevents someone from closing your proposal (assuming it has a consensus to be enacted).--Obsidi (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is called Wikipedia:Forumshopping. It is bad, pure and simple. People do agree: everyone except PBS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think its forum shopping, he isn't asking to override your consensus (at least from what I can tell), by going to another forum. He is trying to get input from other outside editors, using a process that probably in my opinion isn't going to work (because of the time an RfC takes), but that's all it is. He isn't asking that your consensus be overturned because he didn't get the answer he wants. When your discussion closes with a consensus (assuming you actually do get a consensus), then the RfC should be closed. --Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is. He thinks that the comments made in the discussion I started were not "wide enough", even though plenty of other general sanctions have been established with less participation. As such, he is unilaterally opening an RfC so that he can do whatever he can to stop the proposal, even if only temporarily. He is saying, essentially, that the discussion I started isn't good enough, and that there is no possibility for consensus without an RfC. That's exactly what he said in the thread I started. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: He says that it is "not a well watched page" and that he would like to see a "well advertised RfC" and that he created the "RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought". Maybe its ambiguous on exactly what he meant to do with the RfC (override whatever consensus developed without the RfC or just gain a wider audience viewing it). One is clear forum shopping, the other is just trying to get more eyeballs on the topic that might be interested in it. Best to ask PBS what he meant for the RfC, to clear things up. --Obsidi (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It doens't matter whether it is a "well-watched page" or not, because all other general sanctions have been drawn-up there, and that's the standard procedure. I followed that procedure, and I should not be punished for doing so. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, you followed the procedure, and that is the procedure, and with consensus can be closed and add the general sanctions you proposed (with or without the RfC). I just disagree that makes the RfC improper as I don't think it stops or prevents or in anyway interferes with your proposal (if that is what is being proposed by PBS that would be forum shopping). If he wants more people to view the suggestion, that is fine, if he wants to override the consensus with the RfC that would be improper. --Obsidi (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

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

---

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional information

As a party to both recent ANI's, it would not be right for me to offer an opinion, however I offer the following additional information. These diffs show the edit history of UrbanVillager: … … Global[27] … … Commons [28] … … German [29] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [30] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [31] … … Italian [32] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [33] nb complaints about block [34]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [35] … … Romanian [36] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [37] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [38] … … Serbian [39] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently. Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [40]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reponse

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be.

I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [41]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

misuse of userpage for self-promotion?

Abhimanyu Sheoran

New user Abhimanyu Sheoran (talk · contribs), who has only edits to his userpage, seems to misuse Wikipedia for self-promotion via his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually he's not so new since he made his first edit in 2012. But he's clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the content (contact information, etc.), this probably falls under the purview of WP:USERBIO and probably could be deleted as WP:CSD#U5. I agree that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for a start I've tagged the page as {{db-u5}} (which was promptly enacted by RHaworth). De728631 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anish Raj Prajapat

There is also Anish Raj Prajapat (talk · contribs · logs) who is in fact a fairly new editor but has done nothing but to edit his own user page. Moreover it looks like an unattributed text from some Wiki and might therefore be a copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Simplest approach to things like this (of which there are many) is just to take them to MfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this user has copied the same content in locations where it doesn't belong, such as here, I would say a disruptive editing and/or self-promotion only account block is in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And FreeRangeFrog has now deleted that page per CSD U5. I support blocking the account. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As this user has recreated the WP:FAKEARTICLE as his user page, I have blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, since I don't think he is here to contribute. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Page dissapeared: Coconut oil

Can somebody put back the page "Coconut oil". The content dissapeared. Pease - thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.111.80 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cant see anything wrong with the page Coconut oil. Not edited since 27-October. Amortias (T)(C) 14:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I had the same problem on the mobile site but not the desktop one, and purging fixed it. I've no idea if it was a temporary problem/random bug or some template vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen blank pages a couple of times on the mobile browser in the last two or three weeks. Ca2james (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Barfridge Family

Page deleted. That's all, folks. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi,

Can we get this page deleted and salted. Blatent hoax/vandalism recreated shortly after deletion. Amortias (T)(C) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and blocked the vandalism-only account that created it both times. That should be enough for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page moves need undoing

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

---

A short while back Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) moved the following articles (and the associated talk pages, and talk page archives)

• Bangalore -> Bengaluru
• Belgaum -> Belagavi
• Belgaum district -> Belagavi district

However there is explicit and recent consensus on the first two article's talk pages not to move the pages to the new official city names, and the third move is also likely to be similarly controversial, and should be reverted till consensus for it is established (see discussions here and here). I left a note at Jamie's talk page, but they seem to have signed off for the day. Can some admin undo the moves instead? I would have waited for Ohnoitsjamie's next editing session, but unfortunately in all the moves-over-redirects and related deletions, the contents of the Bangalore article have disappeared altogether and need to be restored asap.

To be clear, I believe this is a simple matter of Jamie not noticing the talk-page discussions, and no "action" against the admin is desired or IMO needed. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• The first two definitely have a consensus to not have been moved, that is certain. Like you said, it may be that he didn't know, but would like to hear his input on them first, as there may be more to the story, or a simple mistake. I think you are right about the third, it shouldn't be moved without consensus either. Dennis - 2¢ 02:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, something is utterly messed up. Neither Bangalore or Bengaluru go to an article for me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, same here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, the page moves should be reverted due to that lack of consensus, especially with Bangalore/Bengaluru, where now there is apparently no page. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore has been moved to Bengaluru twice. The first time would have moved the article and left a redirect at Bangalore, the second time would have replaced the article now at Bengaluru with the new redirect and created another new redirect at Bangalore. So Bangalore ends up as a redirect to Bengaluru and Bengaluru is a redirect to itself. The original article is presumably now in deletion limbo somewhere, and simply reversing the move will not achieve anything seeing as both articles are now redirects to Bengaluru. Neatsfoot (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the Bangalore one, because:

• Regardless of the preferred name, the move intention cannot have been to have left us with no article at all, so there's been an inadvertent error along the way. Better we have at least one possible name with an article attached, than neither;
• The name issue has been raised repeatedly at Talk:Bangalore, and the most recent discussion seems to show a consensus to keep the article at "Bangalore" despite the official name change. So that's where I have left the article. If there's a consensus to the contrary somewhere other than the talkpage, please accept my apologies and redo the move with my blessing.

I agree we need Ohnoitsjamie's input, as there is likely a good reason for the move that is not otherwise evident from the talkpage (in which case, sorry for jumping the gun). I note also that the page was previously move-protected, so Ohnoitsjamie's move counts as an admin action. I would argue my move back should be considered as a good-faith WP:IAR to make sure Wikipedia has an immediately readable article on Bangalore/Bengaluru. But if there's a view to the contrary I am happy to revert the restoration with apologies to all concerned. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason given was "official name change by Indian government," which is disappointing, since this wouldn't have been a valid reason to move the pages even if it had been brought up during the recent move discussion. I won't be reverting this since I closed the move requests, but I agree that it needs to be reverted and discussed on the talk page before any subsequent moves take place. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do edits sit with the over-all name thingy? Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was fine earlier, that is how I read the two different RM discussions that ended in a consensus to NOT move them. Not sure what happened. If Jamie isn't around soon, I would just say to move all of them back via consensus/likely consensus for now. Eventually, they will end up there, but when isn't really something admin decide. Dennis - 2¢ 13:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response everyone and thanks to User:Euryalus for the resurrection of Bangalore. (Atlantis next?) Given Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) comment here, can some admin move back the Belgaum & Belgaum district articles to their stable locations. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: The remaining pages had already been moved back by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and no further action is needed at this time. Marking as resolved. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Ent 70

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

---

Hi The above user is in the process of requestig multiple unblocks all of which have so far been denied. At present the are making yet more personal attacks on their talk page despite thi being why they were rought to the attention of this notice board to start wiht. Can someone take a look and pull talk page access as well please. Amortias (T)(C) 12:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Dennis - 2¢ 13:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Complaint regarding an administrator

