Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.235.159.105 (talk) at 15:55, 11 April 2015 (→User :Klõps). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Ongoing problem with anonymous editor

    Page protected by Zad68-Cnbr15 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've hesitated a few times about posting a request for help here, but I feel the editing/talk patterns of an anonymous editor on several of the articles pertaining to particle physics requires some attention. I'll cite 3 pages as examples: Bohr magneton, Neutron, and what prompts this request Neutron magnetic moment The trouble is documented, IMO, on the talk pages to these articles. The editor works under several anonymous IP addresses and it surely seems to me exploits this ambiguity (sock puppetry). On the magnetic moment page, IP nos 193.231.X.X, 5.15.X.X have been used. The talk page for neutron has other IP numbers; to good approximation all those anonymous IPs are one person, seems to me. On the neutron talk page ("Dimensional inconsistency") the editor denies it is one editor, which seems strikingly false. As you can see from the dialog there, the editor attempted a "word dump" of nonsensical gibberish in an attempt to keep some weasel words in a section from being removed. This is one reason why I post here - there seems little sense in responding/talking to the editor; that's like adding gas to the fire. The editor regularly pushes peculiar POVs, in particular he wants to challenge the (well accepted) quark model for hadrons. I cite the Bohr magneton article because it sure seems to me the editor attempted to rename this physical constant to the Bohr-Procopiu magneton, ignoring the Talk discussion from several editors about it. I recently changed back the article to greatly downplay this renaming effort. These IP addresses are all from Romania. The editor has been around WP for quite some time, not a novice, yet still seems to perceive this encyclopedia as a general forum for establishing or challenging scientific facts. On the Talk:James_Chadwick page this editor (c.f., neutron talk page for same 79.119.X.X IP) suggested that Chadwick was not the discoverer of the neutron; another theme of the editor, out-of-the-way people needing to be properly credited for discoveries long attributed to better-known people. The editor seems to edit in good faith, but he is an aggressive, if not abusive, editor. The editor refuses to open a proper account, though he has been requested to do so. (And I see the editor has just now reverted me again to include a bibliography entry in Romanian on the Neutron magnetic moment page.) Help? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No need for this inflammatory or tendentious(?) noticeboard involvement. Bdushaw, familiarize yourself with WP:NONENG before stating that I reverted you again on using foreign languages (Romanian and Russian) sources that are to be cited.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not involved in the issue on the Bohr-Procopiu magneton (which I see is old stuff) issue mentioned by Bdushaw, who by the way, seems to have a bias against non-English scientists, including the biased comments against Dmitri Ivanenko.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another remark is that user Bdushaw seems to have something against IP's from Romania.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see another imputation to me: the suggestion that Chadwick was not the discoverer of neutron, which seems to be a twisting of aspects presented on that talk page which is attested in other languages Wikipedias on Chadwick.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I introduced this complaint, there has been a blossoming fight with the usual endless gibberish-logic on the Talk:Neutron_magnetic_moment page. All over a silly book in Romanian the editor wants to put on the Neutron_magnetic_moment page, against all rhyme or reason. It is this endless argument, time and time again, that is the reason for the post here. This behavior is not acceptable - it drives editors away (including me). When one hesitates about editing out of fear it might offend this anonymous editor, something is amiss. See also the User_talk:Jonathan_A_Jones page; Jones has recently valiantly tried to contribute, but has encountered the usual (abusive, IMO) nonsense. IMO the anonymous editor certainly exploits the multiple, constantly changing IPs to abuse the Wikipedia process; there are levels and levels of duplicity, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The lines above are Bdushaw's wishfull thinking. Bdushaw, if you don't like content suggestions proposed by the IPs, this is not a reason to obstruct the improvement of content by resisting the requests for adding details that helps to conceptual clarification.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth I agree with Bdushaw about the IP editor: a clear case of WP:IDONTHEAR. The various IPs are obviously all the same person (they all resolve to the same provider, and the similarities of style are crystal clear). Whether he's hopping deliberately or not is uncleatr to me, but he certainly seems to enjoy the ambiguity it provides. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These are ridiculous aspects. Focus on improving the content, not on who is making the suggestions(the IPs whether the same or different person should not be discriminated). I think it is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT the content suggestions.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) So, any action on this...? Seems concerting... --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that the implicated IP(s) is insensitive to the opinions and requests of others, is disruptive and writes much that is nonspecific and disparaging. This has a disruptive effect on the efforts of well-intentioned editors. This reaction on my talk page to a routine notification is completely out of place. Administrative sanction may be appropriate. —Quondum 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was beginning to think this issue was winding down, and perhaps that was the end of it...but now we have this latest entry to the Neutron magnetic moment talk page: diff. This seems to me a laughable sock puppet. 193.231.X.X has been a contributor to the Neutron talk pages. I don't think I know enough about the mechanics of Wikipedia to be able to suggest a remedy. Bdushaw (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible that this editor (who may or may not be the same person) will learn more of the interaction and style on WP, and settle down. Notice this edit series from the same a similar IP address as your diff where there is an apparent lack of understanding of the use of ref tags for references; this may be related to the insertion of links that are not directly used as references. —Quondum 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several points of similarity between 193.231.X.X and 5.15.X.X posts, but it is not likely important at this point. The editor may settle down or wise up, true, but I've seen little sign of contrition, alas. It occurred to me that I posted here partly because the editor has no Talk page (I was at a loss as to where to post the notification for this entry); but he has certainly been happy to take advantage of regular editor's Talk pages. The discussion above seems inappropriate on any particular article's Talk page. Perhaps it might be useful for Wikipedia to create a system for Talk pages for anonymous editors? Would that just encourage them to not register for a proper account? The problem does not seem to be at the level where semi-protection of various articles is required. Partly the issue is that I feel consciencious about talking/resolving issues whereas that seems hopeless, or even counterproductive, with this editor. But quietly revert warring doesn't seem like quite the answer either... (Bdushaw, on travel with forgotten Wikipedia password) 70.162.49.170 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've reviewed the Talk page, editing history and the IPs. Consensus from established editors at the Talk page is that the editing is disruptive and I agree. It seems likely it's one person using several IPs, but that doesn't really matter. They all showed up from a geographical location that en.WP doesn't get so many edits from, all at the same time and at the same article with the same agenda, making some unsourced article edits and exhibiting WP:RGW issues. I've semi'd the article for a week, and also took the unusual step of semi'ing the Talk page too. From my review on the article Talk page history I don't see that much editing from IPs (outside these edits) so I think collateral damage is minimal.

    Bdushaw you were correct to bring this here but also could have brought it to WP:RFPP. If the disruption continues after protection expires I'll happily keep re-applying until it stops. Zad68 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fellow admins: the situation of multi-party POV warring on Assyrian-related articles is out of control. Background info: this is about a group of minority populations in Syria and Iraq, whose diaspora communities are riven by deep-seated infighting between rival ethno-religious factions, regarding their preferred appellations and the preferred ancient peoples ("Assyrian", "Aramean", "Chaldean") upon whose alleged inheritance they build their claims of "identity". There have been constant petty naming wars ever since the beginnings of Wikipedia. It has always been the case that virtually every user who ever took an interest in editing the topic was a member of one of the rival factions and here to pursue their pet agenda; editing from all sides of this mess has been equally bad. In recent months the disruption has reached new heights. There have been at least three massive sockfarms fighting each other for several months. I just blocked half a dozen accounts the other day; new accounts and IPs sprang up immediately. Just yesterday I took great pains in explaining to all involved that a certain contentious quotation (about which they had all been edit-warring) was indeed demonstrably a fake (as one of the factions had been claiming) [1]; today I find the quote re-inserted into yet another article yet again by yet another new IP [2].

    I need more eyes on all the articles involved, especially:

    ... but there are many others into which this mess has spilled over, basically any page related to this group, their name or their various ancient homelands.

    I don't know what to do. There are no "good" versions to revert to, because whenever you remove one side's tendentious crap, you are only reinstating the equally tendentious crap of the others. Normally, I would ask for discretionary sanctions, but those will be of little use: DS arrangements are for protecting potentially constructive editors and giving them a safe space to work in by shutting the disruptive elements out – but here we have nothing but disruptive elements.

    Unless others have better ideas how to deal with this, I'm thinking of applying the radical "Liancourt Rocks"-type strategy: stub all the affected articles down to a skeleton version or delete them outright, fully protect the lot of them for half a year, and allow gradual rebuilding only through edit requests to be vetted by uninvolved competent editors on the talkpage.

    Ideas? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does the Liancourt Rocks page blank my screen???? Just curious. It doesn't now. Odd! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the face of it this looks like a good strategy for certain intractable problem pages. I have a question. Could you give us a brief overview of how well the strategy worked on the Liancourt Rocks page? Has this strategy been used anywhere else? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut.Perf's Liancourt Rocks option and full protection sounds like a good idea, we'll just have to monitor the onslaught of edit requests but, at least the pages will begin to grow objectively. Also some kind of guideline for blocking repeated frivolous edit requests. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liancourt Rocks-related articles have been on my watchlist for years and aside from brief flareups on talk pages, everything is quiet and stable now. --NeilN talk to me 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that is the right solution. Such disputes mirror off-Wiki ethnic and religious controversies, and will not be resolved until the off-wiki issues are as well. If ever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a mess. I've tried to follow some of the discussions and it seems like outside editors can't participate without them being falsely identified as being affiliated with one ethnic side or the other. It's like the concept of neutral editors is not accepted by the primary parties. And there is also talk about Wikipedia cabals/cliques influencing the articles. It all discourages uninvolved editors from jumping in and editing. Some of the sources are also tainted by bias. This area needs editors knowledgeable about the Middle East field who have thick skins and can avoid being provoked into disputes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As Lt. Ripley once said: Nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Fully support the Liancourt option here. It will bring some sanity to a very problematic area. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting how this totally unrelated dispute resembles, in a sense, the protracted dispute that is discussed in the "handling COI" discussion above. Different subject, similar issues. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: I was thinking the very same thing when first reading the above COI discussion. Just a note, for editors adding Fut.Perf. list to thier watch, please add Mosul. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I'm not belittling the powerful views held on all sides in all these kinds of disputes. In fact, it's just because of the sincerity of such views that such disputes are so intractable.Coretheapple (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a obvious reason that the pages in this topic area need protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, folks, for this feedback so far. Based on this apparent consensus, I have begun with the protection and partially stubbing back (or reverting to old versions) of a few articles (starting with Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden, which had been left with a completely nonsensical lead sentence ever since an edit-war in 2010, without any of the warriors ever noticing; I also deleted a long-standing POV fork of the same article at Assyrians in Sweden and removed some apparent source abuse at Name of Syria). Please note that in making these content edits and then imposing protection, I am WP:IAR'ing on our normal admin "involvement" procedures; I'm putting it on the record here that I believe this to be justified on the basis of the consensus here. If anybody has procedural objections, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a general observation: as more contributors to Wikipedia come from new parts of the world, we will see more of this deep-seated infighting over names & facts. (A mild example of this is the chronic but low-level edit-warring over numbers of Christians & Muslims in Ethiopia: historically Ethiopian Christians have been in the majority, but due to population trends & the growth of Protestant Christianity there, Muslims are now the most numerous group -- per the Ethiopian government's own census returns. But this does not stop individuals in or from Ethiopia from "correcting" the figures. So far it's just been a matter of reverting & moving on, but I expect one day this will become a Yet Another Flashpoint.) About the only solution I have is to get ahead of these problems -- if you know of them, which is the trick -- & provide reliable citations for the preferred name/factual assertion. Otherwise Liancourt Rock-style protections will become more common. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Years ago, before Wikipedia, I was moderator at a forum in which a subforum dealt with the Assyrian/Syrian issue. My experience was exactly that of Fut.Perf.: endless infighting, high on insults and low on substance, and both sides convinced that nobody could be neutral; moderating a poor post by somebody from one side was immediately taken as a sign of belonging to "the enemy". That experience makes it easy to understand that this situation has no good solution. Few neutral users willingly walk into this mine-field, and those who edited all have deeply held beliefs, many are probably on Wikipedia just for this purpose. In other words, the Liancourt Rock option is likely to be the least bas solution here.Jeppiz (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Wikiwikiman777 abusing AFC process

    Based on an examination of contribs, I am convinced that Wikiwikiman777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been for some time following a pattern of (a) creating a draft using an IP or sock and then submitting it to AFC; (b) approving the draft himself and then moving it to mainspace. The articles in question are Unitary Theories of Memory, Elaborative Encoding, Alternative Explanations of the "Grandmother" Cell, and several more. Note the MOSCAP errors in all the titles; there are several other telltales, such as the IPs all coming from Michigan (the ones I looked up, anyway). This editor has been working this way since November 2013. The articles are actually not bad as far as I can tell -- I haven't examined them very closely though. I will notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In the old days when AfC was still in Wikipedia talk: space, the main reason we didn't want articles being moved to mainspace at random is because they wouldn't be picked up at NPP, so they would bypass the standard checks (A7 is an obvious one, but G12 is even more important, and reasonably common on AfC drafts). Today, with the Draft: space, I think moving from draft to mainspace is not really much different than assembling a userspace draft, then moving it to mainspace when it's ready. It's not using the Officially Authorized AfC Tools (TM), but it's not actually disruptive. I don't enough about the topic so I can't comment on whether Child Lying is a valid encyclopedic topic or original research masquerading as one, but it certainly looks to pass the speedy criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of socks is clearly deceptive, and anything deceptive is disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It only is if you value sockpuppetry above writing an encyclopedia, in my view. He might have just been accidentally editing while logged out.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments here are not helpful. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the evidence of socking and abuse? Looking at the article creators, there's Ltucogpsych, an IP that geolocates to Michigan and has also edited Lawrence Technological University, and an IP that directly goes to LTU. The articles themselves have student editing stamped all over them. This just looks like people doing their homework. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Opabinia regalis has solved this mystery. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The only thing I have to say is that the steps being followed here are entirely pointless as described by the OP. AFC is an option process. Any autoconfirmed editor is allowed to create an article in the mainspace at any time. Its not something we advertise to new users, for some interesting social-psychological reasons I won't get into here, but fundamentally there are no rules which require ANY new article to go through ANY approval process at ANY time. Anyone is allowed to create an article and just put it in the main article space. There's no reason to go through hoops to "pretend" to be two editors to "approve" one's own article through AFC. Just frigging create the article. Of course, it may also be summarily deleted if it doesn't meet proper standards (which is also true of AFC-created articles. No article is immune). If the disruption described by the OP is actually going on, it is doubly stupid: besides being the sort of WP:GAME violation to lead to a ban, it is an entirely worthless way to get an article in the main space. Just create it there. --Jayron32 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Opabinia's theory is that an instructor (in cognitive psychology, it would appear) has gotten his or her students to write articles in draft space, and then the instructor is checking them over before moving them to mainspace. That sounds like a good process to me if the instructor is more familiar with Wikipedia than the students are. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the theory. Looking at the articles, one might question the quality of the quality control. But the process of creation looks like a no harm, no foul situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A long and involved series of edits at Lock Ness Monster lead to this result. While not being an expert in the subject I don't see intentional destruction here. Edits of his I saw in other places are primarily deletions. GregKaye 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not kid ourselves. This is wrong. If this user we're talking about here, used IPs to submit articles that he himself approved, it's indeed an abuse of the process. Now, even if they are encyclopaedic, the next question would be, why's he doing it? He's not self-satisfied with the articles he wrote, it's as easy as that. Bypassing a formal process is simply unfair. There's a reason we have AfC. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the idea here is that the instructor didn't write the articles, so submitting them directly from his/hr own account would have been taking credit for the work of others. The similarities between the articles would be because the instructor assigned the topics, specified the footnote style, etc. See the comments above. As far as AFC being a respectable process, despite the good intentions and hard work of its participants, it has (like so much of Wikipedia) grown into a bullshit bureaucracy, so bypassing its formal aspects to the extent possible is a good thing. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looie496 At this point you have two options: put the articles you feel are unacceptable up for AfD and get a consensus as to what to do with them, the second is open either a WP:SPI or thread at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard to see what people might suggest on behalf of this class. Hasteur (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since all signs so far point to this being a class project, I suggest posting to the Education Noticeboard. Epic Genius (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unitary theories of memory appears to be a decent article, so the end result of this not-completely-correct process seems worthwhile. Whoever did the work seems to understand our conventions quite well, though they would be well advised to interact more with others. Except for too much upper case in the title, there was nothing that obviously needed to be fixed. I did a couple of spotchecks for copyvio but didn't find anything. There's few tweaks that would be needed in the reference list, which uses citation templates, mostly correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Zukas and rail transport articles

    Tim Zukas (talk · contribs) has a habit of making large undocumented edits to articles. These combine factual changes and stylistic changes; this is typical. He does not, in general, use helpful or indicative edit summaries (see the history of Overland Limited (UP train). This behavior, including his frequent IP editing, is documented at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, although I had no involvement with the creation of that page. I want to make clear that I'm here in my capacity as an editor; I have not used my tools in this dispute.

    The specific dispute that brings me here concerns Overland Limited (UP train). I created this article in August 2014; the only other major editor is Centpacrr (talk · contribs). Beginning in February, first as an IP and then as himself, he began making large-scale changes in the pattern described above. Many edit summaries were misleading or non-existent. Examples include:

    • [3], which according to the edit summary was a revert of [4] but made other stylistic changes and added a whole new completely unsourced section
    • [5] the edit summary says "several corrections" (and indicates an intention to edit war) but again mixes stylistic changes and content changes. Note that sources are only removed, and not added.
    • [6] as above, with the claim "your version has the errors, so you're the one that needs to explain. (Can't be done, tho.)" but no direct indication of what these errors were.
    • [7] among other wholesale revisions, actually removes the entire footnotes section and {{reflist}} template, and then revert-warred [8] [9] while denying he'd done any such thing.

    This dispute had gotten out of hand and discussions on Talk:Overland Limited (UP train) were not fruitful. Centpacrr and I went back and forth with Tim Zukas, especially in Talk:Overland_Limited_(UP_train)#.22Corrections.22, about what these "errors" were, what sources he had, and so on. I will acknowledge that he was in the right on several issues, but extracting this information was a slow, painful process. I opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which you can see at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Overland_Limited_.28UP_train.29.23.22Corrections.22. With the kind assistance of Thibbs (talk · contribs) we identified five major points of contention and invested a solid month (with breaks) in discussing them, often in considerable detail. This was my first encounter with DRN and I rather liked it. Thibbs closed the discussion on April 1. Almost immediately Tim Zukas began making the same types of edits as before: [10] [11] [12]. It's the same mixture of stylistic changes, factual changes, and removal of sources.

    I think Centpacrr and I are at wits end here. This is a collaborative environment but Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway. It requires extraordinary effort to engage with this user. I'd like to ask that he, at the very least, be banned from Overland Limited (UP train). A more general topic ban from rail transport articles may be appropriate as he has engaged in similar edits on City of San Francisco (train) (see [13]) and City of Denver (train) ([14]). Failing that, I'd appreciate any guidance on how to move this issue forward. Thank you to anyone who read this far. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway"
    What he means is, I correct the errors that they have put in, then they put them back. Centpacrr wants me to explain the corrections-- naturally I figure he should explain his uncorrections. He should try, that is-- it can't actually be done.
    "we identified five major points of contention"
    He's referring to the five examples I gave of their errors. They were examples, not a complete list, and Centpacrr's latest version has lots more. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your desired outcome then that you'll remove and/or rewrite anything you don't like or disagree with, then other editors will read your version and then add references which support it? I don't think that's how this project works. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thibbs pointed out to me that my creation of the LTA case page, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, was out of process, since Tim Zukas has never been banned, let alone blocked under his main account. I had been chasing down disruption from IPs at rail and air transportation articles, starting from the Boeing 314 Clipper article, and bit by bit, the disruption pattern pointed the way to Tim Zukas making a huge number of edits logged out, especially favoring a logged-out status when he wants to remove a bunch of text from an article. So the LTA case page was intended to document disruption from IPs based near me in Oakland and Berkeley, California, but it ended up documenting the behavior of Tim Zukas. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Tim Zukas was blocked as IP 75.16.27.73 last year, blocked by The Bushranger for three months for "Long-term disruptive, nonconstructive editing without any discussion." Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While User:Tim Zukas made a couple of useful suggestions, he also introduced a variety of other unsourced claims that when I researched them and came up with relevant reliable sources proved his speculations to be completely incorrect. Over the past month I have refined and expanded the article in a sandbox while the DNR discussion was going on and verified this material citing more the 20 new reliable and verifiable sources to support the material I added along with posting seven new images. When the DNR was closed I transferred the updated article that I had been developing to the mainspace. Within less than a day, however, User:Tim Zukas has already made three massive unexplained deletions which are, as usual, unsupported by any sources or citations. When asked to specify what he considers to be errors -- and to supply sources to support his claims -- as usual he never does so. His only response was a completely unhelpful comment that "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." (see here) Unfortunately this is not the first run in that I (and many other editors) have had with this user in aviation and railroad transportation articles over a period of years now in which he has exhibited this same disruptive behavior. Centpacrr (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I too had a run-in with Tim Zukas back in May 2013 on the San Francisco International Airport article. At that time he made a host of changes without any discussion or consensus. When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility. Considering all the contentious and sockpuppet IP edits that they have been involved in, it is really time for an extended block. David J Johnson (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amazing that an editor who's been here 5 years would make such a clueless as "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Boeing 314 article is now in its fourth semi-protection (this time for six months) exclusively because of this user's similar disruptive mass unsupported deletions using at least four sockpuppet anonymous IP's. It was not until after I had requested the current semi-protection that I was able to deduce that User:Tim Zukas and these sockpuppet IPs were one in the same. He also did the same with the Braniff International Airways article in which the editor he kept reversing claiming unspecified "errors" was a retired Braniff Captain who was also the Founder and President of Braniff Airways Foundation and Braniff Preservation Group, LLC which is essentially the airline's historical society!!! Centpacrr (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like Zukas has a lot of 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility."