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

---

I was just warned about vandalizing Wikipedia, and to my surprise, the person who accused me is an administrator. I object most strongly to this accusation, which I knew was obviously false as soon as I read it (since I hadn't even touched an article, let alone messed one up). When I clicked on the vandalism link, it became even more obvious that this was a gross error. The only purpose of this false accusation appears to intimidate me out of further pursing an issue on the Guy Fawkes Night (the discussion was also closed by that same person as "Nothing to see"). They also accused me of trolling, which I think is at best a one sided view of the situation. I was doing nothing more trollish than asking people to answer some very simple questions and turning their own accusations of a lack of intelligence on their head, something which they apparently find very uncomfortable. Several people there claim that the Anonymous group's choice of 5 November as a particular campaign date has nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes Night, and no reader would be in the slightest bit interested in such "trivia". Since the article tries to portray GFN as having been all but forgotten in the modern context as regards extreme activism, this is obviously giving out false information to readers. Since the relation has been mentioned in media, as has the wider Anonymous-Vendetta-Guy Fawkes thematic relation (in great analytical detail), it's obviously not trivia at all. After pointing this out, I was accused of using nothing but POV, yet when I pointed out the inherent POV in the argument of the person making that accusation, apparently I'm trolling. This is grossly unfair. Since nobody else appears to have been similarly accused, I think the only reason I've been targeted this way is because I'm new. Since one person there was even open about the fact they see Anonymous as "a bunch of spotty bedroom-inhabiting 4chan teenagers wearing V for Vendetta masks", I don't think I'm being a troll for arguing that their opposition has more to do with this dislike of the group than any claimed lack of relevance to GFN. Galactic envoy (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us see what Drmies replies. Your participation in the discussion, in my opinion, was not highly constructive, but I do not see vandalism. May be it was an error.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone was being unconstructive, it's the people who treated Buddy (and later me) as if our failure to accept their objections was because we're simply too stupid to even understand them. The fact is, their objections are pretty baseless (and quite clearly full of POV), and they could barely even be bothered to respond, let alone reply to our specific objections. They appear to have been more interested in either answering questions that weren't asked, or making hyperbolic claims about what was asked. In addition to helpful contributions like assuming I was just drunk. We appear to have been wasting our time even bothering to take them seriously. And yet I'm the troll? I'm the vandal? No way. Galactic envoy (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an essay on exactly how to resolve this sort of dispute - WP:DROP. If there is an issue, be the "bigger man" so to speak, and go somewhere else and make useful contributions, as opposed to just argueing on a talk page. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way is pointing out obvious errors of omission in an article like GFN not useful? I mean, I already knew the connection, so it doesn't actually affect me, but I had assumed that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would be a bit more concerned about a failure to properly educate people. Forget about it and do something else doesn't seem like good advice in that context. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about the content dispute and how right you are (that's the talk page of the article). If you want to talk about the inappropriate accusation of vandalism by an admin, that's fine, but lets see what the other party says in response (maybe they will agree with you and say it was just a mistake). --Obsidi (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Let's go through the history here. A new account is created on November 1. Their only edits are aggressive, obnoxious comments at one talk page (and one other related). After they piss off everyone, Drmies gives them a warning. This new account doesn't go to Drmies and talk to him. Rather he comes here and rants some more (without notifying Drmies of this report). Somehow, it doesn't look like this account is here for any purpose but to troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you checked the history did you? Why don't you cask Buddy if I pissed him off? Or did you not even notice him? The only people I appear to have pissed off, are the people who also seem to think we're too stupid to be allowed to even comment on this error of omission, and would very much like us to just fuck off because we're vandalistic trolls. I don't think you're at all concerned with aggressive, obnoxious comments as part of the "history" here at all, otherwise you'd have had something to say about the people who were doing exactly that to us. As for not talking to him, the only thing I would have had to say to my accuser about these obviously false accusations, would be to ask him what the hell he was playing at, at which point I would presumably have been blocked for trolling anyway, probably by you, I'm guessing. So forgive me for having the foresight not to fall for that obvious trap (which most people would correctly recognize is a form of trolling itself). But I knew it would somehow be my fault, yet again. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This post above is NOT appropriate behavior Galactic envoy, you will get your self blocked VERY quickly if you keep this up. Especially the part about "too stupid to be allowed to even comment on this error of omission, and would very much like us to just fuck off because we're vandalistic trolls", you are at best reading words into what someone else said that they didn't say (and including a variety of personal insults and inappropriate language). --Obsidi (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree there are lots of problems with what he has written so far (from a quick glance through his contributions to that page), but it is not vandalism (at least as far as I can tell so far). So he was right in a way to say that he was being accused of something that he had not done (he may have done lots of other stuff that was bad, so accuse him of that instead!). He should have gone and talked to Drmies, but he isn't required to do so before coming here with a complaint about another users conduct. He didn't notify Drmies as he should have (but I'll chalk that up to the clear fact that he is really new and Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies), lets just let him know what he should have done so he can do better next time. --Obsidi (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is indeed likely.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's been explained several times on the talk page that there's no connection at all between the Anonymous group and Guy Fawkes Night. Zero, zilch, nada. What Galactic envoy and others either refuse or fail to understand is that the significance of 5 November for Anonymous is that it's the date of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. So I really can't see the purpose of this report, or what it's hoped will be achieved by it, beyond an attempt to foment trouble. Eric Corbett 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been explained several times to this person that the connection to the date is blindingly obvious (and has been noticed by the media several times)- as has the significance of it to the GFN article specifically. The continued accusations of trolling appear to be nothing but an attempt to deliberately ignore these points. The purpose of the report is to expose the fact that the tactics being used to stifle this discussion appear to go far beyond deliberately ignoring the other person or insulting their intelligence or using ridiculous hyperbolic arguments or any number of other duplicitous tactics used to get their way (which is to exclude the information at any cost), it also extends to an administrator making false accusations of vandalism and closing the discussion apparently for no other reason than they agree with the person above, which to me appears to me to be a massive conflict of interest. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like getting into content disputes here, but you are basically accusing him of Galactic envoy of just inventing stuff. As an uninvolved editor, I really doubt that is true. Guy Fawkes is like the practical mascot of Anonymous. I mean you look at articles from reliable sources like this, and it seems a fairly strong connection has been made by some reliable sources from Guy Fawkes Night and Anonymous. Maybe its not enough of a WP:WEIGHT to include in the page, but I think its a bit more then the accusation of just inventing something out of whole cloth. --Obsidi (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• We don't have an "only warning" for "disruptive editing, trolling, refusing to get off the soapbox and leave the matter be since it's obviously not going anywhere", so I had to choose the "vandalism" one. Also, what Bbb says (thank you), and, on the content, what Eric says (and the talk page makes this abundantly clear). GFN and its talk page is frequently the subject of trolling, and the sooner we put at stop to it the better. Let me add that I appreciate Eric Corbett's visit to ANI, and that he is NOT here to unload on an admin may well be a sign of the apocalypse. All of you need to ask yourselves, "Will I be left behind?" Drmies (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  I personally would (and do) leave a non-template warning in this case. On the other case, I agree that we likely have a case of NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Might I suggest next time just leave a {{subst:uw-generic4}}: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Where can I complain about the above closure?

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

---

Rant collapsed

Sorry, but no way in hell am I ever going to accept a "final warning" for disruption for objecting to what just happened above. I asked a very legitimate question - how do I appeal that closure, and the person who closed it simply removed the question, saying "closed means closed" (again, there's the assumption that I'm just too stupid to be involved here - of course I fucking know what closed means, I wanted to appeal it). But yes, I'm the troll, obviously. The levels of hypocrisy in all this is frankly astounding. I do not believe for a second that people who are so obviously unfair and one-sided in their approach as Bbb23 obviously is, are the final arbiters of justice on Wikipedia (at least I hope they're not). I think the purpose of these attempts to intimidate me are obvious - it's already clear that Drmies only got involved because he supports the person who was originally accusing Buddy of being too stupid to understand what they were saying. Quite why Bbb23 thinks Drmies should face no action at all for his open admission that his accusation that I was a vandal was not only false, that it wasn't even an error either, escapes me. Unless you read his other statements, then it becomes clearer - there's not much logic in taking action against the person you agree with, is there? And yet somehow I'm the troll here? You don't need to Einstein to figure out what the people who don't want the material added to the GFN article have to gain by painting everyone who does as trolls, and everything they do as disruption, and indeed then acting as if they alone have the final say on whether or not continuing to complain about such obvious abuse is disruptive also. I only got involved in this issue out of empathy for Buddy, but in a way he does at least appear to have been lucky in not protesting too much about the run-around he received at the GFN page. Perhaps this is the way all disputes on Wikipedia are handled, I don't know, but I sure as hell am not going to accept Drmies or Bbb23's obvious bias as the final word on this - if they want to block me for objecting to their false accusations and one-sided dealing in this matter, then I guess it will only prove what their ultimate aim was. Galactic envoy (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you were given a chance to walk away without a WP:BOOMERANG block and warned, now I suspect your about to get blocked. You were given a final warning because your behavior is inapprorate. I suggest you look generally at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, and specifically at WP:REHASH. This is in addition to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I would say that User:Drmies is probably too involved to block you (although looking back at it, it seems he only closed the thread and warned you so far, so he might not be involved), but Bbb23 so far has only interacted with you as an admin and can block you (or some other admin). I can't quite think of how this would fall under discretionary sanctions, so I think a consensus would be needed here, but I suspect that will occur shortly. --Obsidi (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Ymblanter has already blocked you. --Obsidi (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree Take your pick WP:NPA or WP:DE. This post might even swing it as WP:NOTHERE. Amortias (T)(C) 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyright images

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

---

Can an admin please delete all images uploaded by TheAdnanMalik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are all clearly stolen. I did list one of the users files for deletion, but they didn't take any notice and just uploaded another today. I will also warn the user. Thanks.--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Acroterion has taken care of this. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

<ec> Obvious copyright violations, all deleted. I've warned the user that they may not upload images until they exhibit an understanding of free image policy. If they upload any more copyvios, they will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Metropolitan reverting the work of three contributors

Three of us were working on the Paris article (about to lose its GA status), and User:Metropolitan reverted all[42]. This in ignoring all talk-page discussions (and talk-page comments after first revert), threatened a revert war[43], and acted on it.[44][45]. Sorry for this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I reverted the first revert, then the second (hoping talk-page message would help bring reason), but I'm done now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me from your description what the nature of Metropolitan's first large edit [46] was. I can see it was shortening the article substantially, but then, other editors had also been cutting content, as there seems to be a general feeling the article needs pruning. You say he was "reverting all" of previous edits, but what exactly was lost, and to what older version was he going back? Also, in the talkpage discussion, he seemed to be offering to manually reinstate some edits of yours that you had been doing in the meantime [47]. Did you ascertain what edits he meant by that, and whether that would have met your concerns? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Replacing the Lede that had just been cut (not by me) for one thing, and other fixes that had been going on all afternoon. The article order is different, but the content is basically the way it was before we started. And the order change is in spite of all the discussion about it that had been going on since a week now. One can't just force themselves like that, that's no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what edits he will be replacing. Do I have to go through all my fixes again to make sure nothing was missed, if they are indeed restored?

I've been making restructuring propositions since a week now, and have avoided implementing anything major until consensus is reached, but Metropolitan hardly took part in it at all. That is no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm currently trying to bring back the edits, I didn't expect everyone to edit so intensively the article while I was working on the new structure. I'm trying to keep on track what people have done but it's not so easy. If the editors want to bring in the contents they've edited in the last hours, they are of course welcomed to help me out. Metropolitan (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But you don't seem to understand that we shouldn't have to go through all that work again. You should have let us know what you were up to, at least. And even now that you know what you've done, you're not willing to redo your restructuring (that we have not yet discussed) from where we left off, and you revert twice to protect your error, to boot. That is no way to edit. The best thing for you to do is put the page back the way it was when SiefkinDR left off, and tell us what you want to do on the talk page - like the rest of us! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And if all you've done is restructuring, then that shouldn't be a problem for you at all. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I have restored back the Lede to the state is was after last edit from SiefkinDR at 17:49, 2 November 2014. Is it good? Metropolitan (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Still you don't understand. I don't know exactly what my edits were, and I haven't a clue what the others have done, all I know is that the double links I removed and picture size-position are right back where they were when I started, so that means that their work is reverted, too. And you still won't accept outlining your changes for the rest of us before making them, although you know full well that we're discussing that very subject! This doesn't matter? That's the message you're sending, and your repeated reverting just reinforces it. That is no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, as far as I can see none of my edits today have been replaced. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy (expletive), the admin who I asked for advice on how to save the article's GA is at the article correcting the mistakes, mistakes I had already corrected, for me. Even those were reverted! Now add embarrassment to the lot. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it took me a long time but I've scanned every single edits from the afternoon and I took good care to implement them back in the article, here's a link to the diff: [48]. It was not my intent to revert those, I couldn't know you would work in the article at the same time as I would. Sorry again for that. I hope the problem is now solved. Metropolitan (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris again, needs to stop

I've stayed out of editing Paris but keeps it on my watch list. I hoped things would improve after Fut.Perf.'s intervention but I must say I'm worried both by the continued edit wars [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] and related arguments on the talk page. I'm not commenting on who is right and who is wrong, but it just cannot continue like this all the time. Apart from the edit warring, I'm also a bit concerned by the massive deletions of sourced content with very little discussion about it. To take but one example, the history section used to have a paragraph about the Paris massacre of 1961 a highly notable even that was removed [54]. I'm not here to point finger at anyone or take any particular side, but there is far too much contentious editing without discussion, edit warring and confusion. I'm sure all involved editors have the best motives, but there seems to be something about Paris. Nobody wants to see the articles locked again, but I'd recommend the admins to consider putting in place restrictions on deletions and reversions. I've lost time of how many times Paris has been at ANI, something should be done now.Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of history gone, I hadn't realised. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been filling the talk page with propositions and invitations for discussion - and haven't, aside from adding a short section, been working on content at all, but fixes and layout (still not restored) because of the RGA message today. It's discussion-ignoring/work-effacing 'editing' like this that is the problem, because it shows disdain for other contributors and places the focus on the contributor imposing themselves and their own opinion instead of focusing on/discussing content with others. I personally don't care who did what in the past, as long as they're working in the interest of the article - I was actually enjoying working with the others until this happened. I still don't know what was changed today, though - I haven't had time to look because of this. But suddenly, yet again, it's no fun anymore. I left this article years ago exactly because of behaviour like this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: :This new case brought at AN/I by ThePromenader (the 4th time ThePromenader brings a case at AN/I against another Paris article's editor in the space of a month and half) is clearly against the rule set by the administrator Fut.Perf. that no editor with five or more contributions to the Paris talk page should accuse another editor at AN/I: [55]. Please make this stop. The atmosphere in the Paris article is deleterious precisely because of these repeated accusations and strings of complaints at AN/I. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is simply not true, this is only my second-ever ANI report since I joined Wikipedia ten years ago. And I've seen Sunrise's restriction being taken advantage of more than anything. By the way, my layout work from today still hasn't been restored. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second, that's not true, there were a couple more a quite a years ago - and always because of the misbehaviour of the same person. Look familiar? [56] THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment ThePromenader and Der Statistiker, I repeat that I'm not commenting to point finger at anyone. I am sure that you both and all other users at Paris right now are there for the right reasons and do what they think are best. My concern is about the article, and I don't want to make it personal or take sides. Nobody can deny that there have been far too many edit wars at Paris, far too many arguments and far too many discussions at Paris and at other forums. It reminds me a bit of Jerusalem in the sense that edit wars and arguments between long-time users take up far too much time not just at that article but elsewhere as well, and I wonder if it would not be appropriate to put in place similar rules as those we've had at Jerusalem for a long time already.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is already a rule, which says that no editor in the Paris article with more than 5 edits should make any accusation against other editors, or criticize other editors, on the talk page or elsewhere, and especially not open any complaint at AN/I against any other editor. This rule has been broken several times already. If the rule is not enforced, I can't see how any measure of peaceful cooperation can be restored in the article. And comments such as "Sunrise's restriction (is) being taken advantage of more than anything" (see above) certainly do not help to restore a peaceful cooperation in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, User:Jeppiz, you've been nothing but helpful. But I invite anyone to examine what's going on there quite thoroughly. And for the rest: My disengenuousity metre is tipping, that coming from someone just exiting from a block for taking advantage of (disregarding) that very rule. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've said more than enough here, unless I have to debunk any further tu quoique accusations against me: concerning that, please see the diff I left just above for my past need for administrator attention. It's quite revealing. Wait, here [57]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I also had a large number of edits reverted without notice by Metropolitan when I shortened the lead and history section. I appreciate that when he was told that Metropolitan did finally put them back. Looking back at the history of this article, it seems that there has never been a period of peaceful cooperation in this article. There do seem to be some editors with a specific agenda about how Paris should be described who delete anything that doesn't agree with it. That's not of course how Wikipedia works, and I think that should stop. Accusations against editors have to stop, and deletions of text without any discussion also has to stop. I suggest editors should give notice on the talk page if they are planning any significant deletions or additions, so they can be discussed first, and there should be agreement in advance on where the work on the article needs to be done.Can we try that? This article still needs a lot of work to improve it and we need to get going. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavorial warning from admin Fut.Perf.

On 23 October 2014, Fut.Perf. was addressing us a message that we "should all stop, immediately, to fight with each other on this noticeboard"[58], a threat that would be "gladly enforced with blocks at any moment".Jeppiz and ThePromenader didn't respect that rule here. They are totally unable to tell me what is wrong in the new contents structure, but simply state that during the tiny hour I needed to reorganize the thing, they've done edits that couldn't be brought back without reverting back the whole contents structure.