    Show everyone the barrage of abuse.

    ""The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author."

    Perhaps half of the numerous errors in Centpacrr's latest version of the article are misreadings of the source. A couple examples-- in the History section he says

    "Lucius Beebe contends that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure to coerce better performance from the Chicago and North Western, and in fact a section of the Overland continued to use the C&NW during the period."

    Anyone who reads Beebe's book can see that he contended nothing about the UP's motives and didn't claim no know anything about them. He offered that speculation and made it clear it was a guess.

    In the Name section Centpacrr says

    "The Southern Pacific introduced its first deluxe service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden though to Chicago on December 5, 1888 with the weekly Golden Gate Special"

    No one knows where he got that idea-- the timetable in Beebe's book shows it running Council Bluffs to Oakland. The schedule wasn't fast enough for the one set of cars to make a round trip to Chicago in a week.

    Presumably you commenters don't claim to be experts on the Overland Limited, and apparently you're inclined to think Centpacrr's errors aren't errors. Probably you don't have his sources to check. And sometimes it is the source that's wrong-- in the back of Signor's book Phelps said the "Limited" disappeared from the name in July 1947, but as I said before the timetables show that CNW and UP dropped the name in 1946 or earlier and SP dropped it in May 1947 or earlier. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all beside the point because you've never (or almost never) been willing to add sources to articles. Your habit of massive unexplained removals is the issue at stake here, and you've only been forthcoming after long, tedious discussions on talk pages and elsewhere. This behavior is discourteous. Centpacrr and I are not the only ones who think so. We're not the only ones who've asked you to stop. That are you are ostensibly right on various minor factual points doesn't change this because it required enormous effort to extract from you (a) what your actual concerns were and (b) what your sources were. Let's not get distracted in some abstract discussion about the operation of a long discontinued train. The issue here is your discourtesy toward other editors and your disregard for the established editing norms on this project. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved my earlier response to the Zukas posting above to the Overland Limited's talk page because, as Mackensen correctly points out above, it is unrelated to the basic ANI issue here which is this user's long standing disruptive behavior and practice of making massive, unsupported deletions of content and sources in many railroad and aviation related articles as well as his frequently employing massive anonymous IP sockpuppetry to avoid detection and hide his identity while doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For background information, there was a long-running thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard about this article, Overland Limited (UP train), for more than three weeks, in which the participants were User:Tim Zukas, User:Mackensen, and User:Centpacrr, and in which User:Thibbs was the mediator. The thread seemed to go reasonably well, but went much longer than the usual time for threads at DRN, which normally deals with issues in one to two weeks. The mediator, Thibbs, then suggested, and the parties agreed, to take further discussion back to the talk page. Within a day after the thread was closed, this report was filed. I have nothing substantive to add, but that is the recent history. If the parties are willing to resume commenting on content and not on contributors, formal mediation might still be available, but not if there are issues of conduct including of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think for all the reasons stated above by myself, Mackensen, David J Johnson, Binksternet, the long time history of abuse of User:Zukas as documented in the LTA, his intransigence during the recent DRN, and the wide number of articles in which this user has engaged in his pattern of similar disruptive editing over the past five years, that "mediation" would not be a fruitful exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to make a note here (since I've been mentioned a few times now) that I won't be commenting on this case. I'm a hardliner against comments from a mediation being used in an evidentiary manner and really my only experience with Tim Zukas comes from the DRN proceeding. I know DRN isn't quite the same as full mediation but it's close enough to the same idea to make me uncomfortable commenting. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thibbs, your yeomanlike efforts in the DRN over the past month were very much appreciated, and the eventual failure to reach a resolution through it were certainly not your fault. The issues with this editor are long standing and involve his conflicts with many other articles and editors. Mackensen and I had hoped that trying the DRN might change that but alas it only served to prove that the basic problem is a much more pervasive and fundamental one which is largely unrelated to this single article's content. So please accept Mackensen and my thanks for your efforts. It is folks like you that really make the project go. Centpacrr (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose air & rail topic ban for Tim Zukas

    I think Tim Zukas is too anti-collegial to be allowed to edit here, but rather than suggest a block I propose instead a topic ban on the kinds of articles he edits with the greatest fervor: air and rail transportation, broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This would seem to me to be an appropriate next step although what I expect will happen is that this user will (as he has in the past) engage in block evasion by reverting to editing from the many anonymous IP sockpuppets he has used in the past. Fortunately, however, these are also now fairly easy to identify as they all geolocate to the East San Francisco Bay Area either as Comcast Communications IPs where he lives in Oakland, or to static IPs assigned to the Berkeley Public Library and the University of California-Berkeley (including several to the Office of the UC's President), a school which he apparently also attended in the late 1960s. If this happens then it may be necessary to request semi-protection of individual articles that he disrupts such is the current case with the Boeing 314 entry so that they can't be edited by unregistered IP users. Centpacrr (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment by Centpacrr 1: Regretfully, as Mackensen correctly notes (below), the utter chutzpah of this user's most recent edit shows me that he really has no intention of respecting WP's policies and guidelines, atmosphere of collegiality, assuming good faith, or abiding by the consensus of the community. In addition I have still never seen this user ever add a single source or citation in any article supporting anything he has either added or changed. Instead he often either removes sources and citations posted by other editors, and/or makes changes in the text that no longer accurately reflect sources and citations that he leaves in.
    This user is clearly intelligent, interested in the topics of air and rail transportation, has a good deal of useful knowledge in the subject, and is apparently an experienced railfan photographer. However I find it puzzling that such a person -- especially one who has a demonstrated long standing and continuing association with such a great academic institution as the University of California at Berkeley from which my grandfather graduated in 1914 -- to be so dismissive of the value and necessity of supporting material in WP entries by citing reliable, verifiable sources. By his instant action in again rejecting this basic tenant of building an encyclopedia as well as refusing to work with any other members of the WP community, this user has, in my view, waived any remaining benefit of the doubt as to his intentions to ever do so but has instead clearly declared a personal "it's my way or the highway" approach to the project.
    If Mr. Zukas were willing to cooperate collegially with the rest of the editors on WP -- especially when asked to explain and support his views -- then I suspect he would be a very valuable contributor to the project. The goal in building each entry is, after all, to "get it right" and that is a cooperative, collaborative process. While this user may be very knowledgeable, if he is not willing to work within that process it tends to only defeat rather than advance the project. If Mr. Zukas is not willing to do so and continues his present demonstrated disruptive editing practices, then perhaps a period of being blocked may also be appropriate in addition to a topic ban from editing aviation and railroad related articles until such time as he is willing to work with the community as opposed to at cross purposes. Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Mr Zukas has been given multiple opportunities to edit and communicate with other editors in a spirit of civility and constructive editing. This he has patently failed to do - plus editing (sockpuppeting) from various IP addresses, as well as his own account. Wikipedia is, in the main, a good example team work: Mr Zukas has failed to ever accept co-operation. David J Johnson (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose immediate block of Tim Zukas for continued disruptive editing & sockpuppetry

    • Subject user now also in violation of 3RR, continued disruptive editing, renewed sockpuppetry: Subject user Tim Zukas is now also in violation of WP:3RR for making a third mass unexplained and unsupported deletion of material and sources (see here) since the opening of this ANI, this time using one of his demonstrated sockpuppet IPs (128.32.11.112) to hide his identity which geolocates like many of his others to the University of California-Berkeley. I now propose an immediate block from editing of this user, a long term topic ban on editing air and rail transportation articles broadly construed, and long term (six month) semi-protection of the articles Overland Limited (UP train), City of San Francisco (train), and City of Denver (train). Centpacrr (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly Tim Zukas is edit warring, and he's violating WP:MULTIPLE by editing both logged in and logged out on the same article. I don't see that he has violated 3RR specifically, despite the continued edit warring which must be addressed. I suggest page protection combined with blocking of the IP and the Tim Zukas account. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment by Centpacrr: User Zukas has made five more massive unexplained and unsupported deletions of restored material and sources on the Overland Limited (UP train) article between April 2 (the day this ANI was opened by Mackensen) and today, April 6 ([15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]) including three between Saturday evening (April 4) and Monday morning (today, April 6). This indicates to me that despite the previous almost month long DRN and the opening of this process, this user has no interest or intention of cooperating and/or collaborating with the rest of the WP community in this matter. Centpacrr (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subject user Zukas made a SIXTH unexplained and unsupported mass deletion on Tuesday evening, April 7. [20] Again significant amounts of sourced material was deleted or changed; five cited sources removed; some new material added but none of it was supported by any citations or sources; no edit summary supplied. Centpacrr (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subject user Zukas made a SEVENTH unexplained and unsupported mass deletion similar to the others on Wednesday morning, April 8 [21]. Centpacrr (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. An indefinite one. Tim has shown absolutely no ability to act collaboratively. And a ready willingness to flip us all the bird with his blatant non-stop socking. It's time for this farcical nonsense to stop. He must be tossed out of here and told not to come back in no uncertain terms. If even call for a community ban. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subject user Zukas made an EIGHTH even larger unexplained and unsupported mass deletion similar to the others (including the entire lede this time) since the opening of this ANI on Thursday afternoon, April 9 [22]. Immediate edit blocking of this disruptive editor now sems essential. Centpacrr (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pushing to include unreliable sources still going on

    As anticipated twice now,[24][25] Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still pushes for the use of the unreliable, self-published source Graham Pascoe & Peter Pepper: [26]

    WCM incurs in policy violation, because he's fully aware of their status of WP:SPS which have never been published academically and who copied content from Wikipedia into that very pamphlet (as discovered by WCM himself). Moreover, he's now openly advocating for and backing edits with his own original research: [27][28][29]

    See also [30], WCM hasn't abandoned his WP:BATTLEFIELD philosophy. This is confirmed by his statement that WP:MEAT could be acceptable if not done "to damage Wikipedia", i.e. "to do the right thing": [31]

    Is this community willing to do so something about it this time?[32][33]


    PS: As a side note, it's relevant to mention that WCM is currently exporting Falklands-related fights to other wikis:

    --Langus (t) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Writing as WCM's mentor, most of this post seems irrelevant: conduct on other Wikis obviously cannot be addressed on this Wiki and most of the above is simply attacks on WCM (I can't help but note that you linked the diff to WCM being blocked on Commons, and not the current version of the thread on their talk page which shows that it was subsequently lifted). The only substantive complaint, that WCM re-added an unreliable source to the Capture of Port Egmont article does not seem to have been discussed anywhere prior to this post. Could not a different source be substituted if this source isn't satisfactory? Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed Nick, my primary concern is that invalid source. I'm more than willing to use another one, wherever it be, but WCM has reverted its removal. I'm tired of pointing it out, both here and in talk pages of related articles; WCM's stance is always the same. You can see I warned this noticeboard about WCM's obsession with Pascoe & Pepper in the first two wikilinks above: [44][45]
    Also, I tried to discuss this source way back in time at WP:RSN, but WCM blocked that attempt: [46]
    However, it is patently clear that this is not an acceptable source. WCM should know this, having himself realized that these individuals copied content from Wikipedia. You seem to be suggesting that I should've started yet another discussion instead of filling an ANI. Let me ask you this: how many times is it needed to discuss the same topic before an incident being warranted? --Langus (t) 02:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how WCM "blocked your attempt" to discuss this at RSN three years ago... You posted a question, WCM responded, and no-one else took an interest in the discussion. Making personal attacks here over ancient discussion threads hardly contributes to resolving content disputes. Judging from WCM's edit summary [47], he appears to be acknowledge that the source isn't without its problems, but that it's OK for an uncontroversial fact. As you aren't disputing the article content, I would suggest that you propose a superior reference - that would be a win-win for our readers. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the source in dispute is basically a copy of Wikipedia information, then it can't be used at all. We can't reference ourselves for a fact, regardless of how controversial it is. A new source would need to be found which is not based on Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    I note that this is the second time that Langus-TxT has raised a frivolous complaint about me at ANI [48], further he has a habit of reverting cited edits on Falklands topics if he dislikes it. [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. In Langus-TxT, we also have an editor who sees themselves as fighting [54] British Warriors, [55] British nationalists in en.WP on es.wikipedia [56] It is not "one" of the British, Wee Curry Monster is the worst falklandista of Wikipedia. Welcome to their world haha. This diff [57] is nothing more than a personal attack, however, its worth noting a very old RFC [58] where this editor's habit of reverting cited edits was noted four years ago. They're still doing it. [59] Here we see Langus accusing myself and @Kahastok: of being POV pushers. The issue we were trying to discuss was why there was a need for duplication of the same information. Further, I note @BedsBookworm: has expressed their frustration at Langus constantly reverting their edits [60], further when I re-assured Bookworm that I didn't think Langus was another editors meatpuppet [61] he somehow managed to infer that was a personal attack on him [62],[63]. He is also being misleading in his use of diffs above, [64] please note two remarks he claims were my attempt as WP:OR I withdrew, edit summary rm comments - withdrawn. The other [65] is clearly not WP:OR, I state clearly that it was based on personal recollection from over a decade ago and I point to someone with better information ie I was trying to be helpful. Am I doing something wrong there, nor is it meat puppetry to suggest that someone with superior language skills could help address an issue, I didn't tell him what to write.
    The comments about other wikipedias are of course irrelevant here but I would like to take a few minutes to address them. The issue on Commons relates to this image, I know from my long experience on Falklands matters that this image has been circulating for some time. Its actually a fake that was produced to claim an event was front page news, whereas it was a tiny footnote at the bottom of the theatre section. There are a group of Spanish editors (including Langus-TxT), who A) acted in a tag team to dominate the deletion nomination, B) substituted an original copy of the article for this fake version on es.wikpedia and C) added a description that is utterly misleading, historically inaccurate and pushing Argentine state propaganda. I merely tried to alert the admin community there eg [66].
    What is relevant here, is that Langus-TxT also added this known fake copy of the Times article here [67].
    The source mentioned is not based on Wikipedia and it is not referencing wikipedia. I did, however, notice that something I'd written on wikipedia had crept in there. WP:SPS has an exemption for acknowledged experts, Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts on Falkland Islands history, the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise [68] endorsing an errata slip their prepared for his own work. In this case it was used to source an entirely uncontroversial fact. Removing a source and replacing it with a cn tag simply because the editor in question doesn't like what Pepper and Pascoe have to say is editing to damage the encyclopedia.
    This is a recurring theme with this editor, when he sees a source he doesn't like (ie it contradicts certain nationalist claims in Argentina's pursuit of its Falklands sovereignty claim) he seeks to find excuses to ignore it and demand material cited to it is removed from Wikipedia. Latest example here [69] where even though the source desribes her book The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. he attempts to remove content claiming its "amateurish" based on his false claim two different books are contradictory (they aren't by the way). I note [70] he appears to be about to demand comments are removed in an article based on rubbishing the source as amateurish.
    I really do think its about time the conduct of Langus was examined, he seems to create conflict unnecessarily too often. WCMemail 11:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Langus' complaint seems to be an exercise in mud-slinging - just as it was last time Langus brought WCM to ANI here. Throw mud around, see if it'll stick. If this happens again I think there may be some room for WP:BOOMERANG against Langus.
    It is clear to me that Langus is not assuming WCM's good faith and has not done so for a very long time. This is amply demonstrated by the es.wiki links WCM provides: while clearly we can't do anything about es.wiki conduct, it is a clear demonstration of why there is an issue on en.wiki. If Langus objects to the source, the thing to do would be to discuss it the talk page, not to come straight to ANI with a trumped-up complaint that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever. We should not encourage or support serial mudslingers such as Langus.
    In terms of the source, we should be clear that the source is not a straight copy of Wikipedia and is not based on Wikipedia. It also is quite good at citing its own sources. There is no question that it takes a side in the dispute (you only need to read it to see that), but that does not make it unreliable in all circumstances as Langus claims. We could, in principle, look for the original sources, but they are often not easily accessible, and when the point is not in contention in the sovereignty dispute there is little reason to do so. Of course, if Langus wishes to find better sources, I don't think anyone is going to stop him. Kahastok talk 11:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And there you have it, the pamphlet that copied WCM's text from Wikipedia, self-published by two persons who don't have the qualifications and haven't produced anything of academic value (yet WCM calls them "acknowledged experts"), the pamphlet that despite "citing" sources makes wild novel interpretations of them, is being defended right here and right now before our eyes.
    I'm not required to replace any source, as Kahastok and Nick-D are suggesting me to do: if that would've the case, it would be virtually impossible for us to remove unreliable sources from Wikipedia when they are currently being used to back ideas that are only found in them. My intention is to remove the reference to this unreliable source, and it's being resisted by the same guy who knows it's not reliable. WP:AGF has a limit, as every seasoned editor knows. --Langus (t) 18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Be aware that this is specially relevant now that we know that the Government of the United Kingdom is carrying cyberoperations to shape public's opinion on the Falklands issue, which includes "seeding the internet with false information": [71][72][73] --Langus (t) 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I actually suggested was that you discuss the point on the talk page, and not immediately come running to WP:ANI to throw around wild accusations around just because somebody had the temerity to disagree with you on a matter of content. But given that you are not actually disputing the text, your finding a better source would resolve your issue entirely without any drama and probably without even any disagreement.
    The question of reliability is a matter of content (i.e. not relevant here), but it is worth remembering that a source may be reliable in some contexts or for some things, and not reliable in other contexts and for other things.
    But when it comes down to it, you're slinging mud shot after mud shot around here, presumably with the aim of getting some to stick on WCM. But your argument for sanctioning him boils down solely to the fact that he disagrees with you on a matter of content. There is nothing else. That is unacceptable behaviour - on your part. You accuse WCM of bad-faith editing - but again, the only basis you give for this accusation is that you disagree with him. Again, that's unacceptable. And it's not even the first time you've done this. Kahastok talk 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing WCM of being part of some kind of British "cyberoperations" campaign in relation to content which you don't dispute (just the reference provided) is very silly. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned that even at ANI Langus approaches every discussion in a combative manner. I did not state, as he claims, my own opinion that Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper were acknowledged as experts in Falkland Islands history, I pointed out that the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise [74]. They have in fact been published in the Buenos Aires Herald (21st January 2011) and it certainly seems that the Argentine government takes their work seriously [75],[76],[77],[78],[79]. As Kahastok notes as a source it does take a side, however, they are very well cited and for none-contentious facts often a very convenient online source. Langus' assertion they are unreliable is entirely his opinion, another example of his habit of justifying removal of material by attacking the credibility of the source by speculation. Removal of a source to replace with a {{cn}} is not constructive. The accusation levelled of being a British Government Cyberwarfare operative is just silly (especially as ironically he cites a WP:SPS blog). The bad faith attack on the use of sources is just silly. I ask can something be done about this constant mud-slinging, I'd rather be writing articles that have time wasted at the drama boards. And for information I was 3 in 1963, I am not the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, I have an alibi as I was at playgroup. WCMemail 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that the HUMINT operations are in march since 2008, nothing more (and BTW, Todo Noticias, Clarin, etc are reliable sources). If WCM believes I'm accusing him of being part of it, he's just showing his cola de paja, as we say in Rio de la Plata: my point was that Pascoe & Pepper may be very well part of this scheme. They have received attention in the media, mainly through the falklander newspaper Penguin News and the pro-British news portal Mercopress (which reprints articles from the Penguin News). Morevoer, The Buenos Aires Herald re-published Pepper's article because he submitted it to them,[80] in an active effort to push their revisionist interpretation of Falklands' history. It was published alongside with Ambassador Cisnero's response.[81] His last "publication" in this newspaper is a reader's letter.[82] This is not the behavior nor the credentials of an "acknowledged expert". Lawrence Freedman is indeed a proper historian, but his work "The Official History of the Falklands Campaign" is part of the UK Government Official History Series. The same government conducting the cyberoperations. In the very link WCM provided above, it can be seen that "the legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected". The Cabinet Office in turn contacted Freedman, and commissioned an errata slip.
    I ask Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster and Nick-D a question. Suppose I find an article that reads: "Galileo Galilei built his first telescope in 1611 <ref>A self published source</ref>". But, alas, every reliable source I can find on the subject says he did so in 1609.
    You are saying that I shouldn't remove a self-published source from Wikipedia without replacing it with another source. WCM says that removing it and leaving in place a {{cn}} tag is "not constructive".
    How would you propose to solve this paradox? --Langus (t) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this normal behaviour on wikipedia?