It is impossible to work for the good of the Paris article with them around. Each time other contributors are interfering, they are unsatisfied and go whine at the administrators noticeboard. It pains me to say so but there is no other way at this stage than to make apply the warning initially announced by Fut.Perf.. I'm quite depressed to tell you the truth, as a lot of work is needed to bring back some encyclopedic value to the article, and it's next to impossible to do so if we're brough to the AN/I at every single significant edit. Metropolitan (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That rule has been abused from the get-go; the Paris talk page (and the Journalist obliged to respond to false allegations there) is proof enough of that. If the complained-about really had something to complain about, they would open an ANI of their own, and not just seek protection from complaints through a 'no name-calling' rule. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What really is a problem is, because of a cursory glance, false and valid complaints seem to have equal validity: this really seems to work, and that too is being exploited. I know you're overworked, but someone with a bit of time needs to look into this. And I'm sorry to ask for it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't share at all this opinion. The journalist message was on content-only. I have the feeling the Paris article has largely improved since Fut.Perf.'s initial message. Many edits from various contributors, including yours for the matter, have changed the article for the better. There was just no need to open an AN/I file here. Now there's still major works to be done in the contents of the article, which still reads more like a tourist brochure than like an encyclopedic article. It would be good if we would focus on that instead of bickering. I still hope that we prove ourselves able to work together. Metropolitan (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Since Fut.Perf.'s intervention, I've stayed clear of any personal discussions both here and on Talk:Paris In my comment above, in an already existing thread, I explicitly made it clear I did not comment on anyone and did not call for actions against anyone, I just suggested we may consider WP:1RR on Paris. I named no user, accused no user, I did not comment on the content and I did not call for sanctions for any user. For Metropolitan to then accuse me of breaking rules (what rules did I break?) is not that nice. As I was explicitly named, I've answered and leave the discussion. I'm uninvolved in this conflict and will remain uninvolved. For my part, the discussion is over.Jeppiz (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've carefully restored every single edits wrongfully reverted during the edit conflict of this afternoon. Here are the diffs [59][60]. So indeed, I hope everyone agrees this case is now over. Metropolitan (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you actually made a point of not restoring my edits - only mine, it seems - and another contributor re-did my language corrections and the layout is the way it was before I started working (even the few images I removed replaced). I've lost track of the rest, and I can't be arsed to look - I shouldn't have to, and that's what's not being understood here.

I hadn't realised that you had made so few contributions to the article [61] and that this is actually history repeating [62] (again ignoring talk-page discussions, but you didn't steamroll anyone's edits that time - AFAIK) - usually your role was backing Statistiker's (as Hardouin) edit-warring. And you have a history of telling everyone to stop reverting while you yourself revert [63] - it's the disingenuous equivilent of one little kid trying to steal a toy from another little kid while shouting "You're gonna break it! You're gonna break it!" when kid trying to keep his toy resists.

And when I look at the changes, am I going to see "metropolitan area" inserted everywhere, even for economy where it is factually impossible? Yep [64], even under the title "restoring the promenader's edits" where none of my edits were being restored at all. The disingenuousity here is astounding, but it's obviously working.

The core problem here is that a few from a certain skyscraper forum have made the Paris article their WP:BATTLEGROUND mission to "erase the touristy view of Paris" and use its high readership as a soapbox for their counter-reality "Paris is really a skyscraper-filled metropolis" POV (and anyone opposing this drive is 'against' them). Just a look at the past conflicts make this obvious. If no-one is going to understand this, or take the time to look a the problem, then these problems will continue. And they've got Wikipedia and its admins figured out to a tee, as it's been working since almost ten years so far. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How far back are you talking The Promenader? It looks like your first recent edit was on October 31st and the article has shrunk about 10k characters so I don't know what edits you are talking about. You do need to drop arguing about edits from a year to almost a decade ago and let it go. People really do need to use template:construction or have an RfC on the different structures or something. Given the notoriety of this type of article, I think asking everyone to use the templates (with the section parameter) when rewriting entire sections isn't too far-fethced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Massive vandalism attack at Reflection (Fifth Harmony album)

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

---

There's a large number of registered accounts and IPs vandalising Reflection (Fifth Harmony album) right now - I've asked for page protection at RPP, but I hope there might be someone here who could act more quickly. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

DungeonSiegeAddict510's signature

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

---

A couple of days ago, I informed DungeonSiegeAddict510 that his signature was in violation of WP:Signatures' various guidelines and policies. At the time, he had set his custom signature to be User:DungeonSiegeAddict510/sig so it would transclude as a template, which is against policy and I informed him of his error as well as telling him it was too large and did not include his user name in any form. It was also, at the time, massive when automatically substituted. He then heavily truncated the formatting and after I informed him it was still much too long, he has effectively made another workaround this to have User:DungeonSiegeAddict510/sig2 be in his signature preferences which transcludes the original template and results in the original template just being transcluded instead of substituted when he signs his comments. This is still out of the question, but he has not yet responded to my recent notification that it contravenes policy, even though I initially told him templates were not allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly Id just let it go, there are plenty of things here on Wikipedia that need the attention more than a user's signature. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a small note, signatures are not required to have the user name in any form. ansh666 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It only says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've left him a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this really the best allocation of wikipedia resources? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There will be zero wikipedia resources wasted once you alter your signature. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it :/ --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Bobrayner - disruptive edits on Argentina-related articles, blatant POV-pushing on same.

Dear Administrative Staff:

Bobrayner is, for the upteenth time in over two years, pushing his pet opinion pieces (which he calls "reliable sources") on Argentina-related articles and arbitrarily deleting referenced facts and news every chance he gets. Bob Rayner has been pushing POV on articles related to Argentina (and elsewhere) since at least 2012, deleting mention of actual, sourced events, and misrepresenting opinion pieces and wishful thinking in the form of snarky op-eds from at The Economist (well-known for its highly opinionated editorials), or obscure sources like Seeking Alpha, as fact.

He's also fond of blanket reversals - even to unrelated grammatical and other minor edits - while deleting mention of actual event and replacing them with his favorite opinion pieces, some nothing more than bad-faith predictions by the business press (definitely not RS) and all highly biased. In the case of Renationalization of YPF, for instance, he's been cut-and-pasting op-eds as if these were factual edits, while deleting real news involving Chevron and Morgan Stanley, etc. for no reason.

Other examples include: here, here, here, and here.

I don't edit much anymore, but I do like to keep an eye on some of these articles as they make easy targets for POV-pushers like Bob Rayner. I had hoped to avoid bringing this up; but I've been dealing almost single-handedly with his deletions and bad-faith editorials for three years now. Please help if you can.

Thank You. Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You were just warned for edit-warring whilst logged out, then you stalked me, reverting all my edits? Oh dear.

I think this edit speaks for itself. No doubt there are some people who really want to believe what INDEC says, but umpteen reliable independent sources say that it's wrong. Calling anybody who disagrees with you a "vandal" won't change that. Hammering the revert button won't change it either. On wikipedia, we should follow what reliable sources say, and the sooner you stop reverting - or have the ability removed - the sooner articles about the economy of Argentina will reflect reliable sources. And when other editors warn you for systematic copyright violations, writing it off as "garbage" is not a good move either. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• To me this appears to be a dispute on which sources are more reliable. Sherlock4000 seems to favor the Argentina government figures, while saying the Economist is unreliable. bobrayner seems to be saying the Economist is reliable but the Argentina government is not. I would suggest you both discuss this at the thread that bobrayner opened up here:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#INDEC and if you get consensus there and if whichever one of you is not on the consensus side continues to add non reliable sources, then you come back here. Can you, Sherlock4000, point to a prior WP:RSN consensus decision on this that I might have missed? --Obsidi (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• There has certainly never been an RSN thread which supported the use of INDEC. However, although that's near the heart of our disagreement, the problem does cover more than just reliable sources; Sherlock4000 has some problems with stalking, personal attacks, and copyright too. bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Obsidi. Regarding his INDEC edits, he not only added editorials whose bias and unsuitability as RS speaks for itself ("Don't Lie to me Argentina" by the opinion magazine the Economist!?), added nothing that wasn't already under the Controversy section of the article. Besides being argumentative at best, he's blatantly trying to give controversies undue weight, while the "sources" themselves were mostly mere editorials and added nothing to what was already there.

Then there are these two gems of the world of bias ([65]}} and [66]), which Bob pushes constantly just to trumpet your personal view that the renationalization of YPF was just to create a "feeding trough for her political cronies" and a "symptom of weak government institutions." You know, the only other time I recall another editor noticing this, it was to warn him that he was parading op-eds as fact and that the opinions of a random Economist correspondent do not meet notability guidelines and cannot be presented as fact. These types of opinion piece were usually added, by the way, while deleting mention of real-life news - and so often I've lost count.

Then there's the question of the mass deletions, like here. Whether or not you think the data is reliable is no reason to arbitrarily delete them; in the U.S. for example it's widely believed that consumer price inflation is understated as well, but that doesn't give editors the right to delete EVERYTHING the BEA publishes (even completely unrelated things, like import and export percentages, as you've done in this case). I might add that where there has been controversy (mainly regarding inflation data) I took care to add notes to that effect.

Finally, I should add that, as Bob knows very well, I was not edit-warring while logged out, since to do that I would have had to been using BOTH ip address AND a log on while involved in the same series of edit reverts.

Considering all this, Bob, it would seem that you have a real problem making constructive, neutral additions to anything having to do with Argentina - particularly on economics-related articles. Again, I hate bothering others with things like this; but this has been going on since at least 2012, and I no longer think it would ever stop unless I brought this up to someone's attention.

Thanks, and all the best. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so your not arguing the economist is not a reliable source, just that he is using the economist blog articles as facts in WP voice. That I can more understand. You guys can dispute the reliability of the Argentina government over at WP:RSN. bobrayner can you please not source the economist blog entries as fact (those that are under the /blogs/ url)? (you are free to source them like any WP:NEWSBLOG though with attribution). But I am not willing to say he should be sanctioned at this time, especially when I see edits like this by you Sherlock4000: [67] This appears to be sourced by a non-blog economist article (along with a variety of other sources). Both of you need to be more careful about your sourcing from what I can see. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's basically it, thank you - and it's been going on for OVER TWO YEARS. I might add that the edit you pointed to (#107) was mostly the moving of the reliability controversy (not deleting it) to the "Controversy" section within the INDEC article, since Bob slapped it on the lead in an attempt to give it undue weight. The little editorial he added at the bottom of the article is also gratuitous, frankly, as well as repititious, as it just restates what had already been belabored in the Controversy section without adding anything new. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, The Economist is a respected and most definitively reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly just the Economist. For instance, this is an impeccably reliable source, published by a university press; there's also the IMF and the WSJ and the FT and so on; but Sherlock4000 automatically reverts. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. Can you provide diffs? In any case, best would be to attract eyeballs to these articles using RFCs. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Obsidi and Cwobeel:

It's not that I'm trying to impose INDEC data to the exclusion of any caveats - on the contrary, I've added most of those caveats myself. If you'll look at the history of Renationalization of YPF, you'll see that he's deleting real news while adding opinion pieces - and had done so REPEATEDLY. He's using them as primary sources, but of course they're not proof of anything. These are just some examples: here, here, here, here, and here.

Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, Sherlock4000. When I see an editor using edit summaries on reverts with "Vandal", "removing POV pushing" and other similar, it is a read flag right there. Opinion pieces are not different than "real news" (whatever that means); if properly attributed and if the sources are reliable opinions are 100% usable in articles. You may need to re-read WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the argument at least is lack of proper attribution as an opinion (at least for those that really are actually are marked as blogs and not articles by the economist), and just stated as fact, which they shouldn't do for WP:NEWSBLOG. --Obsidi (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That is easily fixed, instead of "The expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions", use "According to The Economist, the expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions." - Cwobeel (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, Cwobeel, because that's a nothing but an editorial - and a very nasty and biased one at that. Whatever objections there were to the renationalization are amply covered in the article; this would just be injecting a biased -and mistaken- op ed that contributes no real-world information at all. Furthermore, it's from an unknown op-ed writer ("R.A."?) and it's predictions (the op ed piece is over two years old) turned out to be dead wrong, since the firm has managed to turn a 6% yearly decline in output up to then into 3% growth in '13 and 15% growth in the first half of this year (something Bob repeatedly tried to delete, btw). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be biased. And Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth, we are not here to WP:Right great wrongs. Its from a professional at the Economist a respected reliable source. That's good enough. --Obsidi (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock4000, please stop misrepresenting my edits. Hopefully any other editor who takes the time to look deeper into this will see that I've cited more than one Economist article - and other reliable sources too. Writing it all off as one stray "editorial" or an "opinion paper" really isn't going to help, nor does it justify your systematic whitewashing of articles. It's clear to other editors that you and your IPs have been revert-stalking; it's clear that multiple other editors have warned you about copyright problems; and the new trick of claiming that you add caveats even though there are lots of diffs where you and your IPs did no such thing, well, that's the icing on the cake.

I should stop responding to any further comments by Sherlock4000 or their IPs here, since engaging is just going to increase the drama. bobrayner (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Bob. Good night. Obsidi, whether or not such editorials are reliable material is frankly dubious - especially since they're injecting no facts, just invective and someone's wishful thinking. What Bob's been adding -and on the lead, I might add, for maximum undue weight- are just someone's opinions, though, because those op eds rarely if ever had anything factual to contribute (certainly not the ones he used in Renationalization of YPF). He certainly has no problem deleting what Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote ([68]). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You came here to accuse other editors, but from what I see is that you may be the problematic editor. WP:BOOMERANG indeed. Heed the advice given here, and play nice. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How so, Cwobeel - because Bob goes on about how he can't be bothered to reply? How did I insult him? He insults everyone by wasting everyone's time FOR TWO YEARS with his pet op eds about "feeding troughs" and someone's wishful thinking that buying back a badly-run company is "renationalizing their way to poverty". They turned it around in just two years!

Such edits contribute nothing factual, useful, or in any way accurate to the article at all, and in fact inject notions that fly in the face of real-world results. More so because he's trying to tack them onto the lead, for maximum effect. Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hip Hop Rabbit Hole

Could someone please check this out and take appropriate action. I'm just going out of town and have no time to handle it.

I just deleted Phines "NOP" West. It connects to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phines0001, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phines West, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phines A.H. West. The quotes help recreation of deleted articles, of course.

Phines "NOP" West was worked on/created by User:Johnwilliams000, User:Kellymillezzz, User:Delrayisit.

User:Johnwilliams000 created Joseph "808" Derivé (also worked on by User:Kellymillezzz). The refs that I can check do not seem to go to the subject. Joseph "808" Derivé leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Derivé.

Thanks for any help you can provide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all fake - I can't find any sources to support any of the claims at Joseph "808" Derivé, and I can find resources to refute some. For example, this person is claimed to be the producer of Bad Boys (Alexandra Burke song) (actually produced by The Phantom Boyz) and Loud (Rihanna album) (multiple producers, but not this guy). Some of the works mentioned have had their articles changed to say that Phines/808/Derivé is a producer, but there's no sourcing for it - see [69] [70]. There are lots of Google hits for Phines/808/Derivé but all look to be user-generated and I can find no proper sources. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've requested deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph "808" Derivé Neatsfoot (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted G3 as an obvious hoax. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to deal with these repeated creations of "Phines*West" via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or other sort of pattern-matching protection? --Kinu ^t/_c 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night and the hacktivist group Anonymous

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

---

My apologies if this is the wrong noticeboard for this issue. None of the other noticeboards seemed quite right...

After reading a recent law enforcement warning suggesting that the hacker group Anonymous might be planning an attack on the forthcoming Guy Fawkes Night (November 5), as they have on the past, I visited the Guy Fawkes Night article to learn more about this event and why this group might be interested in it. There was and is zero content in the Guy Fawkes article addressing this so I had to find other articles on the web to explain some of this background to me. Generally when this happens I make it a point to add the missing content to the wiki article with appropriate citations for future readers who might be interested. 99% of the time this isn’t a problem for anyone, but in this case my very small, carefully phrased, and well-citied edit was reverted because it was deemed not relevant. I tried to seek some further understanding on the article’s talk page but I was never given an actual explanation as to why this was seen as such.