    I don't edit a great deal on wikipedia and any time spent is wasted as Langus simply reverts any edit I do. My last two edits [83],[84] were immediately reverted. Bizarre behaviour as in one case I added an image Langus wanted [85]. Even stranger he left a message demanding I explain myself to him [86]. The talk page discussion is simply weird [87] attacking anyone who supported my edit as a "POV pusher" [88],[89]. I really can't see what the issue was and I don't think Langus can explain himself either. The comments here about Cyberwar, I mean is this guy on the same planet as the rest of us? Like I said I don't edit a great deal and right now I think I'm going to pack it in as a waste of time, I mean what is the point if conspiracy theory nutjobs can run rampant? BedsBookworm (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Panewithholder

    NAC: Panewithholder indeffed by Nakon after another round of trolling. BMK (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard § User:Panewithholder
     – Nothing requiring bureaucrat action, only general admin action. ansh666 21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In the just closed RfA of this user, who self-nommed 2 days after creating his account, I made a comment about not knowing whether the intent of the nomination was trolling or not -- now I believe that it was. In this edit to the Teahouse, the editor replaces an IP sig with his own sig, explaining that he made the previous edit while logged out. This establishes that IP -- User:24.228.60.155 -- as being Panewithholder. The day before that same IP vandalized a closed AfD with "APRIL FOOLS YOU FOOLS - THE HACKER LOL 4HT90ER4T4IUT3WT-029348T5REO" [90]. Not the worst bit of vandalism in the world, but it does establish that 24.228.60.155/Panewithholder is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I suggest a block is in order. BMK (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beyond My Ken: I realize this issue involves a RfA but, this is probably best handled at WP:ANI (IMO) Mlpearc (open channel) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURO BMK (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree: WP:ANI is probably the best place to discuss this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also point anyone looking into this at User talk:Panewithholder#Administrator and Bureaucrat userboxes - completely inappropriate. ansh666 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indef block - I !voted against this editor in their recent Rfa and feel a responsibility to speak out here. Claiming they are an admin and 'crat on their user page is the last straw. It's an open-and-shut case of disruptive editing. Let's pull the plug and move on. Jusdafax 21:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This suggests that they're not here. At the RfA they admitted to being a control-freak, and because they cannot have adminship, they seem to be trying to claim illegitimate authority. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete my account; I wikiquit! Panewithholder (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Updates to their userpage here and here suggest they're going to quit Wikipedia. Although I'd still support a block for their actions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially given this and this, after their post above. --bonadea contributions talk 22:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that either the user has not read WP:FOOLS and got the joke late, or either its just a troll. In any case, its been blocked, so yeah. --TL22 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hereby must continue to respectfully request an indef block for this series of incidents. 31 hours is likely not enough. Otherwise, this disruptive editor will most likely be back, wasting our time. Jusdafax 00:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he did say he quit, so maybe we can just count on not coming back? Kharkiv07Talk 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Panewithholder came to me upset over an edit he reverted on his second day, and I thought he was just a very inexperienced new wikipedian, and attempted to provide some gentle guidance. I'm beginning to suspect that may be in vain. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Painwithholder is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef IP autoblock is in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I apologize everybody for my little "edit rage" as it appears. My co-worker borrowed my computer at my office a few days ago and well... he was a wiki troll. I am here to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry for the disruption in the community Panewithholder (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An user is very aggressively redirecting articles about economics that he doesn't like

    User warned. May be blocked if this resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This may be in the wrong place but please see Special:Contributions/Hendrick_99, he has been on a rampage recently redirecting vast swathes of articles like Liability (financial accounting) and Wage labour to highly general articles like Economics and Capitalism apparently because they have quality issues or he's offended by Marxian economics. It is out of all proportion and seems to be doing a great deal of damage. Some of the redirects make absolutely no sense like "wage labour" to "capitalism." He is then in some cases dumping the article text into the redirect target, where of course it gets removed because nobody wants to fuck up a good article by adding a massive tangent of much lower quality. So effectively he's just deleting Wikipedia's entire coverage of some pretty important concepts. TiC (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. In three days, March 24-25th, Hendrick_99 (talk · contribs) made over 500 edits, rewriting chunks of major articles about economic subjects. All those articles now need to be looked at: Assets, Private property, Academic perspectives on capitalism, Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory), Oligarchy, Society, History of propaganda, Human rights in Singapore, Capitalism , Wage labour, Binary economics, The Capitalist Manifesto, Finance. That's just from the last 50 edits. The edits aren't individually bad, although there may be a political agenda. The editor seems to have stopped for now, and some of the overly bold merges have been undone. A bit of gentle persuasion to get the editor to back off a bit might be indicated, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics should be notified. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of some work, I'll take a look and patch up whatever I can. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for keeping tabs:
    --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted these, since i did not think they were improvements. If you want to roll me back, please feel free... Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hendrick 99 still needs a notice on his talk page about this discussion and I think a warning is called for although I'm unsure what is called for. I think these edits were in error but done in good faith. Liz Read! Talk! 14:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified him. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the motion that the editor be blocked if they come back and resume doing this stuff. Now closing this discussion because it's obvious what will happen if he starts up again. He has made no further edits since 25 March. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Story of the Three Bears

    I've sent the article The Story of the Three Bears to FA review. However one editor is making a point about the uncited material I"ve removed. This guy appears to be a stubborn high schooler intent on proving he knows more than anyone else. I need him to back off. At this point, he has effectively destroyed any chance for the article to attain FA status. This article is FA worthy but it will not reach that status with this busy bee making a fuss over uncited material. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure whose edits we're meant to be addresing here without the other editors name. Amortias (T)(C) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His user name is Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His busy bee-ness is found on the article's talk page. He's also threatening me. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where,exactly, is he threatening you? (Mind you, if I were on the receiving end of this sort of crap, I'd be tempted to get a bit threatening, myself.) Having nommed an article for FA does not make all your work on the article immune from criticism, nor does it make the article untouchable by anyone other than you. Deor (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they may have been referring to this threat to revert. [91]. Amortias (T)(C) 19:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin response) That's my assumption as well -- which means that by going for the even-more-generous-than-being WP:BRD order of BDR, the complaining editor claims to have been threatened. Complaining editor has also been engaging in personal attacks, making unsourced statements about what Wikipedia "wants", denying the free use status of an image published in 1890 drawn by an artist who has been dead for more than 80 years. If said editor is concerned with someone "appear[ing] to be a stubborn high schooler intent on proving he knows more than anyone else", they may wish to consider their own actions. This appears to be trying to drag someone to the Admin board over a simple content disagreement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SeeSpot Run While not implying any immediate comment on the validity or otherwise of your case, as a procedural note I object to your raising the case here without pinging or otherwise notifying the person that you accuse; not presenting references to alleged wrong doing (comparatively small point) and your presenting unsubstantiated perspectives ("His busy bee-ness.." not even with citation of related guideline content) as fact. GregKaye 08:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Page moves of DC Metro stations.

    I recently closed Talk:Greenbelt station#Requested move 7 February 2015, a multi-move seeking to use a lowercase "s" for the names of various DC Metro stations, as not moved for lack of consensus after a two-month discussion. There were valid points made on both sides, including the existence of sources using both capitalized and uncapitalized forms, so I felt that a clear consensus was needed. At the time of the discussion, the titles with the capitalized "S" were fairly new, resulting from a December 2014 multi-move request primarily aimed at removing "(WMATA station)" from these titles. Following my closure, other editors moved the various pages at issue to the lowercase "s" title, primarily based on WP:USSTATION. I have no dog in this hunt (other than having closed the last discussion, and being a frequent Metro rider from living in the DC Metro area), but as my closure could be deemed involvement, I leave it to the community to determine the appropriate resolution of the matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably you meant to notify me and also note that in addition to these moves I opened and continued discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations) designed to break the impasse for which the RM process failed, and linked to it from after the RM you closed noting "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution". That would be a constructive place for people who care to weigh in. What was most clear at the RM is that there's a consensus that the capped titles were wrong; we're just not aligned yet on the best fix. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with the RM result, you should've filed yet another move review. This seems to be a disaster in terms of procedural errors. There was the first request, which moved to the articles to the capitalised title. There was the move review for that request, which you withdrew in the face of opposition. There was this new RM for the lowercased titles by you, which was yesterday closed as no consensus. In merely hours after the RM was closed as "no consensus" to move to the lowercase title, all of the articles involved in the RM had been moved to that title by Dicklyon (talk · contribs). He should've known not to defy the RM result. He should've given up, which would've been the right thing to do, or should've filed a move review or RM. This is absurd. The articles need to go back to where they were. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone needs to revert Dicklyon's and my moves of these articles from lowercase "station" back to uppercase "Station". (e.g. move L'Enfant Plaza station back to L'Enfant Plaza Station) since obviously they're against consensus. I didn't realize it until another user brought up the issue at my talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Epic Genius it's the responsibility of you and Dicklyon to revert your own moves> GregKaye 12:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did what I could, but there are some pages that I can't move. Epic Genius (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think another point to make is that an admin moved the Greenbelt station page after a request at WP:RM for uncontroversial moves, despite the fact that it was clearly controversial, there having been numerous RMs and an MR. Surely there's some duty of care for admins to check that "uncontroversial" requests are actually uncontroversial (e.g. by looking at the talk page for RMs) in order to weed out editors looking to game the system after they've failed in other avenues. @Epicgenius: you should be able to move the pages back yourself, unless someone has tagged the redirects created by the move (sadly there are some editors that do this in order to prevent moves back) – certainly the L'Enfant Plaza station should be moveable. Number 57 18:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The re-moves are proceeding rather slowly on my end, so I may need help with the re-moving of the articles. Admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station to Potomac Avenue Station. Epic Genius (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to see how you consider moving back to the least favored titles as progress, but I'm going to step back from this mess now that you've taken that on. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made that mess? We both commented at WT:USSTATION and you supported the move to lowercase titles while I opposed it. The !vote ended with a decision of no consensus. Yet you moved the pages anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And you followed up and moved the others, the controversial ones that I had skipped. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I corrected my stupid mistake of wanting a uniform naming convention. BTW, I only moved five or six of the articles that you skipped, so that's hardly a strong point. Epic Genius (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station back to Potomac Avenue Station because we now have Potomac Ave Station and Potomac Ave station due to a naming error. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC) There is a RM in progress at Talk:Potomac Avenue station. Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon and mass moves

    Let me quote what I wrote at a recent AE request that failed because the scope of the applicable DS apparently didn't cover this matter.

    I've been tempted to file this request for a while. Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year. The two issues that have been most controversial are the removal of the comma from names using the "Jr." or "Sr." suffixes, and the unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. His conduct in this area has been nothing but unacceptable. He has had no regard for consensus, and has continually casted WP:ASPERSIONS against editors opposed to his mass changes. His point-of-view on these editors, who he terms "zealots", can be found in this comment, which started a discussion about how to canvas editors that support his viewpoint. His effort is ongoing. Just yesterday, he made a mass of unilateral moves, modifying the redirects so that regular editors could not revert him. When I subsequently asked for a reversion of these edits at WP:RM/TR, Dicklyon began to move war to retain his favoured version, labelling the capitalisation as "junk", and necessitating a second RM/TR request. What do I want from this AE request? I simply want Dicklyon to stop this mass unilateral moves, and to stop gaming the system. There are many, many more that have gone unnoticed. These moves have caused rows at numerous pages. The RM procedure should suffice, and he should know that these changes are controversial. He moves hundreds of little-watched pages a week, with little scrutiny of his edits.

    I suggest that all users that comment here read the AE request, which is laden with evidence of similar mass changes by Dicklyon. In many cases he is correct, and in many cases he is incorrect. In either case, he has no concern for consensus and is content to flout it. Something needs to be done. This mess is evidence of larger procedural failings in Wikipedia processes, and proof that Dicklyon simply hasn't got the message. A user proposed at the AE request that Dicklyon be banned from moving pages outside the RM process. I now agree with that notion. Whilst the matter is out of the scope of discretionary sanctions, the community may impose such a restriction. I believe that enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They also recommended an interaction ban between us, which would be welcome relief. If you're going to stalk me and try to get me sanctioned, you should at least find moves that are not ones that you supported; makes you sound kind of lawyerish, at best. And note my good-faith efforts to resolve the problem, as linked above. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverted change to the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) was not a good-faith effort to resolve a problem, but appears to have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He admitted as much. He described it as "provoking action". RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that it's never OK to try to provoke action? Or that no action is need here? Or what? Is it always wrong to make a point? Was my edit in any was disruptive, in changing the naming convention to reflect actual practice? Why don't you think of a constructive way to work on the problem if you don't like my attempts? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RGloucester , Dicklyon while valuing both of your contributions on different issues I would prefer to see one or both of you banned or topic banned than for you to have an IBAN in place while still being able to work on the same articles. GregKaye 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I beg your pardon. I saw the RM/TR request, as that's on my watchlist. I also had the Greenbelt Station page on my watchlist, as I participated in a previous RM there. I participate in many RMs. Once I arrived at the page, It quickly became clear that a disaster was occurring. "Good faith efforts to resolve the problem" mean little considering that you knowingly caused the problem. Please explain, then, why you moved the articles directly after the RM was closed against such a move? What in your mind gave you the right to do such a thing? RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you recall supporting the overturn of the botched RM that created the mess in the first place? See Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. My opinion on that matter remains the same. That does not mean that one should circumvent consensus. That battle was lost, and the page should've remained where it was. There is no excuse for making a mass move of tens of Washington Metro station articles directly after a move discussion closed as "no consensus". You've already been warned about making mass moves plenty of times. From a purely strategising perspective, it really didn't make sense to make these moves directly after the RM closed, when you should've known that there would've been scrutiny on the articles in question, and that your moves would likely be reverted. Given that you've been around the block a few times, that you're no mass move virgin, what exactly compelled you to make these moves? Was it to make a point, as with when you essentially vandalised the WP:USSTATION guideline, and then edit-warred with a user to "deride the project"? RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do trout me for that pointy edit. It was a pretty good point though, wouldn't you agree? Not vandalism at all, but an embarrassing reflection of actual practice that people seem unable to deal with and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious? Without evidence? Where have I moved pages against any consensus or against any lack of consensus? Certainly there was no consensus for these articles to have uppercase Station (if you think there was, please try to find it and point it out). Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... let's see. On Talk:Greenbelt Station, the 2nd move request closed as: Not moved. After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution at 00:29, 6 April 2015. Then, you performed 81 moves that were specifically against the non-consensus. One time is an oversight, two times is probably a mistake, but 81 times is far enough. Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look in the AE request. He has done this before, and has been warned about it before. A notable example that was found in that request is the case of the Blackfriars Massacre. Here is what I had written in the request:

    Blackfriars Massacre – What happened at this article is a telling example of Dicklyon-style tactics. In this case, he unilaterally moved the page on 6 December 2014. This move was part of a huge series of concurrent moves, which I subsequently reverted per WP:BRD. The decapitalisation was subsequently discussed at a mass RM, where it was voted down. That didn't stop Dicklyon from coming back months later and trying to do the same thing again. I asked him to file an RM, and reverted his changes. He reverted me again, calling me "silly", and this time modified the redirect so that I could not change it back. I was forced to make a request at RM/TR, which ended the issue".

    This is not new behaviour for Dicklyon. I asked above, why, Dicklyon, did you think that making 81 moves like this was acceptable? You've been warned about it before. You must've known you were going to be reverted. Why did you do it? RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it to try to resolve the problem (which you had supported doing); I was surprised to see the reverted by Epicgenius, especially after he originally jumped in to help complete the process. Most of the people who opposed fixing this said "weak oppose"; there was no significant support for the idea that leaving them at capitalized Station would be better, so I thought this might actually work. When processes fail, one needs to look outside standard processes to try to fix it. I can remind you about how the process failed here again if you need. Your reluctance to let me attempt to fix it still baffles me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it because I originally didn't see the closed RfC. After I saw it, I reverted myself. Epic Genius (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius, I see, you literally meant "against non-consensus". OK, guilty of that, but not of moving against consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RG, it's not clear why you think your warring behavior on Blackfriars massacre is so much better than mine, or why your having it moved back to improper capitalization settles the matter. The article does not cite a single source that capitalizes it, and does not use caps in the article, so why the caps in the title? We can still fix this, but your insistence on a full RM discussion on each thing you over-capitalize has been a pain, and I haven't gotten around to this one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and added some sources to Blackfriars massacre, since it had none, and moved it to lowercase again since the sources don't support an interpretation as a proper name. Let's see if anyone is bothered by this. Please don't claim that there was ever an examination that ended in a suggestion that it should be capitalized; it has never been looked at, except by me, and reverted by you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. It was part of the mass RM. There was no consensus to move the page at that time. You have made a bold move yet again, skipping the discussion phase of WP:BRD, forcing through your own changes without regard for standard Wikipedia processes. This utter disregard for the RM procedure has not gone unnoticed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: First of all, I don't understand how you could construe a move discussion closed as "not moved" as meaning anything other than that there was no consensus to move the article. I've pinged the closer, so he can provided his opinion.
    Second, I reverted your bold move per WP:BRD. The burden of evidence lies on the person making a bold change, not the person maintaining the status quo. An RM involving the article failed, just as in this case. There clearly wasn't any consensus for you to come back and do the same thing gain, modifying the redirect so that no one could challenge you. I did not "over-capitalise" anything. I did not write the article. I did not place it at the capitalised title. That was the stable title for years, and I simply restored it pending justification. Your attempt at gaining justification in the RM failed, and you never filed another. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course we all understand that. It was very explicit in his closing statement where he said we're still no closer to consensus. My point is that the capitalized Station left them even further from consensus that moving them to lowercase would. The lowercase station did at least once achieve consensus at the original Greenbelt move, if you recall, but then the RM got editted and the closer didn't notice and closed to uppercase by mistake. If you know a process for trying to get this fixed finally, please do speak up since my attempts (MR, RM, just doing it) are still being thwarted. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already fixed. The move review determined that there was no problem. The second move request was closed as "not moved". Accept that consensus is against a move, and find something else to do for a while. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. No such determination was made, and the recent closer said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." It's very clearly unresolved; why won't you help fix what you agreed needed to be fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to resolve the problem. That's why I'm suggesting that you be banned from page moves outside of the RM process. This will resolve all of our problems. It will allow the moves to be carried out, if they are justified, and it will allow the endless disruption of mass unilateral no-consensus page moves and reverts to end. I hope you realise that even when you are right, your approach destroys any credibility you might've had. Other editors have told you so. This needs to stop. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for prioritizing my credibility over the real problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. What I see from the links here, and from other recent threads on this subject, is that Dicklyon's been attempting to impose his preferred style, regardless of what the vast majority of editors think and wish. It looks as if he cares more about The Truth on formatting/capitalisation/commas than about collaboration with others. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have only been trying to correct the flawed RM that capitalized these station articles against the clear support for lowercase at the original RM (see this diff for how that RM got perverted before being closed wrongly). And it is not my preferred style; my preference would be to go back to before the attempt to meet the new WP:USSTATION guidelines, but my impression was that those guideline have consensus, so I was not going to fight that. Just looking for a way to fix the error, or get some attention on it from someone who can. Is anyone listening? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, and you filed a new RM for that. It was closed as not moved (emphasis not mine). So you shouldn't have moved the pages, yet you did anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you have said truth now. By any reasonable standard of normal process, I shouldn't have moved the pages, yet I did anyway. Acknowledged and explained in detail already. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To demonstrate the clear callousness and lack of WP:HEARing in Dicklyon's heart, one must only look at the Blackfriars Massacre article I mentioned above, now having been promptly moved to the lowercase in defiance of the previous RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I wonder is there is any substantive objection to this move now that it has sources and it's more obvious that sources support lowercase. It has never been examined in an RM, has it? I can't find a place where anyone has mentioned it in an RM besides me, in a withdrawn RM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to provide substance, not the other way around. Regardless, it was examined in an RM, the mass RM at the Watts Riots talk page. There was clearly no consensus for the move. The close wrote "closing without prejudice against reopening move requests individually or in small groups as described below. Editors who contributed to this discussion should be pinged to alert them to any subsequent discussions". Where did you notify all of the editors that participated in the mass move of the change to Blackfriars Massacre? Where is the discussion? How many times must you be reverted? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The substance is there, in the references. The discussion at a previous RM does not exist. Nobody but you has expressed an opinion against this move, and even you have not made any specific claim of a reason, as far as I can find, just a revert edit summary claiming "English failure". Most other massacres and riots were lowercases after being brought to RM; this one was not brought to an RM where it was discussed, just the original multi-RM that was withdrawn over objection of too many to look at. Such are simple facts. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of editors took issue with the basis for all the moves, let alone this one. There was clearly no consensus, and regardless, you did not follow the process set about by the closer of the mass RM. Please revert your non-consensus change (again) and start an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, nobody objected but you, and you've move warred it again to the uppercase title contradicted by the sources. Just saying... Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't "war" anything. The stable title for years is the default title. There is no consensus for a move, and you've not followed any of the appropriate processes. You are ignoring the "D" in BRD, and you are ignoring the previous RM result. Read the RM, and read the objections of editors left and right. Read the statement by the closer. This behaviour by Dicklyon is unacceptable. He has now just moved the article again to his preferred title, contravening the RM, and has modified the redirect to prevent reversion. Dicklyon is so bold as to continue this behaviour amidst an ongoing AN/I thread on the same behaviour. This is a clear message to the community on Dicklyon's part. He doesn't care. He'll do what he wants, regardless of any processes, consensuses, guidelines, or policies. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I just left the following on Dicklyon's talk page:

    :::4 2 move reverts in one day at Blackfriars massacre, plus "freezing" the move in place with an edit to the redirect, all while there is an active ANI thread about your moves, plus a long history of edit warring blocks, including two recent ones... something has got to give. I was all set to block you for 3 weeks until I saw CBW's comment here. Although I don't think your participation in a discussion about this is that important a consideration (because whether it's lowercase or uppercase doesn't matter), I'll defer to CBW's judgement.