My question is, am I completely off the mark on this? The information is provided by and thus sourced from the New York Times, CNN, The Huffington Post, CNET, and many other sources besides. I’m trying to assume good faith and just figure that this article should only reflect the historical information for reasons I don’t yet understand but I can’t shake the feeling that some other editors might feel threatened by this content for some reason. Perhaps some are afraid its besmearing what is currently a 'good article'? I just don’t get it... Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Did you get a consensus at that article, for your addition? If not? You have to get it. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• You have to ask yourself why an article on Guy Fawkes Night would have to deal with a group planning an attack on Guy Fawkes Night. It has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes Night. There really is no reason for it. So this is not "missing content". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is clearly a significant number of editors watching that page who do not think inclusion of anything about Anonymous would be related to Guy Fawkes Night. My guess is you are not going to get a local consensus to add anything about that, so I suggest you write up a very detailed (and well sourced) proposal and do an RfC on it. The wider community might disagree with the local consensus. Without an RfC, your chances of inclusion are nil. --Obsidi (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the RfC idea. If it seems like a good idea I'll consider that approach. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the stuff about Anonymous can belong in the November 5 article or in the Guy Fawkes Mask article, but not in the Guy Fawkes Night article. It is only an anniversary and happens to be connected solely by name. Also, it's a featured article, so any major addition needs to be discussed, as opposed to with non-controversial, lower-quality articles where discussion is, for the most part, optional. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally get that there might be other articles which might warrant this information separately. I'm certainly not crazy obsessed about getting it in to the Guy Fawkes Night article specifically, I was just flummoxed as to why there was such a strong yet undefined opposition to its inclusion and figured this would be a good venue to find some insight. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Buddy23Lee: The insight you seek is: this has long been a favorite target of people trying to poke a particular editor in the eye with a stick just for fun, trying to get him to say bad words and then running here to express shock and outrage. I'm sure you'd agree that people motivated by this kind of thing are the scum of the earth. So people who have been around long enough to know this don't have as much patience as they might with another topic. I'm sure you've got all the good faith in the world, but you've picked the one topic that is 99% of the time (though certainly not in this case) evidence of trolling. This should explain the vehemence of the opposition. As to the underlying content question, it is fairly clear to a large number of people that this (misunderstood) Anonymous tie-in doesn't belong on this article, although it might belong on the Anonymous article. Indeed, a strong interest in putting it into this article and no similar interest in putting it in Anonymous is usually a telltale sign of trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Maybe I'm misguided in trying to read between the lines on this so much, but that really helps explain why I've been getting so much of the cold shoulder on this. Forgive my naivety, but I really didn't know that Anonymous was such a hot button issue here. I just assumed that if I had a neutral POV, good citations and good intention everything would come together. I guess I'll try to be more discerning about this sort of thing from this point forward. Honestly, I've had a great experience here over the years of comradery and helpfulness. I guess it was just this one time lack of this which surprised me so much. Again, my bad for stirring some pot that I was otherwise oblivious to. Clearly, I'd never make a good politician. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any obvious POV. However, these editors have spent a lot of time not only working, but fighting vandalism, on the Guy Fawkes Night article. I suggest to do what Floq said and also put it in Anonymous (group). Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Guy Fawkes Mask is where you might want to look, since that is what is most closely associated with Anonymous. Anonymous has little to do with Guy Fawkes and nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes Night or the Gunpowder Plot: it's a bit like inserting tax protests into Independence Day (United States) or a tangential event into Christmas. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not the news, and that what amounts to speculative current-events trivia is probably out of place in articles on historical events. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I did put the mask wikilink into my edit. I thought it was more fitting that the content was included on the Guy Fawkes Night page rather than just the mask as the group evidently adopted the date and the iconography due to the significance and meaning of the holiday itself. But again, I'm totally willing to admit I might be wrong about that. I am here more to seek understanding then attempt to sway anyone to a particular view. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you were around for the trivia and "in popular culture" cleanup/purge, but the insertion of current events into articles on historical subjects is widely disliked on WP. As several editors have pointed out, adding things to featured articles requires more-than-usual consensus, and those articles have been abused as a way to try to get a rise out of some editors who view such digressions with even less enthusiasm. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Weird changes to Constitution of Armenia

There's something weird happening at Constitution of Armenia. In the last few days, several people apparently registered with their real names have been adding inappropriate material, mostly (if not all) copied from elsewhere, and signing it with their names - always signing in the same format of "(Real Name)". Examples - [71] (copied from here), [72] (copied from here), [73] (seems to be an attempt to include the entire constitution text, copied from here) [74] (copied from here). I wonder if this is a school exercise or something? Whatever it is, it's ongoing as I write and I've just reverted another addition, so I think it needs some sort of admin attention. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected. WP:RFPP is generally a better place to leave such requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I asked here because I didn't know if protection was the best approach, or whether you might have instead wanted to block accounts and try to find out if it was a school thing. Neatsfoot (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if I have time later I might add some messages on the pages of those users - is there anywhere I should direct them if, in fact, it is a school exercise? Neatsfoot (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Student assignments, Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Instructions_for_students and Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard (you could probably post there is anyone confirms it) are all a good start. Who knows, we may create a bunch of new long-term editors from this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• It may be related to a government campaign to get citizens to write articles, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 168#Armenians asked to write Wikipedia entries to promote culture. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, interesting - I could easily see a schoolteacher getting in on it and getting their class to work on one specific article. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User: Ian.thomson is harassing me

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

---

User: Ian.thomson need to stfu and stop takin trash about me Lordaleem1 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Lordaleem1 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Actions indicates troll/vandalism-only account, including junk coding, (even at ANI), taunting a blocked account on only his third edit, (and fourth). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly resembles someone who has been here before too. Zero useful contributions and vandalism. Blocked as not here to write an encyclopedia. Will consider unblock if the user demonstrates an understanding of what the project is here for. Chillum 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I endorse Chillum's block in this case, addressing clear-cut trolling. bd2412 T 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty obvious boomerang. Good block. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome someone "takin trash about me". This room ain't gonna clean itself.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Can we add "Siduri" to the username blacklist and create an edit filter?

Socks of blocked user User:Jim-Siduri have been trolling around for the past few days. Something about how there's two days left until something in his hoax religion. KonveyorBelt 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support the proposal, although it will only stop some of the throw-away account names used by this troll (who was formerly a well-meaning but deeply clueless editor until he was indeffed and became a troll). (Are his rants about 5 November in any way related to the threats of Anonymous to do something on 5 November?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I expect his rants are related to Anonymous; back in September a Jim-Siduri twitter account was posting in support of the group. Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's no point, as he only edits from IP addresses - the apparent "Siduri" usernames are just hashtags included in the body of his edits. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • PS: What he seems to want to do is post some "Church of Siduri" advocacy on Nov 5, and I think he's just piggy-backing on Anonymous the same way he's tried piggy-backing on gender gap, etc. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much point in an edit filter, given that it would only catch a small proportion of Jim-Siduri's socks. As for Anonymous, there is no link other than in Jim-Siduri's imagination - his 'threats' consist of nothing but claims that he is going to sue Wikipedia for not providing free publicity for his fantasy 'church', and that he is going to create a Wikipedia fork. Neither of which are the slightest bit concerning to anyone in possession of a few brain cells. I'm inclined to think that WP:DENY is an entirely adequate response, and that any action beyond this is only likely to encourage his delusion that he is somehow significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I only see one currently claimed sock listed at SPI with "siduri" in the name. I just blocked it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He's on a dynamic IP and creating an edit filter - "siduri", I believe is not worth it. I would prefer a CU on him and blocking his IP range. Meanwhile, we can add him to DeltaQuadBot's username blacklist. But I believe the bot's down. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose a username filter as there are too few such usernames. Support an edit filter for 'siduri', allowed only for established users. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

David Ardi Laksono , Wikipedia:David Laksono

Not sure exactly what's going on here. Seems like a combination of hoax/auto-biography/improper cross-namespace page move leaving cross-namespace redirects and a few more issues created by User:David Laksono and User:Davidliem 21. The pages quite clearly need to go, but given the convoluted edit history, not sure what the proper course of action is. Sorry if this is not the correct venue. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done a history merge to consolidate the two articles into David Ardi Laksono. As a mathematician would say, the problem is now reduced to an article which might meet CSD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think it just barely squeaks by A7 as there are claims of notability. I have chopped some of the spam, nominated it for WP:BLPPROD, and blocked one of the accounts as they are obviously the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a hoax, but instead of endorsing the G3, I've deleted it as G11, since it's pretty obvious self-promotion with blatant sockpuppetry. Both accounts have been blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lfrankbalm

So. I tried to give some advice to this editor on their talk page, but it seems like they 1) don't care and 2) are using their talk page as a sort of ranty Facebook soapbox. I know I was being a bit jargon-y with all the shortcut links and stuff, but, seriously? I don't want to deal with this - can someone else try to talk to them or something, perhaps give a little warning prod to behave? Thanks, ansh666 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) (I'm not watching, {{ping}} me if anything comes up.)

Let me just make this clear to you; WP:ASSHOLE--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is in need of serious cleanup to return it to a non-soapbox state. The behaviour of the user appears to be short of civility and the above statement could quite possibly be a personal attack . Do we have a three strike rule? Amortias (T)(C) 21:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no civility on my part here, because the idiocarcy which is Wikipedia needs transparency, call it what it is a big lie, a dissonance machine, a waste of time, a welfare program to feed the weak minded. THERE ARE MANY FOOLISH INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY USING THIS RAG-TRIPE AS A DAY TO DAY FACTUAL REFERENCE. Until you edit this damn thing... you don't realize how fucked up and unreliable it is. This platform provides dissonance with an industrial strength platform for propagation. It is the definition of a computer virus. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• They do seem very angry, don't they? I'll try to have a word. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No anger here;

My conclusion is that this technology provides a major societal disservice. The only parts of Wikipedia that are partially reliable consist of a few of the reference links, which for the most part are random in nature. Even the idea of secondary and primary sources is bizarrely-wrong as it applies to research. No, I am not going to feed something that is societally detrimental. I am more than happy to part company with Wikipedia.

More so than that. This is just a blatantly-evil construct as implemented. It has the unintended opposite effect of spreading ignorance not knowledge. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lfrankbalm: If you want to go, go. If you want to stay, stay. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment (yet) on the civility/ranty bits here, but why are we bothering to care what someone does with their talk page? Just unwatch the page. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There also being unconstructive on AFD's which was the original cause for concern if im correct. Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that, I'm just taking every opportunity to push back against the community's recent habit of nosing into user/user talk pages of editors and getting offended by what they see. It's pointless and meddlesome in almost all cases (with obvious exceptions for blatant personal attacks, shit lists, etc.). Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Amortias said is correct. After I attempted to give them advice about AfD, I got slammed with rants about how I was an asshole and Wikipedia is a breeding ground for ignorance, as far as I can interpret it. I have no real comment on the rants (other than that I don't think they meet WP:OWNTALK), but their uncivil attitude, including personal attacks, was concerning to me. ansh666 22:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the principle of leaving other peoples talkpages well alone the personal attacks and general soapboxing despite being advised against this does seem to be hitting every note of WP:NOTHERE. If they were just going on about something without throwing out at people who were offering advice etc it'd be one thing (that I would understand if let slide) but they just dont seem to be willing to contribute constructivley. Amortias (T)(C) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to you on a personal basis.. Breeding ground for ignorance is quite correct. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thank you. ansh666 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only just encountered Lfrankbalm in the last few days, first at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa), where I was unsuccessful in explaining notability of bibliographies (but it's a pretty weird category of article, so that's understandable). Still, I noticed there and elsewhere problematic WP:POINT and WP:COMPETENCE (or WP:IDHT) issues. The most recent talk page message looks to be the first thing egregious enough to come to ANI, though, so I don't know if this is misplaced. I'm basically concerned he/she is engaging with article deletion processes unconcerned with applying/following consensus-based guidelines many people have linked him/her to. Dismissal of Wikipedia as something with value here and at the blog-like talk page suggest WP:NOTHERE. Some WP:AGF is in order as this is a new user (although an account with edits almost entirely at AfD, nominating things for deletion, and working on pages he/she thinks should be deleted suggests some experience), but the basics have been explained/linked a number of times and seems to fall on deaf ears.

• For example at this AfD he/she started comments with Delete Palestinians, see Gaza Strip, definitely use asymmetric tactics to cast themselves falsely as the victim through the absorption of collateral damage (unnecessary loss of civilian life)., later admitting the intention of using AfD as a forum. Shortly thereafter he/she created Israeli child killing apparently to make a WP:POINT about the stone-throwing AfD.
• !voting in AfDs with rationales like "subject-matter is irrelevant", arguing delete based on links currently in an article, no rationale whatsoever, various commentary. Most of the user's own nominations are with clear disregard or indifference to relevant guidelines (e.g. this article which a basic glance at the relevant notability guideline rather than personal criteria would have clarified the person's fitness for inclusion (criterion #3 even gives "royal society" as an example, which, while Canadian rather than English, is quite prominent in the article)). I don't know that any of this is block-worthy, but the efforts of myself and others do not seem to be effective.
• Devil's advocates/critics are a useful thing on Wikipedia, and there are some edits that show this user may have things to contribute, but needs to better understand how things work before engaging in things like page deletions. I have a feeling after this my help might not be wanted, but as it's not a personal thing -- lots of people jump into AfDs, myself included, without quite knowing how they work -- I'd be happy to answer questions if Lfrankbalm wants help before nominating something for deletion, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

-Believe it or not, the discussions here are quite positive in terms (of forming a perception) on the process. For the record I did not create the Israeli child killing entry, I simply redirected it to Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; as to tallest buildings in xxx it-speaks for itself ludicrous,Martin Daly was my mistake. ; as to the bibliography.... errh.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take Rhododendrites up on their offer of advice on AFD's and have a look at your talk page to see fi theres anthing that might be considered a personal attack meant or otherwise that could be removed? Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

They've removed...much of their talk page (~7000 bytes), including everything that started this. I'm fine with that, though my comments did include some useful links. ansh666 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt believe it if I hadn't seen it myself but this could be a constructive non-blocking outcome from an ANI! Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it either. This discussion has been constructive from an overview-perspective. I am not quite as "fatal" in terms of my perceptions. In the first edit attempt, I attempted to do a minor edit on a "now deleted entry" to have every minor revision countered unbelievable resistance by a user abusing the process. I was viewing everything from that perspective. This discussion counters that in spades. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As to User:Rhododendrites offer, sure why not..--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll bung a welcome notice with some useful links at the top of your talk page if you want. It might be useful to point you in the direction of places for advice. I'd also suggest popping over to the teahouse if you have any questons as they are very good at providing advice. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

-thanks.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on their talk page regarding one of the AfDs that was contentious. For what it's worth, I did not get an insulting reply. That's good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as I have caused a fire-storm here.. Would anybody mind "locking" NYS Ebike Law from further edits.. The entry is now correct to fact.. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one would get through the process to protect a page we only lock pages to prevent vandalism and major disputes that are going to affect the quality of the article. You could add it to you watchlist to keep an eye out for vandalism if your interested. There may be changes or other information that may be pertinent that other users may be able to add to the section to improve it orad other relevent information such as legla cases that are relevent additional sources and other facts that help t improve the reliability. Amortias (T)(C) 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I too have encountered Lfrankbalm recently, but all I know for sure is that he didn't understand WP:BEFORE before nominating Martin Daly for deletion. It seems I'm not the only one concerned about his behavior at AFD, though (see this edit). Also, I agree with Ansh666 that he has been misusing his talk page as per WP:OWNTALK. Jinkinson talk to me 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Long-term copyright concerns: User:Light show

• Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1

This user, formerly known as Wikiwatcher1, has been under a WP:CCI investigation since April 2012 for questionable file uploads and has been indefinitely blocked on Commons since 30 November 2013 (after having been previously blocked in August 2012 for the same problem under his old account). An RFC/U in October 2012 failed to gain enough participation to read consensus. Multiple discussion at WP:MCQ have floated concerns, from diverse users: User:Ww2censor, User:Howcheng, User:Masem, User:We hope, User:Crisco 1492, User:TheFeds, User:Quadell, (8/2013, 12/2013 - there may be and probably are more) including repeated cautions that care must be taken in uploading images. He was advised by one of the WMF attorney that for us to be certain of copyright he needs to verify on upload whether an image contained a copyright notice, how the exact image was released, and whether the release was "general" or "limited". He's been told by community repeatedly that he must upload both front and back of an image to demonstrate that there was no copyright notice. Yet he continues uploading images that consume community time and resources in evaluation and that are questionable in copyright status determination - see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_October_5#File:Anne_Bancroft_-_1955.JPG (deleted image was uploaded in 9/2014) - and see file:Anne_Bancroft_-_1964.jpg, uploaded without back (so that no assertion can be made regarding copyright); File:Don Murray 1956.JPG, very clear copyright notice cropped out (no information on how he determined that it was not renewed); File:Larry_Parks_1950.jpg, what could potentially be a copyright notice, cropped; File:Rosemary_Clooney_1954.jpg, very clear copyright notice cropped out (no information on how he determined that it was not renewed). He has uploaded many good images, but has never seemed willing to do the due diligence or exercise the necessary caution in image work. His deleted edit count for the file namespace has well over 1,000 edits. I'm not sure how many files deleted that represents; somebody with a tool might count - some of those files may have been moved to Commons before they began deleting them there, but he clearly has had the same issues for years: see this 2009 example). No efforts to get this user to improve his documentation practices seem to have worked. I am at a loss for what to suggest, unless it's that we ask him to stop uploading images (thereby losing the good images he does upload) or stop bothering with the ones that maybe aren't so good. Other contributors shouldn't have to waste their time cleaning up after somebody who isn't interested in changing his documentation processes. Bringing it here for other input. Please help. (Lots of notifications to follow, although "ping" may do its job while I'm doing so.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support ban on image uploading. Light Show has continued to try to fall back on the highly generalized argument that promotion photos/stills from that era were frequently not marked to match copyright, which, while I don't doubt is true, clearly does not extent to all such images, and why we need proof positive that there's no such markings, moreso from someone that has been under copyright investigations. WP's concept for free images is based on positive affirmation that the image is in the free, otherwise assuming non-free, and Light show's approach and assumptions atop past behavior does not support this. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Support ban on uploads, per the above and per competence is required. It sounds to me as though the user's good contributions are outweighed by the amount of community time it takes to verify their submissions, and many editors have made an effort to get the editor to improve. If we're at the point that the WMF's lawyers have spoken to the user and they still won't change, we basically have no choice but to ban the user from uploading images. Ivanvector (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Ivanvector. :) I want to be sure that's clear, though - the attorney feedback was given in response to a question about how to determine if a publicity still is public domain when the CCI was requested. Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1#Attorney_reply --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I went and had a look at the CCI after I posted my comment. Like you said, the legal team gave feedback on specific criteria for due diligence, and the user was given instructions (per Moonriddengirl above, to upload front and back, etc.), not by the lawyers but by the community, and the user has not followed those instructions if I'm reading Moonriddengirl's discussion above correctly. It seems the user has good intentions but has tunnel-vision when it comes to copyright law, and this creates more work for everyone to double-check all of their contributions. The CCI itself lists hundreds of possibly non-free contribs from this user. That's too much. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Our last visit to this subject was at MCQ in June of this year. I was ready to support a topic ban then and am supporting it now. The editor's practices haven't changed. Just about every 6 months, he complains at MCQ that copyright regulations are being ignored at WP. Have never seen anyone agree with his position; everyone tries telling him (again) what the rules for the projects are and he proceeds to tell all of us that we're wrong and he's the only one who is right. I've nominated many of his uploads here at PUF and at Commons DR. Even with the Commons block and possible topic ban here, sorry to say, I believe many more both here and at Commons are questionable. We hope (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on image uploading. After reading through the last MCQ thread, I can't clearly tell if Light show is unwilling or unable to understand copyright and NFCC policies—either way, they ought not be uploading anything at all. This has already taken way to much community time. --Laser brain (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I've repeatedly been engaged with this editor, mostly at Commons, over similar issues, and they're now under a Commons ban for refusing to comply with very basic requirements. Aside from the notice problems that Moonriddengirl describes, Wikiwatcher just doesn't appreciate the importance of establishing the date and place of first publication -- or even the basic fact of publication. I've found, as I recall, images marked only for UK distribution as published in the US; images with no evidence of publication uploaded with unsupported publication dates (most egregiously, taken from ebay listings reporting the images came from collections of mostly unpublished photos); and older images taken from recent books with claims, unsupported by evidence, that the images were published in the year they were taken. Light show/Wikiwatcher, underneath it all, doesn't accept the need to provide convincing evidence that each image they upload meets Wikipedia's requirements for showing that an image is free for use and reuse -- instead, they've argued, over and over and over, that because many "publicity" photos have ended up as free, all publicity photos should be treated as free unless proven otherwise. The amount of work that other editors have been forced to do because LS/Ww1 doesn't accept reasonable, accurate community standards is just too great. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Images like these although seemingly harmless really should have been looked into more first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: While there is an implication that WP does respect U.S. copyright law, it's only in so far as it's useful to attack the uploads, not support them. The U.S. attorney who replied to the CCI said: It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. The questions they said should be answered were, 1) Did the image contain a copyright notice? 2) How was the exact image released? and 3) Was the image release “general” or “limited?” And one way or the other all those questions have been answered for my uploads. Question #2, which you guys never seem to understand, is that a publicity photo is released en masse to the media. And during the CCI, at least one experienced editor did the research and commented, After seeing what Wikiwatcher1 has said here and reviewing some of the deleted images, I think most of their images are probably okay and were deleted too hastily.