    However, you should be aware that I will block you from editing if you revert anyone else's page move (or revert their revert of your page move) on any page in the next 3 weeks (the duration of the intended block). So that's a 0RR restriction for page moves in April.
    This is in lieu of blocking for the single incident mentioned above, not as closure of the wider-ranging ANI thread. Another admin, who spends more time reviewing and closing that thread, may determine that additional constraints are necessary. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the last sentence; this is not closing this thread, it's an FYI for people participating in this discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that I'm an idiot and miscounted; it was actually 2 move reverts yesterday, the other 2 were in March. Apologies to Dicklyon. Still, I think 0RR is still justified, and I'm pleased to see Dicklyon has agreed to it on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would of course be much better to apply the same restriction symmetrically to the other warring party. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a "warring party". I did nothing other than revert your change to the Blackfriars Massacre article, which was against a previous RM consensus. You still haven't started an RM to gain consensus. What's more, the particularly slimly way you started moving this article again after I made explicit mention of it above does not bode well for your character. I have never initiated mass moves to a preferred style. Never. All that I did here was revert a change that had no consensus per WP:BRD. I never made any bold moves. Zero. I am not the problem. You are. Do not attack the people that are forced to clean up your messes, as you did to those that were forced to restore tens of "S/station" pages in line with the RM result there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very "slimly" of me. As we discussed above, you had claimed to have "fixed" and "settled" something by reverting my move. You called attention to the state of it, which you had left broken. So I fixed it again, and said let's see if anyone besides you objects; you didn't give anyone a chance, so we still don't know. We could do an RM, but it seems like overkill for such a simple fix, don't you think? Not every simple fix needs to be made controversial, though you keep stalking me and doing that. Why do you want to capitalize things when so few sources do? Why do you assert "English failure" when things are rendered in the normal case used by sources? Like I said, you yank my chain, I yank back. I'm not saying I'm proud of it, or that it's not a bit disruptive, just that you are part of this war, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was resolved. After the first revert, an RM was properly opened by you. There was no consensus for a move, though the closer set out a process by which moves at individual pages could be carried out. You did not follow that process. Instead, you came back months later and tried to move the page unilaterally again, against consensus in the RM. All you needed to do was follow the procedure set out by the closer, namely starting an RM and notifying all participants in the mass RM. If you had done that, there would've been no problem. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. There was no consensus at that time, and the closer suggested a process that I did not follow for this one since the result would appear to be uncontroversial. I have now opened that RM; perhaps you're right and it will be controversial. Seems like just a waste of time, like the 26 ohters that needed RMs to fix the over-capitalization due to your objections, but let's see: Talk:Blackfriars Massacre#Requested move 9 April 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Dick has to learn that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is childish nonsense and he must learn to abide by consensus. His reading of guidelines is not automatically right, as he seems to think, nor is his behavior in any way collaborative. He should be required to use the RM process for any pageoves and abide by the consensus decision regardless if he agrees with it or not. And he must also not come back three months later again just to try to get the answer he wants if consensus disagrees with him. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit to the childish nonsense part with respect to my recent behavior (or at least that being an acceptable interpretation of my out-of-process attempt to fix a problem), and to my reading of guidelines not necessarily being right. But as far as I know I have not dis-abided any consensus, nor come back to mess with something after consensus was achieved; if you think I have, please point to where. Nobody has shown such a case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban him for two hours, that'll teach him. As I've said before (under oath, with Goddess as my witness - or was that a dream?), Dicklyon does good work on Wikipedia, and when he stirs the pot the pot stays stirred. Some mistakes and an adamant attitude, sure, but in the process he has done hundreds if not thousands of good page moves which haven't been questioned, probably considered himself on a roll, and when a few 'Stop' signs pop up he plows right on through them. Given that he's likely learned a little more about 'Stop' signs, I would say that a ban of any length of time be limited to a very small length of time, and maybe ask him to not make controversial moves with a little wider perspective of what might be controversial. But a long ban, as has been implied? In almost all instances, give or take a few capital letters, Wikipedia is better with him here. Randy Kryn 00:06 9 April, 2015 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn: No one suggested a "ban" in the sense that you're talking about. The only thing that was suggested was a ban on making page moves outside of the RM process, which would allow Dicklyon to continue to work in his chosen topic areas without the significant disruption caused by unilateral mass page moves. I do not want Dicklyon "banned" (blocked) either, and recognise his contributions to the project. That's exactly why this solution is the best, as it will ensure that he follows the proper procedures, making his edits beyond reproach. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good,'and never mind. Randy Kryn 00:12 10 April, 2015 (UTC)
    • Support a ban from moving pages outside of the RM process. Keri (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unilateral lockup - it is clear that there are several parties involved in the protracted tug of war, but two stand out in particular as being recalcitrant. It seems rather disingenuous that one party in the ongoing dispute is seeking to outmanoeuvre another by having a unilateral move ban imposed. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—Is this a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester? It looks like it. In my view, RGloucester is the disruptor—he has a personal dislike of downcasing, and has stated at MOS he wants to see upcased titles generally, contrary to our long-standing practice. This is taking the campaign far too far, RGloucester. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against downcasing, when it is done with community consensus. Without it, there is no justification. I cannot be a disruptor. I have not made hundreds of mass moves against results in RM discussions. I haven't. Never. Who's done that? That's Dicklyon. I have never capitalised an article. Not one. Who's removed capital letters from hundreds of articles, even ones where an RM result rejected that removal? That's Dicklyon. I do not want "upcased articles". There is no evidence of me ever having made such a change. I've started many articles with lowercased titles. All that I want is a level playing field, not one rigged by one editor and his associates. I hope other editors are aware that two above editors are part of a longstanding group, together with Dicklyon, and that they may well have had an influence on the present behaviour. I'd also like to inform that "Tony1's" canard about "longstanding practice" is incorrect. Please see the section below, where it is made apparent that the present wording was introduced unilaterally by Dicklyon in 2011, with no community consensus behind him. It just so happens that other two most strident editors at the time of that change were these two editors. I'd also note that both Tony and Dicklyon were parties to an ArbCom case related to such matters. There is a long pattern here, and it doesn't involve me. In so far as "harassment" is concerned, I was made aware of this thread because AN/I is on my watchlist, and because I had the Greenbelt station page on my watchlist. I had previously participated in the move review there, and in other USSTATION moves. There is a clear problem here. Editors can choose either to listen to Tony and his ilk, or one can look at what uninvolved administrators, such as Nyttend, have said. It is clear that the present problem has very little do with me, if anything. Do not let a group dominate Wikipedia processes. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel compelled to correct Tony a bit, while thanking him for his support. He is right that this is "a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester", as should be evident from the box at the top of this section, quoting his last failed attempt to shut me down. And he's right that RGloucester is on record for his "personal dislike of downcasing", as well as for statements of support from God in his effort to capitalize things he considers to be proper names. But the issue here is a bit different, since it's a case where he stated his explicit support for downcasing to fix the procedural error that capitalized these station titles, twice. The point is that even though he supported the substance of the case fixes that I did in my admittedly out-of-process moves, he took the opportunity of this incident report to pile on and complain about everything he could in another attempt to get me stopped from doing the sort of routine and usually uncontroversial moves that I usually do. If you look back at all my case-related RMs since December, you'll see that almost all were necessitated by his reverts of my routine fixes, and that of those the vast majority finally settled in favor of lowercase, since that's what both the sources and our MOS and most of our editors support. Have I taken him to task for challenging these and causing so much work by so many to fix what was so obvious? Well, maybe I complain a bit, but it's his God-given right to drag me through the process, so he does.
    Anyway, having stipulated that the basic accusation of out-of-process moves is true, and having accepted a voluntary ban on page moves through the end of April, I'm back working on an RFC process to get this fixed the way both of us supported (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions where he now claims there's no problem). I have refuted the accusations of those who say I have made moves "against consensus", which nobody has been able to show; in the particular case of my out-of-process moves, there was a clear plurality for lowercase over uppercase, and enough other distractors that the closer declared it far from consensus, which is fair. But lacking consensus there, maybe we should go back to the last time we had anything like a consensus, which was unanimous here, and fix it. But my long-time enemies RGloucester and Born2cycle oppose fixing it, just to annoy me I think. What do you think? Should we go ahead and punish me some more for my efforts, or is working with these guys punishment enough? Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is outrageous. Talk about WP:ASPERSIONS. My request at AE only "failed" because of the scope of the DS. The evidence was valid then, as now. I am not "stalking" anyone. If you stopped causing disruption across so many pages, we would not be here. As I asked before, what in the heck compelled you to make these stupid moves? You still haven't answered. The only thing that I can think is that you wanted this kind of dust up to occur. You must've known what was going to happen. Regardless, now that we're here, the evidence is clear. Your moves are neither routine nor uncontroversial. This not a pile on. It is not my fault that your behaviour has been below par, and blaming me for your own problems indicates a lack of responsibility on your part. You are wrong to say that most were "settled" in lowercase. Many were rejected, and others were supported by myself. In other cases, as with the Watts Riots move, you only succeeded after launching multiple RMs in quick succession, tiring out those that were forced repeatedly oppose you. You moved against consensus. The consensus in the RM was to "not move". If you wanted to move the articles, or disagreed with the closure, you should've filed a move review. What is so hard to understand? I agree, those articles should've been lowercased. However, consensus was against it. This is more ignoring consensus on your part. You've done this since day one, and there are pages of evidence as such. You have railed on about "zealots" and people who oppose your "routine" moves. I think you need to understand that your moves are not routine. The fact that most of them are carried out on the basis of one small line of text that you yourself inserted into the MoS without any kind of community backing says a lot about your character. If you want to make moves, please do so in the manner that everyone else is required to do. I may take my orders from God, but you don't take orders from anyone. You simply do what you want to do, regardless of consensus, and rail on about "zealots" (more recently) and about "domains" (in 2011). Never mind that the 2011-era comment was made right after you yourself inserted a no-consensus phrase in the MoS to give yourself a leg up in RMs. I wonder, at that point, who was actually part of a "domain" or a "local consensus"? The actual consensuses of editors at article talk pages, or the unilateral MoS change by Dicklyon? RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, he did not accept a "one month ban on page moves". He is referring to the restriction imposed by Floquenbeam, which is WP:0RR on unilateral page moves for one month. Floq explicitly said that this was not a substitute for the closure of this discussion. Again, the only thing being asked for here by me and other editors above is a temporary (maybe 6 months) ban on unilateral moves. Dicklyon would be free to move pages through the usual RM channels, as with everyone else. His attitude is clear, the evidence is clear. Let's curtail the disruption and get back to work. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF do you mean by "it isn't going to stop". It has stopped some time ago. What are you referring to? Look at all the good-faith discussion and attempts to resolve the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban on page moves, RM is fine. Enormous amount of recent discussion (dozens of threads on boards and talkpages) related to this one user's single-minded approach to MOS issues. User has been blocked several times recently for this approach. I have yet to read a statement by Dicklyon accepting any part in this set of conflicts. It's always somebody else's fault, and editor seems often to unfairly characterize and personalize discussion. BusterD (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Buster, "dozens of threads on boards and talkpages" is not misbehavior. Especially on talk pages. Please either strike "boards" or say what you're referring to; if it's just RGloucester's harrassment campaign against me, that's not something I should be dinged for, don't you think? And if you read below you'll see that I have completely admitted to the wrongdoing of which I am accused, along with an explanation of why, which, yes, does include discussion of some faults of others. Are there parts of that account that you think are unfair or inaccurate? Please say; your vague accusations are annoying. As for the 2 blocks in the last 4 years, one was Dreadstar blocking me for reverting his hatting of a discussion I was trying to participate in (nothing to do with the current accusations; this edit in an RM discussion unrelated to MOS); the other was an edit war with Randy Kryn, short of 3RR, on some case issues that ending up being settled by the community the way I suggested; I'm not saying I should have done those things, but these blocks do not really support your accusation of "blocked several times recently for this approach". Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I offer into evidence Dicklyon's above response to my support of the proposal, personalizing and mischaracterizing my comments. My mention of the multitude of discussions relating to this user's choices was not intended to represent misbehavior, but instead clearly demonstrate the editor cannot accurately judge whether a move will be controversial without discussion. I have no reason to doubt the editor's good faith, but his judgment as it regards page moves has been shown to be poor. I'm not saying the editor can't move pages; I'm just saying he needs outside opinion in order to successfully make that call. BusterD (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That's some evidence! Thanks for clarifying that you want to punish me for bad judgement and for engaging in RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I rest my case and appreciate Dicklyon's assistance in making it. My interest is neither personal nor punitive. My interest is in preventing all the move wars caused by his rapid, undiscussed pagemoves. I'm clearly not alone in my concern. For the sake of moving this discussion forward, I'll deign not to reply further to Dicklyon's hectoring. BusterD (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restriction from page moves without a RM discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    what in the heck compelled you to make these stupid moves?

    I thought this was asked and answered, but RGloucester insists in his tirade above that I explain myself better. So I'll try.

    A couple of points:

    1. I agree that these were out-of-process moves, a case of WP:IAR on my part, for sure, as I have amply admitted.
    2. I am not sorry I did it; possibly I'm stupid about that, but I did it in good faith.

    So what compelled me, and why am I not sorry? Am I just pushing a personal preference for lowercase? Did my move cause any trouble? Let's look closely.

    What "compelled" me was a combination of a need and an opportunity:

    • The need was based on the original corrupt RM discussion that moved these pages to uppercase, and the raft of other RMs that cited that one as precedent and closed without waiting for the move review, even though I had asked for a hold until then. The corruption was very simple: this edit by BDD converted the support for lowercase to look like support for uppercase.
    • The opportunity was based on the recent RM that closed with no consensus, but in which by any measure the lowercase was favored over uppercase; the lack of consensus was specifically "weak" opposition from BDD and two seconding that, and from a couple who were evidently not paying attention and saw the situation as "not broken", and from those who wanted a different kind of name like before the moves to uppercase Station, rather than either upper or lower case. So now we have a situation where the support for lowercase is clearly still strong compared to uppercase, and a list of red links sitting there ready to implement the recent apparent consensus decided at WP:USSTATION; even RGloucester registered his support for fixing this to lowercase. So, there was an opportunity to just do the moves on most of them, which would implement the majority will on the case question, and see if anyone would object.

    Given this need and opportunity, and lacking any prospect of getting the usual RM process to do anything sensible, I felt "compelled" to make the moves. So I did. And I also started conversations about what I did, both below the closed RM and on the corresponding naming conventions page, in case anyone wanted to either help or object. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So what happened? At first, the only one who showed any notice was Epicgenious, who jumped in and helped, in his usual unaware naive way, causing trouble as he had done before in the other direction on 5 Jan. (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#Determining_official_station_name]). By taking his consistency campaign to asking for "uncontroversial" moves at WP:RM he provoked WP's immune system to react to this out-of-process change before we could actually see whether anyone who cared about the articles would react. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Greenbelt "s/Station". So, busted! Here we are, having given RGloucester more ammo to complain about me, even though this time it is just a technical IAR type thing in implementing a fix that was favored by him and by the majority of those who expressed an opinion on the case problem.

    What trouble was caused? Epicgenius spent a lot of time moving articles, and moving them back. I don't feel sorry for him, given how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. And a bunch of us spent a lot of time at AN/I. For that noise and distraction I apologize. But not for my attempt to fix a problem that has been oddly intractable so far.

    And what next? Will all this attention bring any neutral and knowledgeable editors to actually look into the problem and try to help fix it? Or will I just be punished for trying? For all those who buy in to RG's bullshit and want to help him shut me down, consider contributing instead to a solution of the problem I was trying to work on, at the new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the explanation. However, for an editor as well versed in the RM process as you, I cannot see how you thought this was acceptable. I still cannot see what the problem is. Yes, I agree that the original RM was flawed. However, the move review determined otherwise, and that's that. The process did what it did, and the result should've been accepted. However, you filed a new RM. Not surprisingly, this resulted in more stalemate. Fine. There was no justification for the subsequent unilateral move. You must understand, Wikipedia has a long history of successive requested move proposals, usually with a significant period of time between them. Your friend Born2Cycle has often been a "participant" in such discussions, so imagine you must be aware of them. You never wait, however You simply ram through your changes, and that's your problem. You think of the articles' "incorrect" capitalisation as an urgent problem that must be dealt with now, when it isn't. If you actually followed the standard processes, your moves would never receive this much attention. If you waited a few months and opened an RM, perhaps a new consensus would develop. Perhaps, in the meantime, you could go to WP:RS/N, where they'd certainly verify that station sign pylons should not be used for these matters. There are a thousand potential options in the Wikipedia toolkit, and most people follow them. Why can't you? That's exactly why the proposed restriction is ideal. All it does is ensure you follow the procedures. If you follow them, you'll have no trouble with anyone, let alone me. There will be no ramming, merely the usual Wikipedia processes. That's what we need here, that's why I've proposed, and that's why I believe it should be enacted. It will do no great harm to you. In fact, I imagine it will assist you in your drive. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "the move review determined otherwise" is false. Stop making shit up. See Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December. I withdrew it after two months of not being able to find an admin to close it, after trying at requests for closure for a month or more, and after Calidum complained that it was still open when we tried to move on. It was after another two months of not being able to get an admin to close the new RM that I made my "stupid" move. And "If you follow them, you'll have no trouble with anyone, let alone me" is just a lie. Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, reviewing that Move Review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December, I see that the original closer proposed: "I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having 'no consensus' default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasu". Now I feel doubly stupid, as I could have just asked the new and old closers to look at this and do the right thing. I'll ping them and see if they will now, which would resolve all this. @BD2412: @Dekimasu:. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It "determined otherwise" in the sense that it was not closed in favour of our view on the matter. Leaving it be would've been a wiser decision. As I said above, patience is a useful virtue in these matters. As for the words of Dekimasu, I'm not sure anyone agreed to that. If it were to be done, it should've been introduced at the start of the new RM. We can see what others say on that matter. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I treasure your hindsight about what would have been wiser and what some good virtues are, but why not just take this opportunity to support a resolution? Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius spent a lot of time moving articles, and moving them back. I don't feel sorry for him, given how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. OHMYGOSH!!! I have contributed to the problem?!?! I really didn't know that!! Wait, I thought it was supposed to just be a RM two RMs four RMs and three RfCs!!!! Total time spent moving the articles both times: 30 minutes. Total time wasted at AN/I instead of doing something useful: countless hours. Last I checked, this was just a guideline, not a policy, so while it should be followed, it doesn't need to be enforced like the end of the world. Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You contributed by moving things without knowing what was going on. First to uppercase, then to lowercase, then you felt compelled to go to uppercase again. Without having any opinion of your own, you caused a lot of thrashing in the pursuit of consistency, for the sake of your template. No big deal, just pointing out that I don't feel sorry for the time you wasted. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm pointing out the specific phrase how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. No big deal, just pointing out that you still moved against decision. Epic Genius (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did, as I admitted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing error?