MRG wrote that I "never seemed willing to do the due diligence or exercise the necessary caution." Never? C'mon. The comment about Bancroft not showing the back, when it's 100% clear that any notice would be printed on the front, along with all the other details, is incorrect. The comment about Murray's photo, which showed the uncropped version and no copyright was found with a simple search, is wrong. Likewise, Larry Parks' photo, which had all image details printed on the front, doesn't need the back. And no, the copyright notice on Rosemary Clooney was not cropped out. As stated, there was no registered renewal per a simple 1-minute search.

The essence of the problem in my opinion is that the image deletionist editors, primarily We Hope, are not too concerned with U.S. copyright law and really feel it's almost irrelevant with regard to photos. I posted a comment about that last year. The topic is strange, or worrisome, because WP relies on U.S. copyright laws in its tagging system. However, the editors who keep attacking the uploads go by EU or UK law.

Hence, Masem, considers well established U.S. copyright law as not much more than a "generalized argument," ignoring the experts at Film still. Fastily, who blocked me at the Commons, deleted an image that I said I had in my possession, and would upload a scan of the back if needed. Result: deleted, There is no evidence presented to substantiate this (probably false) PD claim. Another non-U.S. Commons editor, deleted an image that showed the front and back, because of insufficient information to verify no notice claim. Another Commons editor mass deleted images on two occasions, with no rational, no tags, no warning, no notices, no questions, nothing. All deleted with no explanation. Another Commons editor who has deleted around a hundred PD images, mostly from the 1930s to 1950s, with no copyright notice, expects the impossible: Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons.

We Hope has caused the deletion of hundreds of valid PD images simply because he chose to ignore published Copyfraud violations by Corbis, who puts a notice on all their web site images, 99.99% of which they don't own. When I explained to him with legal support that the Corbis copyright notices are bogus, he simply says he doesn't care and stands by the deletions. He has deleted an unknown number of images by relying on erroneous copyrights, as when they continually rely on a motion picture copyright instead of photographic image copyrights, which are totally different. I tried to explain that to him on a few occasions, as recently as last March on their talk page. Response? None, he simply deletes my comments. He again used that same erroneous reason for tagging another Anne Bancroft image last month, which got deleted anyway without reason. Whatever We Hope tags gets deleted.

Obviously, I take copyright law very seriously. I took a year of copyright at Boalt and still have a stack of copyright books. I was doing photography professionally for newspapers and magazines back in high school and college for income. I've since consulted with copyright attorneys about various matters over the years, including Google's early attorney. And since, IMO, the attorney you've contacted about this does not specialize in copyright, I'd be happy to reimburse WP if they want to find one that does to get their opinions about all this. If you want me to find one and forward their opinions, that's OK also. Your option. I've pretty much stopped uploading any non-U.S. images because of all the hullabaloo, but for U.S. images it should help clear things up. I hope We Hope is up for the task of restoring 400-500 images if the copyright attorney says they were fine. If you want me to stop uploading photos pending a copyright attorney's opinions, let me know. No problem. However, if you want me to agree that U.S. copyright law is irrelevant, that will be a problem. --Light show (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban after reading the tirade above. Your education and your attorney's opinion have no bearing on policy here. Dennis - 2¢ 01:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Long-time disruptive editor User:Alexyflemming resorts to trolling

Scroll down to Though I am not an artist to inquiry to artistic value ... here (diffs: [75], [76], [77]). After User:TU-nor offers genuine advice about how to improve the picture on the sidebar, he responds with mockery. This user has a history of disrupting anything to do with Cyprus. I don't even know where to start. Here is where he's persistently falsifying a source. Here is where he rants on about Armenians and Greeks unprovoked. Here is where he admits to OR, but insists on adding his imaginative map to the article. And this is but a sample. I think people have already wasted plenty enough time trying to prevent his harming the encyclopaedia; simply, this adds insult to injury. I don't know what, but something should be done. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support the assertions of the IP editor. Wherever Alexyflemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits, editors have to be close by to correct or delete the POV of his edits. My recent AE report on him got rejected due to an ARBMAC clarification by Arbcom on its applicability on Cyprus-related issues. I have linked to it here because it has a variety of links which show the longterm disruption this user has engaged in. Recently he hijacked the talkpage of Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia with loud walls of text supporting the edits of blocked sock Gasmonitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and trying to push an OR map that he made which by the way has the filename File:UK SBA EEZ.png as compared to Gasmonitor's File:UK SBA EEA.png which was deleted, please see Gasmonitor's talkpage. He also comments in external forums  :

  Alexy flemmings • 12 hours ago Greedy Greek Cypriots think that they can steal the natural gas and oil of BOTH Englishs and Turks.They will awaken from their dreams very soon!

• and then uses the forum as a source in the discussion. There are many more diffs available for personal attacks, POV edits, OR, SYNTH, you name it, but I would like to avoid overloading the reader. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

David Beals

Short background: long term troll/vandal, adds pictures of random ceiling fans to articles, or tries to link to youtube videos of fans, sometimes compares people who remove the pics to Adolf Hitler, or misspells their names (perhaps changing a syllable to profanity).

See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes.

At the latest SPI, User:McDoobAU93 raised the idea of contacting Beals's ISP about his vandalism. He's using a dynamic IP, but they're all from Philadelphia, and I'm guessing we've got enough socks to CU to figure out which service(s) he's using. I'm not quite aware as to how we'd do that, but I'd assume someone here would. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the traceroute and geolocate info for known IP addresses, he's on AT&T, between Kutztown and Philadelphia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Threat of suicide/self harm

Apologies if this is the incorrect place to report such an incident but I just had this diff pop up on my watchlist. I'm more than concerned because the user seems to be saying that life is a lie and they will put an end to it. Now I'm reading that as a possible suicide threat.

If this is a suicide threat I'm not sure how serious it is so I'm going to also email the emergency team but thought I'd raise it here too 5 albert square (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is true. Quite obviously I've never belonged anywhere or mattered to anyone. Everyone is just liars and I don't want to hear their words anymore. I had a chance to save myself but I didn't take it and it's too late for anything good to ever happen. I'm sick of people. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 02:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are looking into it. --Jan (WMF) (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)