    By the way BD2412, though I do appreciate your good-faith effort in closing this thing at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015, the longest ever backlogged RM item, probably, that nobody wanted to touch, I do think you got it wrong when you said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." If you look closely, I think you'll see that we are indeed quite a bit closer on how to fix the chaos that BDD created with this ubelievably stupid and out-of-process edit back in December that caused that RM to close to the opposite case of what most of its supporters supported. In the recent RM, you can neglect the ones who were complaining about their dislike of the WP:USSTATION guideline more generally, and take it to just be about the case fixing question as intended (that is, ignore the objections of DanTD and SmokeyJoe, as well as the spurious procedural objection by Calidum, as orthogonal to the question that the RM is about). Then consider the objections to lowercasing. BDD himself wrote "If a bunch of editors agree with me, cool, but otherwise, I don't want the closer giving this comment too much weight." This was followed by two more "Weak Oppose per BDD" (one even struck out his Oppose to change it to Weak Oppose). The other three opposes seem to prefer uppercase, but give no coherent reasons; just "NOTBROKEN" and "local differences". Obviously "NOTBROKEN" means they haven't been paying attention, since the process that capitalized these was massively broken.

    Six respondents supported fixing the case error per WP:USSTATION, backing out of the original corrupted RM. On the basis of either numbers or strength of argument, it is clear that we are closer to a resolution to fix this.

    In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic.

    So, DB2412, any ideas what to try next to get out of this mess? Are you suggesting we just leave the massive breakage that BDD caused by changing case in an RM after people had supported his original proposed move to lowercase station? I did try to modify WP:USSTATION to say we would just leave it broken, but that got reverted as the pointy snarkiness that it was. Maybe you can come up with something better, like revising your close to put an end to this nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The appropriate way to challenge an RM result is to file a move review, not to write essays at AN/I or unilaterally overturn the closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and we saw how well that worked last time, when after weeks of comments and weeks of request for closure we abandoned it since that WP:MR is a deserted wasteland where nothing happens. Are you suggesting I try that again? I could, but I'm told it's polite to give the closer a chance to rethink the close first, so here we are. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suggesting that you follow the established processes. If you had questions about the closure, you should've asked the closer on his talk page. You should not've moved 80 some-odd articles against that closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, lots of should'ves. I already confessed to ignoring some rules and making a bunch of out-of-process moves. So if you have no substantive reason to think anything I did was actually a bad thing, and it's just about following rules, move along. You did after all support all these moves. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone argues for something per support in a guideline, it is perfectly reasonable to counter by criticising the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, and I am not objecting to your objection. Just noting that since it was orthogonal to the question, it does not necessarily detract from resolving that problem; it still leaves the problem you object to, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Um.. OK. Good. There's a lot of fuss, and I am not entirely sure what fuss this one is. You pinged me, but I am not sure if you are asking for my input? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, there were legitimate arguments on both sides of the proposal, including citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that "Station" was part of the proper name of the locations. Where the policy allows for flexibility in light of the evidence, and the evidence is inconclusive, then you need consensus to effect a change. In this case, there were eight editors supporting the proposed move and eight editors opposing the proposed move, which is hardly consensus for any change of the status quo. bd2412 T 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe you may have hallucinated the "citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that 'Station' was part of the proper name of the locations"; if I missed it, can you point it out? But my main point is that we ARE much closer to a consensus to fix the problem that BDD's outrageous out-of-process subterfuge created, even if there's not quite a clear consensus yet; which is why I attempted to resolve it by an out-of-process fix. Thanks again for closing it anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dick, please tone down your language. You seem to be the only one fuming about my "outrageous" "subterfuge", which in fact was a good faith edit based on the course of that original discussion. Please keep the pejoratives to yourself. You'd think I was committing BLP violations left and right, not preferring a different capitalization than you, where both forms are acceptable. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to suggest that I thought it was not done in good faith, or that it was subterfuge, but it was invisible to the closer who didn't see the switcharoo there. It was outrageously out-of-process to convert the support for lowercase station to look like support for uppercase, and it caused the mess that we are still unable to find a way to recover from. Yes, I am the only one fuming, and I'm only fuming because I'm weak and fall for RGloucester's baiting and thwarting my every attempt to make progress. I think maybe I'll just start ignoring the station mess, and let you all live with this stupid thing you did that became precedent for continuing overcapitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dick, if you really feel that these articles should be moved, file another RM or move review. Don't unilaterally move the pages, and don't move them against consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you hear how stupid you're being with those admonitions? Obviously the RM process did not and cannot be the fix here, due to the continued confusion caused by people who want to use it to discuss other problems than the one I am trying to fix. And the MR process never does anything. And I would never move pages against a consensus; never have, never will, so stop implying I would or did unless you're going to show where. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately for me, I put in earbuds while editing Wikipedia. And a non-consensus is still a consensus to "not do anything". Nothing to do unless you want to have a new, useless, protracted RfC about what the new names for the articles should be. Epic Genius (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a failure to find consensus is not a consensus to "not do anything"; never has been that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer has made clear that "not moved" means "not moved". There was no consensus in favour of move, meaning that a move should not've been carried out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already agreed and stipulated that I shouldn't have made those moves, per normal processes. But I did not move against any consensus. There was no consensus to move, and no consensus to not move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read where it said "not moved" in the RM? This means that there was since there was no consensus to move, there was a lack of consensus at all, which follows that the next decision would be not to move. Epic Genius (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The pylon outside the Federal Triangle station
    To answer the earlier question, it was noted in the discussion by User:BDD that the fully capitalized form is used on the pylons, for example the one pictured to the right. Whatever interpretation may be given to this, it is a legitimate basis to believe that this is the proper full name of the station. bd2412 T 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    However, "Federal Triangle" is the only actual proper name. The station named "Federal Triangle" may have the "Station" in its name capitalized in some sources, lowercase in other sources, and missing altogether in yet other sources. Epic Genius (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, hard to fathom that anyone fell for or repeated that idea that the pylon makes it a proper name. What next, articles on Police Station, Nurse Station, First Aid Station, Fingernail Glamming Station, Eye Wash Station, etc. that I pointed out on signs at the USSTATION RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat what I said at WT:USSTATION. Nice try. The difference is that "Nurse" isn't actually a proper name, and neither is "Police", "Eye Wash", "First Aid", "Fingernail Glamming", or "Train". Epic Genius (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you're saying that appearing capitalized on a sign does not make them proper names? What was I thinking? Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant. This is not the correct venue for discussing the RM result. Either file a new RM or file a move review. Do something. Discussing it here accomplishes nothing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do something" is what brought us here. Why don't you open the next RM or MR? You want this fixed, too, don't you, as you said in a few places already? Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic. To be clear, no I was not "frantic", I just wasn't notified of the RM's closure and rushed to correct my error. The mass renaming has little to do with the template, just that it creates a lot of holey redirect loops for no reason. Epic Genius (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    CBW's comments not a personal attack. Plus, this thread has morphed into yet more continued bickering between RG and DL, which is boring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All of this came about because of two requests at WP:RFPP.

    I left a message at User talk:RGloucester. I left the exact same message at User talk:Dicklyon. A few minutes later I had to leave a second message at RGloucester, who replied with this and then removed everything while indicating that I should not post on his talk page again. That's his choice and I have no problem with it.

    RGloucester then left a message at my talk page to which I replied. As you can see, RGloucester had some concerns about what I had said. He asked me to "rescind these attacks and apologise, lest you be blocked yourself."

    Now, obviously I don't see any personal attack there and I'm not going to rescind anything and I'm not apologising either. However, if anyone feels that I did make a personal attack then please block me. I'm going to be gone for about 3 hours. This is a real 3 hours and not back in 10 minutes because someone replies here.

    Notified the two editors, Dicklyon and RGloucester. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a superfluous thread. If you want history and context, it should appear in the above and extant thread. If you were not aware of that thread, that might be why you were unaware of the nature of your comments. Please read it, and all will be clear. I would suggest that this be merged with the other thread. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the liberty of moving this thread to a subsection of the existing thread. If you want to understand why I consider these remarks "personal attacks" you can read my response above. In short, a posted a note about Dicklyon's earlier behaviour at the Blackfriars Massacre page above. Following that posting, Dicklyon promptly moved the page to his preferred title, in retaliation for my posting. I reverted, in line with the previous RM result and BRD. He then reverted me again, modified the redirect, and necessitated a RM/TR request. Nothing I did was out of order, and suggestions that I should be blocked for reverting clearly disruptive page moves is nothing less than an attack. Now that I realise that Mr Weather was not aware of this thread, I understand why he would've made such an error. Luckily, this is now resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes one gets a bit strident when trying to right perceived wrongs. Happens to us all. Take the warning, admit the problem, and get back to work. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am as pure as a lily, and I hardly want to be perceived otherwise. I wonder who's the strident one here? The one who moved the article, after it had just been brought up at AN/I, or the one who maintained the status quo in line with our policies? RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, very hard to tell the difference; and I wonder what policies you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times must I repeat myself? I think it is very clear what I mean. Other editors above understood, and I imagine you can too. Don't be coy. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may stop repeating yourself whenever you wish. And I will stop being coy when you stop claiming your side of the war was directed by policy. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CambridgeBayWeather, in response to your original question, nothing in your messages can be read as a personal attack. Your warning two users to stop move warring on a page (and warning that they may be blocked if they continue) is not a personal attack, it is an administrator doing an administrator's job. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. I did not "move war". An administrator properly admonishes the person doing wrong, not the person doing what an administrator should've done (and did eventually do), and protects the page to stop disruption. Please cease with these personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that I am engaging in personal attacks by assessing CBW's message as not being a personal attack? That sounds like a personal attack to me, please desist, lest you be blocked from editing. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You implied that I was "move warring". That's a personal attack, as it is a pure fiction. Please do not repeat falsities. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent what I said. I did not imply you were move warring, I explicitly said that you were move warring, because you were move warring. That isn't a personal attack. Now would you please cut the holier than thou BS, CambridgeBayWeather asked for an opinion and I gave it. Your disagreeing with it doesn't make it a personal attack. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not "move warring". I do not "disagree" with you, for there is nothing to "disagree" about. There was no "move warring". I did not "war". I made a grand total of ONE revert of Dicklyon at that page yesterday. One. Over the months where he has tried the same tactics, I've implored him to file an RM. I've been forced to go to RM/TR multiple times, because he freezes article at his preferred title by modifying redirects. The only one waging a war is him. If he had simply filed an RM, as was appropriate, we would not be here now. The article would be at one title or another, consensus would be clear, and there would be none of this. Do not put any burden on me. I've not done anything. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a continuation of problematic behavior by RGloucester (e.g., see previous block for behavior), especially the templating of an admin, the accusations of personal attacks when there are no actual ones, and the threat of blocking someone. This is on top of the refactoring of Dickyon's RPP (mentioned here) as well as other unbecoming behavior in this ANI. In my opinion, RGloucester needs to immediately stop this sort of behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed his "RPP request" because it wasn't an actual request. It was a disruptive attempt at mocking me. I filed this RPP request to stop the nonsense going on at that page. Dicklyon quickly followed with this, copying my wording. I removed his duplicate request here, specifying as a "nonsense request" because it was a nonsense, and because it was nothing other than retaliatory disruption. CBW decided to "decline" both requests here. However, note that Dicklyon continued with his retaliatory mocking, removing my request after CBW had declined it, restoring his own "request" without CBW's decline, and copying my edit summary. Please, scrutinise what I did here. It is clear that I'm not that one who was being disruptive. I "templated" the administrator because he threatened to block me without grounds, which was a form of chilling behaviour. The actual sequence of what happened makes it clear that I was not wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you are right that Dicklyon added the RPP after you did and it did seem to be in bad faith. I don't think you removing it was the most prudent given all the turmoil around that page, but it's at least somewhat understandable given the discussion above. I've struck that part from my original comment. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it bad faith to second his request but in favor of my own version instead of his? I was serious. Protecting the correct version seemed like a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't "my version", it was the version that was stable for years and maintained in the Watts riots mass RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:RGloucester, I started a new section because this was about my actions rather than yours or Dicklyon. If I had seen this edit that User:Dicklyon made then they too would have got a follow up warning. As to being templated I really don't care if people want to use templates or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, Dicklyon is the origin of this whole calamity

    Having read a comment by Randy Kyrn, I decided to do a little digging and see how the present lead of MOS:CAPS came to be. I was shocked at what I found. The sole justification used in many of Dicklyon's moves and elsewhere was added by him, was never put to a community RfC, and clearly had no consensus in the relevant but brief talk page discussion. I would remind editors that the WP:CONSENSUS policy requires a very strong consensus for changes community guidelines. How the heck can what's been going on here be tolerated? It seems as if subterfuge has been ongoing since at least 2011. Dicklyon has abused Wikipedia to promote his own preferences. He likes to claim that an item must be "100%" capitalised to remain that way, as that's how he defines "consistent". Guess what, he's the one that authored the sufficiently loose "consistent" phrasing, so as to ensure that he would always have success. This is gaming the system, if I've ever seen it. Please, tell me what there is to be done about this. These mass moves, carried out by him, are based in a sentence written by him, one that was never approved by community consensus. This pattern of behaviour shows right through. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read the discussion that you linked, you'll see that I never advocated a 100% sources criterion. "Consistently" was clearly accepted as meaning significantly more than "majority", however, as should be clear there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not "clearly accepted" as anything. There was no community discussion on this major change to the guideline, nor any advertisement. Even in that individual discussion itself, ignoring community consensus, there was no clear consensus to implement the change, and no consensus as to what "consistently" means. In other words, it is just loose enough to allow you get away with whatever the heck you want, to the point where it might as well be a "100%" requirement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not a major change. The avoidance of unnecessary capitalization dates from 2007 or earlier. This minor change took out an odd section inserted in 2009 by permabanned editor Pmanderson, as the discussion link clearly shows. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a major change. The question is not whether we should avoid unnecessary capitalisation, as everyone would agree with that principle. The question is: "What is unnecessary?" Your change introduced the "consistency in sources" wording, which was never present before. In the Pmanderson 2009-era wording, the lead merely said to consult Wikipedia:Proper names. The addition of the "general principles" section took place here, and merely said to "follow common usage", which is a much more sensible and usual wording. Prior to that change, the page said nothing about "consistency in sources" or "common usage". In fact, the only guidance about what was a proper noun was "consult Wikipedia:Proper names". Your change completely changed the guideline, and also essentially depreciated another guideline, i.e. Wikipedia:Proper names, which is no longer even linked on the MOS:CAPS page. This is a travesty. It is pure gaming the system. The fact that no one has caught this until is amazing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a minor change, and a measured compromise between the anti-MOS types like Pmanderson who favored "follow the sources" and the more theoretical and principled types like Noetica who favored a more strict determination of what's a proper name. Noetica tried to change it later, in a time of relative turmoil, and found a backlash for it. Pmanderson fought him via a sock puppet after being banned, and htat didn't work out well for him. The "consistently capitalized in sources" concept was discussed on the talk page, before and after the change, and found no real objection. I think it was a pretty successful compromise, though I agree it has its problem in its ambiguity of interpretation by people like you who take 50% to be "consistently", which is clearly not how it was interpreted in the conversation at the time. Feel free to propose some other criterion for how to decide when caps are unnecessary, but do not accuse me of anything but implementing consensus here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was the community RfC for this change? What uninvolved person assessed consensus on the talk page? I'd say that any of the administrators here who looked at that discussion would not've closed it in favour of this change. It clearly did not meet the level of consensus required to change a major guideline. It was not "measured", it was not a "compromise", it was not "minor". The fact that it is not "minor" is made apparent by sheer amount of unilateral moves you've made with solely that wording as your justification. You have gamed the system from then. You added a change without any kind of consensus, certainly not the kind required for a change to the guidelines, deprecated another guideline, and then went on to make tons and tons of unilateral page moves on the basis of that change over the course of years, using that wording as your sole justification. There was no consensus for this change, and it should be removed. The old version should be restored. There is no way that this can be viewed as anything other than an attack on the Wikipedia community and consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 05:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The actual calamity was started here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This has nothing to do with me. I posted it here so that all the project could see the travesty that has been caused by Dicklyon, since 2011. What will the community do to fix it? The evidence is plain to see. The system has been rigged. Please, administrators, fix this grave error. RGloucester — ☎ 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RGloucester—I wish you would desist from this incessant campaign against Dicklyon. It is astounding how far you will go to discredit factual evidence concerning sources ... and then the meaning of the opening of MOSCAPS ... anything to "win" your argument. Tony (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't an argument. I don't need one. The evidence is clear. The system has been rigged with no consensus changes to the MoS. I'm not the one mass moving pages to decapitalised/capitalised titles. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How is archiving of ANI done now?

    RESOLVED
    And, never mind! Lowercase sigmabot III is back to archiving! Even here!! (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hey, we have 73 ANI threads, some of which were closed weeks ago. It doesn't seem like the bot is archiving anymore. What happened? Admittedly, the bot was often too quick on the trigger, but that could have been easily adjusted with parameters. Now it seems that archiving is strictly manual, optional, voluntary, and random/haphazard. Is there not a happy medium that can be achieved? it's a bit hard to peruse or navigate the page when there are so many (lengthy) closed threads on it. (By the way, I'd post this on the ANI Talk page, but -- oops! -- ANI doesn't even have a talk page. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesnt look like the bots archived successfully since 30 March. Might be worth reporting to bot owner. Nothing obvious sticks out maybe the archive size limit or something but I'm not familiar enough with the details to start button pushing. Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two sets of the archiving codes at the top of the page, one for MiszaBot and one for ClueBot III. Could that be messing things up? Ivanvector (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the ClueBot III set should be removed, that might of been a forgotten attempt to fix the no archiving issue. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cluebot III has been there for at least a month (I didn't check earlier than that), so it's not something recently added. Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just talking to Σ, and he said that Lowercase Sigmabot should be archiving the page within the next six hours or so. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Same issue at WP:AN3RR too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no archiving, and it looks like Lowercase sigmabot III has only archived once in the last 24 hours or so. Did anyone ever get a hold of User:Σ?... --IJBall (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Liza Maza

    Public figure has threatened to sue Wikipedia if nationality is misrepresented: [92]. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive added some advice to their talkpage regarding contacting OTRS for assistance with what they see as incorrect information. Ive also advised they need to retract their legal threat and pointed them at the appropriate page as to why they need to do so. Hopefully they can get in touch and will retract the threat, just have to wait and see. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Another user has since warned her as well. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CombatWombat42 has removed the unsourced blp information. Its also been put up for AFD. Still no retraction of the legal threat though. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much @Amortias:, appreciate the sympathetic yet informative message. It's really disappointing to see article subjects, who are clearly emotional about perceived misinformation in their articles, getting templated with threatening bold text and big red hand images for their legal threats, rather than having the system explained to them in a friendly and caring manner. Not just this example, but there seems to be a situation that occurs every week or two where people go in all guns blazing. Makes things even more difficult at the other end when they eventually reach out to us at OTRS. Just my $0.02... Daniel (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, templates have their place (and I'm a frequent template user) but sometimes it just needs something different. Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She's made one edit and may never return to edit Wikipedia. Should her article really be AfD'd? It seems a bit retaliatory. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not nominate it as retaliatory. If you believe she is WP:notable and and can prove it please say so on the nomination. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If CombatWombat42 felt it was not suitable for the article to remain (no matter what drew them to it) afd seemes the appropriate outcome, if they had tagged it with speedy that would have been something else. It appears (to me at least) that they had a concern and they have sent it to the appropriate place to address it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I didn't see the AFD as retaliatory, it seemed to me an action motivated by a desire to protect the project, nothing more. WCMemail 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake then. My apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have communicated with this editor at OTRS and explained our position on legal threats. The editor is engaged over some content they were unhappy about and I don't think the threat will be repeated. I suggest we let this one go through to the keeper. Also, the editor hasn't been notified of the discussion Flat Out let's discuss it 03:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - there still wasn't one, so I have just added it for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've elaborated at the editor's talk page. Bold facing the lack of notification above made a point; simply asking me to follow through would have been even better. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I boldfaced it since it is a separate important point that shouldn't be missed and I note that after you acknowledged the oversight you still didn't inform the editor. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm just plain incompetent. Politely requesting that I, or any editor notify them, would have been great. Thank you again. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LizaMaza has asked for directions at OTRS as to how she can withdraw her legal threat, which I have given her. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    66.74.176.59

    User blocked for 48 hours, IP blocked for three months (both by Llywrch). (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi

    It appears that this user has long standing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour as well as making repeated claims of racism and bullying They also appear unwilling to assume good faith. Their talk page is awash with issues regarding these issues and it may be time to consider if they are competent to continue editing. Amortias (T)(C) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You send me a message about changing my user name and that is grounds for being "banished". I have been editing a string of articles on Mexico's football players for some time now in order that for the lay person being about to get a hang of the sport and that environment which also uses that Eropean style of dating. Also, what is to be daid about the all the spelling corrections that I have done. WP finds that offensive.
    WP promotes from within and any view contrary to that is not apt to emerge especially if that is the course of advancement and acceptance. I do not expect for any one to like that but a fact is a fact and if someone wants to broach an issue unfortunately, there is sometimes a history of those that have not been courteous and gracious that new "advisors" need to be aware of when someone feels that they are being put upon. So is this the usual route of WP senior users to call for the forces to kick someone out? Does not seem like a logical approach.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:battleground behavior would seem an appropriate description. .59 seems quick to take offense, quick to dish out offense and unwilling to take advice regarding WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. Jim1138 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, thank you for correcting the style. There seems to be a lack of understanding that if previous contributors approached something in a rather caustic way that when others without taking the effort to show that they were of a different tone did not do so it all becomes one big blob. If that is what you term unwilling then all you are doing is bullying as a group instead of coming across as different people. Especially for those coming into the scene in later stages it can appear so. Such as those who deem that I should have a user name other than my IP. I am fine with an IP and WP allows it. There is no need to continually bombard any one especially if all that it takes is a review of that person's TP.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A few of .59's comments

    Jim1138 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    Rant

    Ypu do not find this offensive without some tuype of congenial introduction? "limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language until your English". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Camelblinky was about the issue of something being in the middle such as a street or a town. How does one know w/o geo's if something is actually in the "middle"? Town centers is more appropriate since they are not necessarily in the middle but the center of activity.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Without a pleasantry your suggestion is easily missunderstood. Are you more upset by the way it was said or for the reason it was said. If someone says something that has tones of being not right yet wants that tone to persist then that is a form of bullying that gets reinforced by that person's seniority in WP. Is not that the reason for this "complain" board to be labled "Adminsitrator" althopugh it really should be for all WP users noit just administrators? The top get to use the toys but the non-administrators do not?66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been situations in which an error has been corrected but within the framework of any other changes have made the entire contribution obsolete in that administrator's view. Thast is somewhast knee-jerking. Is it beneficial to WP in the long run for administrators to pounce on other contributors in what can only be deemed an effort to quiet out those they do not want around? The is not much of a community effort.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing TP statements? You will have to be more specific about that especially as there have been by other editors erasures from their talk pages or even portions of their TP's sent to archives which is for the lay person a graveyard although it can be useful if you know how to navigate the system.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once an administrator deems something of particular status seems to bring everyone out of the wood work and there really does not exist environment of descention that might support to some degree someone who is not an administrator or person from the higher echelons of influence within WP. That is unfortunate but it happens in any self-promoted organization and it takes its members efforts to monitor it. I do not expect for that to be a happy statement for long-term WP administrators but it is as long as the statement exists part of the record.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been send the following notification:

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 23:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The first thing you should do is take a deep breath. Then go to ANI an acknowledge that (1) you have made mistakes and (2) that you have not been civil with some editors. Then state that you will not engage in incivil behavior in the future. People are not out to get you, so always begin by assuming good faith. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe in this this of BS so I guess having been slighted and disrespected really has no bearing in this discussion? So I guess I can be counted among the many that have for far lesser reasons been banished from WP for objecting to being treated disrespectful which has been the only reason for my replies. The WP administrators and higher echelons are suppose to have the skill set to communicate and yet are vulgar then go on to define other's statements issued in response vulgar. That is cake for the party. This reminds me that I need to pint off a copy of this to save.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BATTLEGROUND exemplifies this user's behavior to others. I believe the counter-allegations of disrespectful treatment are without foundation. Since starting editing in September last year, 66.74.176.59 has repeatedly called anyone advising more careful editing of a "knee-jerk reaction" (as above), no matter how diplomatic and polite their approach.

    Some examples of this:

    ClaireWalzer (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I recognize that most of our editors are IP editors, and that most of them are WP:Wikignomes, and not vandals. That said, this editor shows a concerning persecution complex.
    The IP editor likes to claim that they're bullied for not having a username. However, the only discussion of usernames I see on the IP's talk page as of 19:05 EST 6 Apr 2015 are:
    Without looking into the other incidents, the talk page alone shows we've got an editor who is crying wolf whenever they need to communicate like an adult.
    Looking at this page, I see that they are selectively quoting out of context, probably out of paranoid rage instead of dishonesty, but the end result is the same. Given that multiple editors have asked about the IP editor's language skills, that seems to be a legitimate concern and not racism. We have editors of various colors. I have no idea what ethnicity the IP editor belongs to. I do see some imperfect English, and it could be from a variety of backgrounds.
    This edit is just plain hypocritical.
    This edit would be just ironic ('don't treat me like a child,' well, don't throw tantrums), except for the line "No need to respond even if it is just an apology" -- This line shows a clear unwillingness to communicate with others, which is the basis for collaboration.
    Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rant

    Persecution? In anthropology there is a different term for it, the inability to understand what is of your weltanschauung that gets imposed on others and leading to conflict. When ever I was sent a ,message about the use of my IP user name, I made it clear that I would remain with my IP user name and that messages to change were redundant. I can only assume that many WP message senders either thought the same or did not think about what it was that might be part of some template they used. That is not persecution but you inability to understand. Perform due diligence as any one should in the course of their actions and do not be tempted to send me canned text about changing an IP user name to another. If so many administrators are using their IP user name then why the absence comment from them on this board? Patterns make up a load of support even if it is not for your position. So. sorry about the validity of IP use and persecution. It is a no go unless you already are conditioned for that which could be the case if you are a long time contributor that does not tend to way into the crowd, or are a WP administrator that does not get much into examining what canned text they may send with their buried statement. I am not responsible for your avoidance of understanding the long term implications of what you send just because you may think that avoidance by the same of others is not necessary and carried with it the full favor of those that have influence in WP. If someone makes you a cocktail you dislike foes not mean that the bartender has no skill. It is the same as at a heavy event I wait at the well having earlier done my due diligence with my first drinks order then come around for the second round and amongst the crowd I get my drinks before the fool that is waving his hand to get the attention of the King of Happy Hour. Or returning to the same night spot for a particular set of bartenders to get mine without having to ask.

    As for collaboration, was it not another administrator that said that WP is an environment for innovation? Sounds like at least one administrator thinks that this activity is merely a cog in motion. I am not responsible for how messages come across when they are offensive just as someone may feign not understanding just to avoid a situation. And it would appear that there are some that are unwilling to accept that the messages sent are nothing but neutral in tone when they are not. So who do you want to blame? Don't forget what momentum does for you in the short run but then after the fact you find out that the fool is left standing. I accept that WP is not an environment for disagreement. I guess the problem is that I still have a longstanding invite for drinks and nibbles. And some people fail to realize that they want to use one set of rules to exclude those they find bothersome. Sophistication comes in so many hues and there seems to be a total lack of using your tools to get what you want without having to let others know. Now we are in a situation where people have come right out and said some things and then instead of saying that they did not mean to be offensive use what was offensive as the bases to say that someone else was and should be excluded. Talking about playing your cards wrong. Now there is a record of specific people coming forward as the cheerleaders so in future if the pattern repeats then at some point those cheerleaders may be found to be irrelevant. And regardless of what is the decision, and to some it has already been made in their minds, we are suppose to go back to being hunky dory? Reading history does not tell us so. Sorry. (talk); do you think your suggestion to kiss and makeup will do now after so many coming out of the woodwork? From the jest of comments made on this board with the other filings this is the least of your problems. Who knew that Sense and Sensibility was rampant.66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice, @59, is that no one is going to wade through your walls of text. ANI demands that you are brief, to the point, and address the concerns that are brought up against you.
    I'm not saying your point of view is right or wrong. Just that it is the very, very wrong approach to reconciling differences and disputes on a noticeboard. It's a place for conciseness and diffs, not extended diatribes, however heartfelt they might be. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to go through life being known for only the good yothink you have done then do not become part of the problem and state in the public record: A Quest For Knowledge[edit] "A Quest For Knowledge .......I reverted his (Redacted) move and added a citation showing the problem with Curry's lack of understanding of statistics in that regard. jps (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" 66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The interesting point is that I was not even looking for that and only accidentally rolled upon it toward the bottom of the board. That's persecution or just dumb luck?66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)66.74: You really need to start discussing matters like a civil adult or an administrator will be completely justified in blocking you.
    We're not even going to expect you to apologize, but you need to at least claim that you're going to try to be civil from now on.
    Even if you were wronged (which you've failed to provide good evidence for), claiming that as supposed justification for responding inappropriately is really only an admission to lacking self-control. Self-control, civility, and the constant assumption of good-faith are necessary to edit here. Walls of text are not needed. Trying to blame other editors for your atrocious language is not needed. Accusations that lack evidence are not needed. The paranoid fantasies of persecution are not needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPs post is WP:TLDR.
    I see that various editors have tried to suggest reasonably that the IP's limited command of English is problematic, and the IP has replied with the personal attack of calling some of them racists (when, of course, we have no idea what is the race of the human behind the IP address). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, Ian, accusations of paranoia are unneeded since they never existed. Was Martin Luther ever repentant? Henry was 5 times after the first one failed. When I was younger my relatives took me to the parish to have me do this five points of blessed oils each day. It did not work. It did not work on the children of my next door neighbor as well and all three died from overdoses.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Any ways, I am waiting for that mass of silent IP administrators to weigh in on the matter instead of just relying on non-IP user name administrators since there are so many of them. I will say that I am willing not to hold up the mirror to show Wm Sommers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When I last checked we don't have any "IP administrators". What we do have is administrators who will block editors for personal attacks amongst other things. To avoid joining the list of blocked editors, I suggest that you apologise for the personal attacks and curb your future comments. Thanks,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a block if the user doesn't acknowledge and remedy inappropriate behavior. User's behavior is not consistent with editing norms, I have questions about his general competence, and I'm starting to pick up a trolling vibe. His talk page was on my watchlist for a note I'd left him in late February. That conversation seemed to go fine. On April 2, I noticed another editor had warned him for vandalism and IP 66.74.176.59 protested. I took a look and saw that both editors had made mistakes. I intervened and attempted to bring a quick and amicable solution. The warning editor struck through his erroneous warning, but that wasn't good enough for the IP, who, rather than assuming a good faith mistake, thought it best to chastise the warning editor. After I pointed out the inappropriateness of that, I became the focus of a rant. His more recent edits have elevated to accusations of racism toward anyone who criticizes his English skills, which is totally presumptuous given that he is anonymous just as we are anonymous, and it's also absurd considering there is a clear problem with his English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified my support for a block, because blocks aren't intended to be punitive. But if user doesn't acknowledge that his combative behavior is inappropriate or come up with a plan to improve his editing, I'm not sure what else can be done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block I have interacted with IP 66.74.176.59 several times starting in February. There are English competence issues, which IP 66.74.176.59 simply won't acknowledge. The absolutely unjustified accusations of racism are deeply concerning. No amount of advice from me or anyone else has been heeded, so I see no alternative at this point. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block I feel a bit new to weigh in on blocking matters, but this user appears to have unlimited stamina for carrying out the most draining, time-wasting and baroquely convoluted disputes. 24 or 48 hours of disengagement may allow the kettle to get off the boil. Elmidae (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rant

    No I.P. Administrators? "ser_talk:Philg88". Well, you very well may not have any administrators that use their I.P. Address as the identifier as an WP but odds say that you do. It has been said in this filing that most of the contributors to WP use their I.P. User Name therefore if WP is neutral in user name use when selecting administrators and the higher echelons of WP authority holders then there should be a representative body of I.P. User Name use administrators? No? There is not much mental agility for to reason. On that matter I hope I am wrong otherwise what could be implied by the total absence of administrators that use an I.P. address username?

    So is the matter at hand that I am precluded from saying that what someone said was thought offensive to me and racist? Is the community environment in which WP functions based on no discernable dissent?

    If someone says something that may not be intended as racist but has connotations of such still makes it potentially under review for that fact or implication of fact. No one wants to be found to be a racist or prejudicial but that is sort of asking the peacock not to sound like a crying child when it gets disturbed--it just comes out. It seems that people are so fixated that all they can recognize is "attack" rather than a "notice" of something. I must be the only one in this whole-wide community effort that thinks this way because if I rely on this group for my mental health I am paranoid. It would appear that the vocal segment at WP is without the ability to examine the difference between,

    Until you master the English language please desist from editing articles. (which is not what was said but


    "Please limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language until your English is of a sufficient standard and you have matured sufficiently to make useful edits. ClaireWalzer (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)"


    So for those that have been barking for evidence all this time, let us ask "ClaireWalzer" just what was meant by that statement?

    My logic is reasonable to think that it can be that the person it was intended did not communicate well in English therefore they should use their "own language" until better qualified to edit Eng/Am. composed articles. I am certain that this is not the first time that this type of statement has appeared in WP communications. That is not paranoia, that is unadulterated fact from the proverbial shooting yourself in the foot. And that is only what I have received under my I.P. User Name identifier from "ClaireWalzer". I have no idea what can be found that has been sent out from the originator of this account in other instances or under what other WP user accounts that person has or had that compelled "ClaireWalzer" to send forth a message. What is it they say about zeros and ones in the electronic world of communication? If you should at some point wish you had not you had better to never have said from the beginning what was sent--but that is too late with the "ClaireWalzer" statement.


    If it is WP policy to take someone at their word then this statement clearly presents a problem. What seems to be the concern in this filing is that it is not what "ClaireWalzer" for that user should be forgiven without regard to it being recognized the impact of such an offensive statement, even if it was unintended. What makes it so egregious is to then deny that it exists by saying they did not say anything offensive or racist and then join the baying dogs for blood thrust--or so the penny per word 19th century novelist would tell us. So, I guess then that calling attention to the statement is the problem. I am the problem?


    Well, I guess the sensible solution by WP is that it should be settled within the "community" and anything that came of the statement was a misunderstanding albeit that the statement can never be denied as not being said. But, maybe it is acceptable that someone is not a racist or prejudiced although they led me on? "Led me on?" Well, it is a statement from someone that in a review of their messages it probably can be found that they said their means of communicating were superior on par. They certainly imply as much when directing that others do as they "say" or want based on the WP standards, guidelines and this and that. There can always be a problem when a joint is just so ever proud and will not fit and talks some whittling to get it right.


    I do not mind someone being hell bent; just leave the potential offensiveness out of your actions. "ClaireWalzer" did not and then decided to spin a retraction and as the add infinitums along for the ride. The statement can never be denied as it is as plain as can be seen and read. So maybe, "ClaireWalzer" lacks the grace to get out of the pickle and will not allow saving face to be brought about by the anonymity of the internet.


    So if one proclaims their superior abilities at communicating then issues a damning statement that person has to take responsibility for how out it comes and echoes in the mind. That is the whole basis of Holmes and the irritating shouter in the movie theater. There is one quality of maddening crowds bring; when those that follow those at the head get into momentum the force can be too massive to stop before people start to get hurt. So what is it that there is more concern, that a damning statement has been said by someone that proclaims their superiority communication skills and hides behind the "policy" of giving someone the benefit of the doubt? You cannot have it both ways.


    You say or do something stupid you fess up to it and move on or you let it fester. And every time that something of a similar tone comes round there is to be expected the same type of perceived hostile reply that then brings on an even more hostile response toward the originally receiver of the statement. You cannot have it both ways to issue offensive statements, feign ignorance and then go back to pile on more ridicule on the original recipient. In the long run, life does not work out best with that approach.


    I never said what was my language of nativity. I do not know of any particular language that uses any particular syntax that is to be applied to how I edited. Or was it the content of the article(s). It does not take much effort to review someone's "contributions". So tell me, am I Chinese, someother Asian nationality such as the Indian sub continent, or eastern Asiatic rim dominated in parts by Muslim and other eastern thoughts. Or am I from Africa which is interesting with all that European misogyny going about after everyone wanted a piece of the place. Or am I a native speaker of Latin, or a dialect of Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, one of the former eastern block countries or the accumulation of the Wilsonian states, etc etc etc.


    My inquiring mind wants to learn from the intellects. Here is your chance; let it speuw! I do not expect for any one to support my conclusion because it has been said by another person with superior communicating skills that WP is not an environment for innovation. At least let it be where no one has to suffer the taunts of others. Of course by now there are those that do not bother with wanting to understand and say, "Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read" or is that a mischaracterization of your statement, "Robert McClenon (talk)" ? I have grown up with one too many older folk that feign deafness to avoid discussion.


    But remember what "ClaireWalzer" proclaimed-- "Please limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language until your English is of a sufficient standard and you have matured sufficiently to make useful edits. ClaireWalzer (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" William Sommer (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ...that's a full screen of unbroken text right there. Who do you think is going to wade through that kind of rant? Please look at WP:TLDR. Consider that if you can't make your point with less verbiage, you may not have as much of one as you thought. Elmidae (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that rant would not be an acceptably neutral word in a WP article except for that article on "Rant" or a quoted statement. I assume that you are unknowing in that when you go to edit how things were typed into discernable para's you will see it as such.
    Congratulations, now it's two screen's worth. The point being that it's actually difficult to make out what your point is in this allusive song and dance (you certainly lost me). Elmidae (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Voila, para's! With wide white borders.William Sommer (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So Elmidae, are you more concerned about not wanting to take the time and effort with WP technology in order for you to understand or just go on a character assassination of the messenger? Let me assume in this environment of anonymity that you are the more experienced with WP to know how and where it is that you can come to a non-character assassination in this filing? Or is that just WP editor style in action?66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but the previous was just another rant?66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And Cyphoidbomb, it is perfectly fine with you and WP policy to let stand statements purported to be fact that are not based on what "ClaireWalzer" is lacking, saying that I purportedly a non-English native language speaker should stay away from the Eng/Am. WP? "ClaireWalzer" can base the statement on nothing of fact because that contributor knows nothing about that trait of myself. So what, is WP now suppose to be reasoned with assumptions that can only be explained as fundamentally unsupported statements? Or is pulling in the reigns more important for you and WP? Again, no one wants to be perceived as racist but statements purporting to be fact are reached by prejudices even if that is not what they intended; nevertheless wrote:

    "limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language".66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi 66.74.176.59 / William Sommer I will attempt to clarify our exchange in context once more, with a link to the edit in question. By your standard of English and level of maturity I was referring specifically to this sentence (original punctuation & spelling used below) and questioning its appropriacy and correctness as an edit summary in an encyclopedia. I can only apologize if my comment still distresses you terribly, but it is not and never was a racist attack:

    (w/o aged under 26 can mean that someone is under a the # 26 rather of particular age; if sum1 writes "18" on piece of paper & stands on it they can say they r of legal age or over 18)

    I did not bring this complaint to ANI, and I am unsure as to why I continue to upset you, nor why you continue to allege racist intent on my part. ClaireWalzer (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rant
    Unfortunately, your attempt is feeble when it comes down to the jest of the matter. This may be painful. Did you or did you not send me the following statement that is signed under your user name and WP's time stamp: "Please limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language until your English is of a sufficient standard and you have matured sufficiently to make useful edits. ClaireWalzer (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" . In a court of law under what circumstances are you now claiming that it never originated with you? It cannot be avoided by you or WP that it was some how out of the hundreds of thousands of messages, maybe even millons, sent through WP's system yours has appeared out of thin clear air. Messages lost or damaged, I can see that happening but this statement has never been repudiated. Your statements have always been that you are not a racist--it has yet to be said that you never issued that statement. So the believability of denying that you never sent the statement is now beyond the possibility. You have always parsed your denials as not about the statement but that you are not a racist. What you think you are and what you may represent yourself to be, even if by mistake, rests on the facts--your statement; plain and forthright. When someone sends me a message I expect for it to be truthful. Truth is based on facts.
    Let us look at your message. I hope you are not going to beg the issue that you do not possess the perception that you have superior communicating skills otherwise you would not be sending out messages to WP contributors with whom you have a concern. There is a clear distinction made between "your own language" and "English' otherwise you would have said so much earlier so now there is no back tracking. It just does not fit the scenario. And, again. No one wants to be characterized or called a racist but sometimes haste makes a lingering problem. There is no miss taking on face value that the two facts are in one message but are separate facts. Mind you, I did not write this message and if its origins were to be reviewed from WP's information the IP address is mostly likely yours based on WP being more assured than not that messages are delivered as intended.
    When someone sends me a ,message I expect for it to serve a purpose by what facts it contains. The problems with the "facts" are that you are unable by personal knowledge or what I have expressed able to determine just what is my native language. So, without the ability to substantiate all that you can say with any message based on unsubstantiated statement(s) is that you cannot cooberate your "findings". The inability to cooberate findings presented as fact is in the long run lies and lies are what make up prejudice and racism. One does not have to mention a person's color to be a racist although that is the common trait thought of as being racist. There is absolutely no information that you have right now that can definitively support your statements of fact presented in your message.
    It is highly unlikely that there has been a malfunction with WP's equipment and system regarding this statement out of the millions that have been sent.or before a notary public you should not be able to refute that you sent I have seen that line of parsing yourself from blame used by other editors. None the less you have made a racist statement since it cannot be based on any facts about what is or is not my native language. And all you have done is speculate based on whatever characteristics you will not address. If you cannot see what is wrong by your statement then how is it that I am to reason the situation. For someone not wanting to be involved directly you have gone to much effort to come out of the woodwork and then to feign the complaint did not come from you? Do not be incredulous.
    Let us go through this as if it being part of a court trial. Did you or did you not send me the following statement: me reiterate your exact statement that is presented as totally unadulterated: limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language. You separated English from "IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE". There is no escaping the simple conclusion that you made a statement purporting to be fact that you have absolutely no basis of fact by which to substantiate it. If you cannot substantiate it then it is no longer a statement of fact but of far more consequential importance to WP since WP is liable for statements not based on fact.and its something that you made up based on the clear thin air. WP does not support very well could have unintentionally been made you said it as you characterize my native language as being not-English. I have never said any thing about my native language so for you to characterize it as being non-English is YOUR perceived interpretation without any basis of fact. It does not matter to be thought of as racist if you use expressions that paint a person in bad light.
    You do not have to say that someone is black, yellow, blue or red to say something that can be thought of as prejudicial and racist. You made up facts to suit your purpose out of the thin clear air. That is not WP style and that is not how things should be expressed, especially from someone that represent them self to have superior communicating skills. To believe otherwise is only deceiving those that are unable to come to an understanding that making up facts out of the thin clear air is based on prejudice. Would you like to elaborate just how is it that you know for a fact that I am or am not a native non-English speaking person? You cannot because you do not know that for a fact or know me or have access to information about me to be able to issue a statement of fact. Facts are true and anything less is not a fact. Persisting in maintain an untrue statement is perpetuating a lie. Only a lie can be used to perpetuate a prejudice. WP does not tolerate prejudices or lies and when things become so conflicted as is this situation some may say that there could be an element of slander.
    Why should I be placed in a situation that I am characterized by an unsubstantiated statement of someone's own doing and then it later being used on me to say that I am being uncooperative when from the standpoint of what can be substantiated is truth and what is not can be so destructive as could be unintentional expressions of prejudice. At least I have parsed my original statement in one of your denial statements that what you "said" was racist. That gave you every opportunity to own up to the statement even if it was by mistake and yet you concentrated your efforts at an all out denial of not being a racist. The situation was well beyond that point and yet you failed to recognize it. This from someone that gives me the impression that they perceive their communication skills to be so superior? And even in your immediate previous statement you never denied sending the message. That is not addressing the message; only your longing not to be characterized as a racist. Not once before this filing did you ask why did I think you had said something racist, only denials in a situation that was, as has been mentioned, beyond that scope of the issue.
    So why do I consider your statement racist? Unsubstantiated statements are not facts regardless how tenuous any one attempts a web at reasoning. Non-truths are lies. Malicious lies are slanderous. Slander can be a problem for WP. Can you understand this? And if your reply is "I am not a racist and I do not understand why you are treating me as such." just goes to show that you are incapable. I hope that a person of perceived superior communication skills is incapable of coming to an understanding of just what is the situation rather than what was characterized in your immediate previous statement.
    I do not accept for a minute your attempt to distance yourself from this discussion that you did not personally bring forth this filing since you were right there ready to post. I am not a sufferer of those that attempt to feign after the fact of their actions which are far more telling that statements of perceived purported "fact".66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The account that appears to have been created by the IP editor is still running through articles changing the format of dates to their prefered preference. Amortias (T)(C) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also another IP user that is often online simultaneously or overlapping with this user. The main characteristics in common with this user are times online, a lack of edit summaries and a large number of extremely rapid edits, although this other user never responds to any comment on their talk page. I think this qualifies as a potential WP:SOCK. Is this the appropriate place to raise that? ClaireWalzer (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You have got to be kidding. The user name was just registered yesterday; (Redacted)! Due diligence would do you some favor.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had enough of personal attacks being issued I've gone through and redacted the ones I could find. If anyone feels I've overstepped please feel free to revert. Amortias (T)(C) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One of your (Redacted) was a direct lift from another filing on the board to show that these types of personal attacks seem to be coming even from administrators.William Sommer (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    if you had there would have been no misting that similar articles have been reviewed and the user name has a statement at the top about contacting for IP user changes. (Redacted). If I wanted to ber secretive would it not have been to my advantage to have logged out of the new account?William Sommer (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And before you have another knee jerk reaction, I did just post a message while not logged in. I guess the cat is out of the bag?William Sommer (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough TL;DR from 66./William, can we just block him already?

    It's clear 66.74.176.59/William Sommer has no interest in assuming good faith, insists on tit-for-tat whenever he can complain, but refuses to consider the possibility of accepting responsibility for his own poor language skills and atrocious incivility. His language skills wouldn't be an issue if he was cooperative. His language skills do not excuse his hypocritical incivility. Nothing unnecessarily drawing the newer user User:ClaireWalzer into this pointless Wikidrama.

    The following users have explicitly expressed support for a block: User:Robert McClenon, User:Cyphoidbomb, User:I_am_One_of_Many, and of course myself. User:Amortias appears at least open to a block. User:Jim1138 and everyone else have noted problematic behavior. I have no prior involvement with this user, and I'm under the impression . This isn't a vote, but we have suggested it due to their continued utter failure to comprehend WP:AGF or WP:NPA. 66./William has made no indication that they care to improve, and seems to have no capacity to learn from criticism. I'd be more willing to entertain a discussion to see if this might go anywhere, but 66./William's massive walls of text are disruptively making this already full page unnecessarily long.

    The only question is the matter of length, but it is agreed that up to 48 hours is no problem. That would at least allow us to peacefully discuss if the block is going to be longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More of the same problems.
    It is clear that you were unaware of the implication of your "faux" statement of "fact". So it is my attitude that is the problem otherwise all would be forgiven--that coming from someone feigning not having a part in the filing then proudly showing up for the hanging? What more can you say?
    You are joking about excluding the person that is part of the issue being excluded from not just having a block imposed for at least what appears to be your generous up to 48 hours then talk behind their back to extend it I assume to permanent? Talk about throwing petrol on the fire. What more needs to be said by others that clearly shows a hypocrisy of the system. I will need to refresh my memory to see your talk and user pages to get a better understanding of your position within WP. Or is that a greater reason to start the "faux" up to 48 hours block?William Sommer (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I don't understand is that you really do appear to want to contribute to Wikipedia and yet you are unwilling to accept criticism and you accuse others of bias. If you are blocked, the point is not to punish or bully you, but to give you time to stop and think about your behavior on Wikipedia. I feel very confident in saying that everyone here would love to see you contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but that means taking advice and playing nice. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are to be commended for attempting to broker a deal concerning this issue but there are three things that I value when it comes to making decisions in life. Before that, let me comment that it is interesting that the chief protagonist of being blocked is now "hiding" my comments alone. Coercion: contributors call attention to all what has been done wrong on WP in what can be characterized as an attempt to have me blocked then there are comments about things would be fine if there was not this perceived recalcitrant stance. I do not take kindly to be coerced into a resolution; no one should ever be subjected to that treatment. Deception: the now-chief protagonist to block me originally seemed to offer that a not more than 48 hour block be imposed then later clarified that statement to include in order to remove me from the discussion. For what, an unlimited free for all can take place without responding comment? I do not take kindly to being deceived. Injurious: someone has made a statement that they attempt to distance themselves and seems unable to at least giving it consideration. I do not take kindly to being inured even if all is that it is a statement purporting to be fact.

    I am lead to believe that the "hiding" of my comments are presumably for decreasing the length of this filing but then the description only goes to that category of petrol on the fire. This contributor has already shown themselves to less than genuine in spirit. It might as well be changed the heading for this filing "The permanent blocking of ......"William Sommer (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More of the same problems.
    And you call yourself a beliver in Christ? No attack on being religious but that does not seem to be consistent with having the faith. Oh, maybe what I write is far too much in my favor explaining what others fail to recognize as a problem with how some people may express themselves without regard to the full implications of what they post especially when it raises long term implications for WP.William Sommer (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been accused of being paranoid and had "my" presumed personal attacked removed yet all the others remained; I do not feel the love. This is a serious issue that has far implications for WP. I have been attacked yet when I "attack" there is an issue. Like I said, you cannot have it both ways. When there is someone with extensive experience within WP calls for a "generous up to 48 hours block then comes out with the incredulous extension of his statement so that "us to peacefully discuss if the block is going to be longer" is beyond not playing a "fair" game. Again what more can be said to just add petrol to the fire instead of "peacefully" resolving the matter. Instead, "ClaireWalzer" wants distance from the issue yet seems to be first in line. All that anyone who wants to illustrate hypocrisy within the WP "community" is to review this filing. We have a long standing person of authority weighing in to exclude the contributor so that feat is discussed without their participation? All that can be summed up from this is simple incredulity.William Sommer (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Give people enough time and this is bound to be found:— Preceding unsigned comment added by William_Sommer (talk • contribs)

    I've removed the unnecessary and disruptive copy-paste. Just link to discussions. Do you have a point, or are you just looking to engage in more tit-for-tat instead of accepting responsibility for your incivility and harassment? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClaireWalzers talk page is clearly a discussion about wrangling up the forces in an effort to thwart what has become a thorn in your side and is it common for contributors to lock their page then when the submit link is hit that it directs to the WP Guidelines on Requesting a Locked Page?William Sommer (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not making any sense. You do realize that talk pages aren't exactly backroom dealings, right? And what are you even rambling about with that stuff about locked pages? Were you trying to leave me a message or something? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This brings to mind the scene from Ironclad when the duchess is told by her maid that her lady is paying much attention to that which it does not matter to her. And in order to save you time to review, I believe I might have edited a apart which you can then compare with the NY contributor that speculation seems to be around that we might be the same. We are not although at times I am in NYC on business and personal matters.William Sommer (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any point, or is responding to you just feeding a troll? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It all speaks for itself which according to your cohorts is being encouraged except you did respond counter to what was suggested. Me against WP is not a case of mistaken assumption. But I am not saying oh poor li'l ole me and feigning non-responsibility. I think WP can weather this bump on my way to you being the anointed leader of getting me permanently banned. Is not that your goal? Again, a lot of attention for a nothing that you hope is soon off the scene. I cannot see this coming to an amiable or useful conclusion even if that is only your original proposal of a up to "48" only block yet then let the cat out of the bag and clarify that it probably was only a ploy to clear the way for a permanent block. True spirit of WP community.William Sommer (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you hadn't started off and continued being totally hostile to everyone (even people who thanked you and awarded you!), you wouldn't be in this situation. Any prediction as to whether you'll be blocked or banned is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- and entirely your fault. There'd be no need to ban you if you would just:
    • accept responsibility for being an uncivil and hostile jerk to everyone,
    • quit trying to pin any stupid little thing you can find on anyone else, and
    • indicate that you hoped to do better job with civility, self-control, and assuming good faith.
    Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a veiled apology that you have been going about this in the most unproductive way.William Sommer (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done nothing to you requiring an apology. You've only behaved in ways that require an apology. That you think I'm apologizing leaves me convinced that you're either trolling (assuming the mental stability to edit) or are cripplingly out of touch with reality (assuming good faith). I can no longer simultaneously assume both good faith and competence from you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like you are not in a conciliatory frame of mind being so quick to jump to conclusions. You cannot make characterizations of my posts as being rants and make every effort to be the catalyst of an effort to have me banned so that the group can decide my fate without my participation and then expect a 360 to be taken as serious. Do not expect a "Lazarus of Bethany" if you shot a bullet killing someone and then expect for the dead to be revived as if snapping your fingers. Diplomatic history should point that out for even the best of national relations.William Sommer (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block the length of time these issues have been going on for, the constant accusations and personal attacks and repeatedly failing to assume good faith, remain civil or follow guidance doesn't leave me with any confidence that they can change their ways. I think we have run out of options.Amortias (T)(C) 11:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Has everyone -- except for William Sommer/66. -- had their say? If not, as an uninvolved Admin who just happened to be lurking here, I'm prepared to act. (And what I'm prepared to do should be obvious.) - llywrch (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've said and done all I can do in this matter, so please feel free to act. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance you can tackle the ip at the same time it seems fairly static. Amortias (T)(C) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've blocked William Sommer for 48 hours. (My instinct tells me an indef block would be more appropriate, but 48 hours was the only figure thrown out. Anyway, if he returns & continues his problematic behavior, he can be blocked again.) The TL;DR version of reason for blocking is a cut-&-dry case of WP:BATTLEFIELD & possible competence concerns. The longer version for his blocking is...well, read this thread: having 5 rants collapsed says a lot in itself. I'm also blocking the related IP address for three months to prevent socking; I can't indefinitely block it because it might be a shared IP. I think that closes this thread. -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nary a source to be found

    Sock blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    JetsAndYankees4Life (talk · contribs)

    Many of the account's numerous edits appear credible, but their enthusiasm is such that, despite several notices, there's no concern with providing sources. It's designed to leave other editors the chore of mopping up and finding cites in their wake. Recent edits also include multiple additions of major league players' performances in the first game of the new season, very WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not realize that WP encouraged sagas? Otherwise, what would you rather confront, the wakes of flotsam or the tidal waves?66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning issued. There's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to a final warning for vandalism: repeatedly failing to cite sources is indeed a good reason for blocking. Especially in this case; Jets-etc. requested protection because unsourced content was being added to articles. This is not someone who's clueless about our policies. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I for this is ridiculously excessive. This is a new and zealous editor who we should be reaching out to directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Their choosing to ignore Muboshgu's notice last week, and response to my posting yesterday [93], coupled with a persistence in adding unsourced and sometimes trivial content, suggested a user who is as yet uninterested in editing with respect to policy. Five or ten such edits, prior to engagement with other editors, is not unusual. This looked to be more problematic. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess an ANI is a good place to state that it seems pretty obvious to me that is user is almost certainly a sock of PrivateMasterHD/EternalFloette.--Yankees10 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Yankees10. I'm not familiar enough with the histories of sports articles to have sussed out a possible sock, but I did suspect this was not a new editor. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, before you take action, I would like to formally explain that I've been adding what's been happening on various sports articles but these guys over here claim that it's unsourced despite me being correct over the current events. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what's sourced or what's unsourced and I don't know if it has to do with adding references. No ones trying to have a fit here, but I just want to explain this situation immediately so we can clear things out here. Thanks for your support. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you add information to an article it needs to be backed up by a reliable source if you are unable to confirm what you plan on adding then it should not be included as we are required to back up our edits. If you are unsure if a source is reliable you should take it to this page to discuss. If you are unsure how to use references see this page. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Amortias. Now I'm starting to learn from my miscues and I'm starting to insert references that cite sources for the articles that I went too early on. But the only thing that I feel concerned about is these guys making complaints about me. I think everything looks clear now, so once again, thanks for your support. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Methinks the editor is much smarter and a lot more experienced in Wikipedia than the above posting lets on. This is not the footprint of a newbie, as they not only posted a request for multiple page protections, but appear to have been familiar with the need for sources: [94]. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You and Yankees10 do have a good point there about this being a potential sock. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User found religion, and has begun adding sources, after the subject of sockpuppets came up. User:Yankees10, if you're pretty certain about this, an SPI might be in order. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on a combination of technical and behavioural evidence I've blocked JetsAndYankees4Life as a sock of PrivateMasterHD.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    50.101.237.232

    Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Series of 9 racial page vandalisms in the space of an hour swapping Indian and Pakistani around. 50.101.237.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoke-on-Trent&diff=prev&oldid=655268127   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reading,_Berkshire&diff=prev&oldid=655267814   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Preston,_Lancashire&diff=prev&oldid=655267682   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burnley&diff=prev&oldid=655265941   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_West_England&diff=prev&oldid=655265026   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_West_England&diff=prev&oldid=655263629 &nbsp, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Midlands_(region)&diff=prev&oldid=655262284   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham&diff=prev&oldid=655261757   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester&diff=prev&oldid=655261122

    WatcherZero (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take these to AIV. Thanks, Nakon 03:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @WatcherZero: They made anothersimilar edit, so I reverted it and blocked them. Graham87 07:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LTA vandal targeting me

    Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I recently wrote up a long-term vandal case page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal, and now I have a special opponent at 61.156.3.166, which is a recently reported spam IP from China, just the type of compromised IP address this person likes to use (open proxies, colocation sites, etc.) This person keeps reverting my good faith work at Halestorm, where I think it would be wise to get some temporary protection added.

    Perhaps it is pertinent to this case that I recently had a visit from 145.116.19.100 which is also a recently reported spam IP, this time from the Netherlands. The Netherlands IP issued me a legal threat with regard to another LTA case page I drew up.

    I get the sense that the Velenje vandal is targeting me for tracking down his behavior and making it easier for people to revert his work. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All my reverts have been explained in my edit summaries. What Binksternet calls "reverting my good faith work" is actually reverting of his disruptive edits, just see what changes he had actually made before I have reverted them. 61.156.3.166 (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you think you explained in the summaries, but your last summary, written in your third revert and after the final warning, calls the edits of your opponent "vandalism". Please read WP:VANDALISM, since one more instance of calling this vandalism will get your IP blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I called my last revert vandalism because Binksternet kept removing content with his only first edit summary being that he only removed tags. Compare the edits before you accuse me. 61.156.3.166 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did compare the edits before writing this warning, and you apparently failed to read WP:VANDALISM as I suggested.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing unexplained changes whith completely different explanation in edit summary is what I called vandalism, which it clearly is. 61.156.3.166 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Mr. IP editor, you have nothing to say about your IP being a recently reported spam site from China,[95] nothing to say about your unusual interest in the Salem TV show[96] which is one of the few articles targeted by the Velenje vandal, and you have nothing to say about your edit summary comment about me, "typical of this editor",[97] which was only the second interaction that your IP had with me, making it look very much like you have a previous history with me, that you somehow resolved to oppose me. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your main accusation makes no sense, here is why. Can you prove that it is not you using this "spam IP"? 61.156.3.166 (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the stupidest rebuttals I have ever seen. Can we get it memorialized somewhere as grounds for CIR blocks? Could we extend the block since the IP is static and a "Recently reported forum spam source"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite breathtaking, Ian.thomson, but perhaps too unique for its own essay. Block extended to 3 months, as nothing constructive is to be expected from this spam site. Compare the first block in December 2014 which was for 60 days.[98] I've semi'd Halestorm for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Buckleburyman

    Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Buckleburyman continues to add material on someone called Sylvia Park to the notable people section of the Koreans in the United Kingdom article, despite the deletion of the article on her because of her lack of notability. I have explained (see here and here) to Buckleburyman that if he wants to contest the deletion, the place to do so is Wikipedia:Deletion review, but instead he insists on recreating the article, posting the material at Koreans in the United Kingdom, and has now launched a botched attempt to have James Morrison (golfer) deleted (presumably in retaliation, as I created that article). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Nthep and NeilN for dealing with the incomplete AFD and the repeated addition of the material on Sylvia Park. I could have done this myself, but wasn't completely sure about how to deal with the AFD notice, and don't want to get into an escalating personal dispute with Buckleburyman. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've warned the user strongly against any further recreation of the deleted article as well as further retaliation against you, Larry. Blocking might have been appropriate, but I'm strenuously assuming good faith that they didn't realize the same deleted article with a different title wouldn't do either. And that they thought anybody could appropriately AfD anything. Well... yeah, that's assuming a lot of good faith. Still, there it is. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks, Bishonen. I'll report back if any more disruptive behaviour occurs. It may be that some sort of conflict of interest exists (see this), which would explain the repeated attempts to introduce the material on Park. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest seems highly likely. I sometimes think we're too polite about this stuff. "Oh, oh, who could it possibly be?" Feel free to report directly on my page if I'm around. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    An IP now appears to have taken up the addition of material on Park. Could you take a look, Bishonen? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked, account warned, again, but I'm kind of getting tired of them. The next time they figure out yet another policy to violate, they won't get yet another warning. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    And now Buckleburyman is back reverting. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you're kidding. No, you're not. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abusing images policy and other disruption

    I need help in dealing with this disruptive multiple account abuser, User:StanTheMan (now using User:StanTheMan87 and User:StanMan87). [99] [100] He's repeatedely removing tag that says "Please do not remove this tag." [101], [102]. I nominated that image because it is clearly not a unique historic image but an image of a living person who is believed to be in Pakistan. [103]. Therefore, how is it possible that a free image of him cannot be created? We are living in 2015 when every person carries a cell phone that shoots photos, and I'm sure each of his followers carry a cell phone. StanTheMan87 is corruptly putting the same image in multiple Wikipedia articles [104], [105] when he knows the tag says "Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." This shows that he's not here to contribut but for other purposes.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, User:StanTheMan isn't me. My only accounts are this one (User:StanTheMan87) and a previous account (User:StanMan87) which stated that the two accounts were the same person. This is just an attempt by Krzyhorse22 to link me to sock puppetry. Run an investigation into this account, my other account and User:StanTheMan if an admin wishes it. This isn't the first time that this user has accused me of sock puppetry before.
    The tag is being removed, becuase this same issue arose in September 2014, when the same editor wanted it deleted. The consensus reached was that the current license was permissible, and that the image will stay on Wikipedia under this non-free fair use license [106]. No new argument is being added here for the removal of the image. There's no new justification for it. Per WP:CON, this whole argument is invalid.
    No free image of the individual can be obtained becuase he hasn't been photographed recently. It is no secret that this individual is camera shy, pertaining to the strict Islamic belief held by some Muslims that no living thing can be captured on film. The Taliban placed restrictions on the usage of recording equipment during their rule, despite some exceptions. This photo is a very rare anomaly, an exception, with multiple sources proving this. In this sense, it is very, very unique and of historical relevance. It isn't even known if the individual is truly alive, despite what Taliban propaganda says. They have an agenda to keep the idea this man represents to their movement alive at all costs. Anyhow, I will not have this present debate twisted into how this image is a fake becuase of what I have written previously about no cameras allowed in Afghanistan during Taliban rule. The image shows who it says it shows according to highly regarded sources: [107],[108],[109],[110]. That's final.
    The image is being used in articles of relevance, namely the subjects article, the article on Afghan heads of state, and the ethnic group to which this individual belongs to. Fair use rationales are in use for each one, this hardly consists of a breach on Wikipedia's Fair use policy. It doesn't state that the image can be limited to only one article, otherwise WP wouldn't allow you to use multiple Fair use rationale templates. And I can't even find the explicit wording regarding "Use on only one article".
    Finally, my contributions have been for the better on this Encyclopedia. I have no POV to push, and when I do express a personal opinion, it's always on a users page, or the article talk page and never within an article. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that it's replaceable is frankly farcical. If the CIA can't find him, we probably can't either. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its interesting that I should find my way to this thread as I was the editor on the receiving end of the long text previously mentioned. All in all, while clearly tendentious, I found it quite enlightening of a religion that clearly has open ends towards practices that many societies would clearly define as human rights abuse. Despite an approach that seems to me to be highly tendentious I have found StanTheMan87 to be straightforward, from what I have seen, in approach.
    The last edit that I remember from StanTheMan87 was in response to an enquiry from an IP address (Special:Contributions/193.87.99.186), that has only added to Wikipedia on this one occasion, and asked the question on the ISIL talk page, "I suspect , IS has something like official website , probably operated as TOR hidden service to prevent censorship. Knows anyone the address ?" Remembering that this is a website that has had previous incarnations that have been repeatedly taken down by international consensus, StanTheMan87 was the editor to place reference on the talk page [111].
    I have just had a cursory look at Special:Contributions/StanTheMan87 and jumped into a long recent edit at: Revision as of 13:23, 7 April 2015. Here I found the text: "The Faith Campaign allowed Sunni mosques more freedom in practicing religious ceremonies and rites, which reduced substantially the opposition to the regime among Sunni Islamists." I am very concerned that this, again, maybe symptomatic of an apologetics based practice on behalf of whichever form of Sunni Islamism or perhaps Salafism that may be being followed. I would like to know that any edits like these are being balanced with content in regard to issues like effects the freedoms of women or members of any LGBT community or any Shias, Sufis, or Christians that may have been effected by the Sunni mosques having extended freedoms. I have seen nothing to indicate that StanTheMan87 is not a purely or largely tendentious editor without any priority for the building of an NPOV encyclopedia.
    I say this with no axe to grind. Despite being the editor that was instrumental in adding the reference to Islamic extremism I am also the main editor that is advocating on this page on behalf of an editor for whom one of the major accusations was the removal of this reference. In comparison I think that StanTheMan87 comes across as very driven in his agenda. GregKaye 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have established that StanTheMan is User:TheMadTim, who I see behaving and writing identical to StanTheMan and StanTheMan87. Just compare this and this with this. Not to mention the identical way of making sock names, but I also noticed certain words used by TheMadTim and StanTheMan87.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a diff or a link where "Admins have established" that? 24.236.232.136 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for giving away your IP address. That will make it much easier to check for socks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, I though the tagger (KK2) was an admin, minor error, but looking at TheMadTim's [112] and StanTheMan's contributes [113], we can establish both being the same, especially the following. [114], [115] [116], [117], [118], [119]. The "dude" being excessively used is only a cover up.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember using foul language at all on Wikipedia, nor do I use the term 'Dude'. It seems the only reason to believe that this account is the same as User:StanTheMan is due to the similar username and the fact that we both stated that we'd stop editing Wikipedia at some point in time. Why don't you also add that we both use the English language, and we both use the word 'and' and whatnot? So trivial. Again, this isn't the first time I have been alleged of being a sock puppet by Krzyhorse22. User:DocumentError and I were both accused of being the same person by Krzyhorse22. If doubts still persist into my genuineness, then I welcome a sock puppet investigation to be conducted on this account to quell the allegations. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DocumentError claimed that he comes from Iran [120], it is now indef-blocked for disruptive editing. [121] DocumentError always appeared everywhere defending you. Your edits indicate that you're connected to Iran. You stated: "I'm out of the motha fucking pedia, bitches." [122] That reveals your real you. There is no doubt in my mind that you have been socking, edit-warring, and POV-pushing for many years. I'm not that concerned about you using multiple names in the past, you may act like Yosemite Sam all you want but I and others can see what you're upto. The problem right now (here) is you're abusing images license policy, this is not only a Wikipedia issue but also could involve U.S. federal law. [123] When it comes to federal law, there is no jurisdiction, and courts have now ruled that internet activities are permissible evidence. The point is we're not allowed to use images that legally belong to someone who hasn't given us explicit permission.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can write whatever I wish on my Wikipedia talk page. The point I was making was that I have never used foul language in a pejorative context, as in while communicating with another editor, unlike you [124]. You have also stated some bizarre things, such as when you claimed you contacted the director of the CIA, John O. Brennan [125] in order to support your contention. The image licencing policy issue was solved last year with a clear consensus reached. This discussion is pointless. Oh, and if you don't mind me asking, how is the CIA director these days Krzyhorse22? StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous nomination was obviously wrongly conducted, but besides that it allowed the image for only one article [126], which is normal, and after that you (using 2 different names) added 2 more rationals [127] and used the image in 2 other articles. [128] [129] I was very much expecting what you did since last year. No, you cannot write whatever you wish. My bizarre things are jokes only the intelligence community can understand.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how relevant the sock puppet issue is. The main issues are disruption as mentioned, tendetious editing and whether StanTheMan87 is here for purposes to advocate for a religious POV. (StanMan87 is not active and if this was StanTheMan87 then it might be easy for both accounts to be activated and used. "stan the man", "stan man" and "stantheman" all get quite high hit on Google. See also Stan the Man (disambiguation) with Stan Musial, American baseball player receiving a redirect from Stan the Man). GregKaye 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dorothy Comingore

    User blocked as a confirmed sock by Ponyo, and article had already been semi-protected due to EW threats and suspected sockpuppetry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am unsure of what to do with this, but Dorothy Comingore has placed a an "Ad" for "Citizens Against Revenge Porn (CARP)"(References: 1, 2) on MyEx.com. I did not believe that it fit on the article, and did tell them I support their cause but I did believe it didn't fit on the article properly. Unfortunately it didn't result in just a revert, but a written threat of a edit war [Reference]. One user has already been blocked for posting this on the article in question, and I supposed it wasn't allowed, but I do know edit warring is not allowed. As of for right now, I am not editing the page, just to be on the safe side.
    Side note: I am unsure how to use the {{Pagelinks}} and {{Userlinks}} templates, but have provided possible substitution for them. If this is still not acceptable, please let me know on my talk page and I will fix it ASAP. Félix Wolf (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted a warning about edit warring to their talk page; but based on behavioral evidence, this appears to either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Susan Alexander Kane (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked Mar 26th for the same behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the user has opened a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#MyEx.com to address the article and link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A Facebook page with just 42 "likes", no link to a website, no stated data protection policy... Definitely WP:NOTHOWTO and not a suitable EL. Keri (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Dorothy Comingore as a  Confirmed sock of Susan Alexander Kane.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Justin Beiber page vandalized, but it's protected so I can't revert

    Dealt with by Drmies. Amortias (T)(C) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Bieber&diff=655343847&oldid=655311928

    As you can see, the most recent two edits contain only vandalism. jag426 (talk) 15:34, 07 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editorous at it again

    Blocked 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

    Warned, reported at ANI, blocked and still at it. [130], [131], [132] --NeilN talk to me 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked over at WP:AIV for vandalism within one day of release of block. Amortias (T)(C) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is incorrect. His last block expired over a month ago. Really, he should be indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the block he was blocked for edit warring and BLP violations - misread the previous block when looking at it prior to reporitng it so the bad falls here on that one. Will ping SarekOfVulcan as they imposed the block so they can see this as well. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    ArcangelLaMarivilla

    I think that editor and the IP are the same person, as they both seem to think that blanking the problem will make it go away. (See: their talk page histories.) They have been warned more than enough times that removing AfD templates is not acceptable, yet they keep doing that, and remove the warnings from their talk page which proves that they've seen those. They did this on Start/End (at least twice (linking to talk page warnings since the page is deleted)), and also used blanking on the AfD page itself, twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Start/End history). The article was eventually deleted, but they restored it. (Currently tagged for speedy, may get deleted soon.) Today they removed the AfD tag from The Death Card, twice.

    The IP removed a PROD tag from Catharsis (Sworn In EP) today; removing PROD tags is allowed but it's another example of how they (possibly) use the IP for editing while logged out and use blanking instead of communication in an effort to protect articles about musical recordings. (All the articles mentioned here are albums by a metalcore band.)

    (I would have just reported them at WP:AIAV but I'm not sure if the problem is obvious enough to not need an explanation.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To report potential sockpuppetry, report it to WP:SPI (even though they won't publicly connect an IP to an account) and for the removal of the AfD template, it absolutely qualifies under vandalism and I would report it if you have not. For the IP removing the PROD, it's only a suspicion which could be correct but I've watchlisted that page just in case any more shenanigans show up. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave me alone, all I am doing is helping bands get their article and that's it. Jerphine is a bully :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcangelLaMarivilla (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When I created this post here, I actually wondered to myself if you would try to blank it from here, and you actually did. How have you not learned by now that it doesn't work? I have no idea how you're not blocked yet. FYI I actually spent my time looking for references and helping with the band's main article (see article history) and I have no interest in their kind of music. That's how you help, you do research to find references or to find sources that can prove the notability of an article's topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A serious incident indeed

    (non-admin closure) Trolling. BMK (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I just got an obscene message about what can only be described as a curious anatomical tautology. What should I do? 217.43.5.204 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you be more specific? People have only put vandalism warnings on your talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Communication was off wiki but no doubt wikipedia related (this is clearer if you know what the communication was). 217.43.5.204 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres limitations on what can be done about off-wiki activity unless it can be explicitly linked to an editor here. Its difficult to see whats gone on without the information available to us which is what makes off-wiki issues difficult to deal with here. Amortias (T)(C) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would perhaps be prudent of me to point out that the OP is in possession of what one might describe as a "dark member of excessive girth" 81.101.142.111 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF is this report about? If someone can't provide some straight-forward information for admins to work with, I suggest it be closed. BMK (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the one recent edit by the OP was vandalism, so I'm closing this as trolling. BMK (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The constant violation of NPOV

    I have blocked Crovata for a short time for 3RR violations at J-pop and elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    According the several user talk page discussions, and the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article, the users Anosola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and lately especially Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constantly support the violation of the NPOV principles, ignore my warnings about the NPOV principles violation, intentionally avoid to discuss the main issue and the NPOV violation. I lost my patience and wasted my time to make them understand how Wikipedia works. I can not anymore.--Crovata (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moving to WP:AN, since this belongs over there. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible WP:DONTLIKEIT issues with SchroCat

    CLOSED
    Closed as non-actionable. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See also WP:AN3#User:SchroCat reported by User:Agnosticaphid (Result: ) and Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Edit warring. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness (talk • contributions) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. DONTLIKEIT Is a guideline that could be applied to pretty much everyone at one point or other. Seeing the substantive issue here is under discussion at 3RR, this is looking increasingly like harassment and forum shopping. - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DONTLIKEIT isn't even a guideline; it's a WP:Essay and therefore cannot be enforced except for when explained in terms of WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for a warning about editor-focused discussion /WP:BLOCKDETERRENT for personal attacks on Miscellany for Deletion Project Page (user: Petrarchan47)

    (adjusted per admin input)

    I recently nominated the essay Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks for deletion based on my concerns that it undermines consensus-building and collaborative editing, instead expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content. user:Petrarchan47 has taken great exception to this nomination, and has expressed this objection by off-topic attacks on my editing history on the deletion Talk page and with personal attacks in various discussions on other Talk pages.

    In the discussion on the essay Talk page, I am singled out as a “COI duck”. The criticisms of my edits include using the FDA as a source for medical information (it is “non-neutral and non-independent”), removing a redundant sentence about birth defects from the SSRI article, and removing material about an antipsychotic from the Antidepressant article.

    The same material is later posted to the MfD discussion page, in which I am referred to (directly) as a “COI duck” and (indirectly) as part of a group of editors who “gather at the same articles to create faux consensus, and flock around noticeboards to silence opponents through bans, etc”. (I believe this is only my second or third time bringing someone to ANI in 2 years of editing).

    I responded to these attacks with explanations for my edits, and was soon thereafter hit with another list, also on the MfD discussion page.

    I offered a civil statement that this Talk page was not the appropriate place for her demand that I justify a lengthy list of edits to other articles and demand that I defend myself from charges of bad faith editing.

    She responds with more accusations of “pro pharma spin doctoring”

    I left a standard “no personal attacks” template message on her user page and she responds again on the MfD Talk page accusing me of “bullying” behavior and suggesting that the NPA template I left was retaliaton for her vote.

    I really don't want any conflict here and would just appreciate it if an admin would put in a word. I'm happy to discuss edits on the article page in question and to defer to an RfC if no consensus can be gained. But edits which have never been contested by Petra on the Talk pages of the articles in question are being used to attack my good faith and undermine my credibility on unrelated pages, and this is unhelpful. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be aware of this recent case where incredibly problematic and dangerous POV editing had a very real-world effect, and is damaging WP's reputation even further. If you read this Newsweek piece, you might note the similarities between the editing I pointed out with regard to pharmaceutical articles, and the editing done by WifiOne - mostly removing criticism of the New Delhi school. If an admin would skim the edits I brought to light, and consider the implications of the particular whitewashing that emerges, they would see that this is a serious matter, and it is much bigger than what a single volunteer should be expected to take on. It is a systemic problem, and given the prolific editing to pharmaceutical articles by F98, this case in particular deserves a closer look. If the method I have used to attempt bring this editing to light is considered more problematic than the edits themselves, well, I guess that's par for the course, but I hope that the content of our articles would take priority over drama. petrarchan47tc 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Petra, if you are unhappy with my edits, please open a case on me here or at COIN. The purpose of this discussion is your violation of the talk page and WP:NPA by questioning my integrity on article and project Talk pages, which are not for that purpose. This behavior is disruptive and interferes with a constructive discussion of content and sources. Whether or not my edits are "POV", the talk pages are not the appropriate place for questioning my good faith.
    Once again, I respectfully request that you either take your concerns to COIN, open an ANI case on me, or keep your thoughts to yourself. The talk and project pages are not the place for all this invective. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 23:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that makes sense to me. However, you are well aware that the first set of diffs was posted to my talk page on 19 March. You raised no objections whatsoever until now, so you might forgive me for thinking it wasn't being considered an "attack". petrarchan47tc 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ::In addendum, in spite of the very detailed description in this complaint of the exact behavior that I think is problematic, Petra just posted to the MfD project page suggesting that this filing was in retaliation for her vote against deletion.

    I specifically said that I wasn't sure whether it is related to what some editors are referring to as a 'pattern of retaliation' regarding your copious warnings. petrarchan47tc 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact quote in your diff is "I'm not sure if this is related to supporting this essay, I was just taken to court for giving examples of the OP's pro-pharma editing in the survey section". Which has nothing to do with what you are saying here, but could probably have been interpreted more benignly than in my comment above, which I have struck.
    Would you please just agree to limit your commentary to sources and content going forward and stop the personal remarks? I really hate these boards and do not like doing this. But on the other hand, I cannot have every controversial discussion that I get involved in disrupted with these silly diffs that you post, showing that I've made edits you disagree with and calling me a shill POV editor and "COI duck", ""spindoctor" and "tendentious editor" over edits that you never disputed at the time they were made. I really don't want to have these battles. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 04:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so sorry that you find the diffs silly - I'm sorry for our readers. I would not waste my time on this if these diffs didn't show extremely tendentious editing in a way that could be dangerous to human health. I consider the 'spindoctoring' that the diffs show to be of utmost importance. And yes, the next time you see a list of your diffs from me will be at the proper noticeboard. I have brought the diffs to only one venue beyond my talk page, so I'm not sure what you meant by "every controversial discussion that I get involved in". My advice would be: stick to the facts, don't spin or exaggerate, and there will be fewer problems with your edits. petrarchan47tc 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed you are now claiming that I called you a shill? When did I do that? F98, if you can't stop misrepresenting me here why should anyone believe you are truthful and unbiased in your editing? I have not called you a shill, please strike that. I did confront you about several edits, like here and here, so I would ask that you strike another false claim. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 05:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ve struck and corrected to describe the accusations more precisely. I'm sorry you're concerned that my edits are a "threat to human health". Because it is reducing threats to human health caused by misinformation in articles that are read by hundreds of people daily that motivated me to become an editor. Generally speaking, I've removed poorly sourced material (and in a remarkable number of cases, statement that contradict their putative source) and added better sourced material. By itself, that may not be a guarantee of NPOV, but it beats the hell out of the opposite.
    If you will confirm that we have an agreement that you will restrict your criticism to appropriate venues, including COIN and ANI, I will request that this complaint be closed without action. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll copy what I said above as a confirmation: yes, the next time you see a list of your diffs from me will be at the proper noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have no doubt I will be hearing from you again, but as long as it is in the appropriate forums, there will be no hard feelings on this side. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're most welcome. I do need to ask you to be more careful when quoting me. You brought me here because the list of diffs was taken to be an attack, since it wasn't presented in the appropriate forums. My answer is very specific: the next time I present a list of your diffs, it will be at the proper noticeboard. Please don't extrapolate beyond what I have specifically said. I would also note that Geogene has made untrue claims about me in this thread and deserted the scene when asked for proof or to strike them. It seems obvious that you should be against personal attacks regardless of what 'team' is flinging them. It does not appear that policy, rather than personalities, is of primary concern, and that is disturbing. Groupthink is perhaps the greatest threat to this project, IMO, as the rules aren't adhered to evenly. It's hard for me to trust an editor for whom this is the case. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Petra, I'm generally against personal attacks, but like most people I tend to react more strongly to perceived attacks on myself than on others.
    I'm quite cognizant of the fact that you are dilligently building the mother of all COI cases against me. Thats' ok. I'm not concerned by that because
    • My conscience is clear
    • My conflicts of interest are nil
    • My work gets positive reviews from other medical editors, and
    • With the exception of occassional mistakes of the sort that everyone makes, everything I do here is completely defensible. I'm not the one adding medical claims using tort attorney websites, blogs, and fringe primary research papers as sources, making statements that contradict the putative source, or skipping over the last 8 years of meta analyses so that I can find one that says a drug doesn't work. (Yes, I can provide examples of all of these, an no, I'm not saying you do, just that those are the sorts of things I fix here).
    I'm absolutely certain that people are alive today who would be dead if I had not rewritten the fluoroquinolone articles, which were a REAL example of COI editing by people in litigation against the manufacturers, and seeking to influence the jury pool.
    So please, go ahead. You have a right to your day (second day, actually, we've already done this once) in court. What I object to is being required to defend myself against the same charges over and over. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Formerly 98: I think you should reflect carefully on what @Petrarchan47: is telling you above by saying My answer is very specific: the next time I present a list of your diffs, it will be at the proper noticeboard. That wording seems unusually precise to me, and s/he has used that exact phrase three times now. Are you sure you two have reached agreement? Geogene (talk) 19:30, Today (UTC−4) And by that I mean that I'm not sure Petrarchan47 understands here that the problem is not posting diffs in the wrong places, but that s/he posts personal attacks in the wrong places. It seems odd to me that s/he keeps referring specifically to what s/he is doing as "posting diffs". But this is not "my" ANI thread. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Formerly 98 is correct, Petrarchan47, if you are going to make such claims against another editor, you need to present a case and provide evidence. Otherwise, it can be seen as a personal attack. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    May I add that last spring, the same user was accusing me of COI on article talk pages? Here's an example diff of Petrarchan forumshopping on an admin talkpage to get me blocked. User is always hounding somebody over alleged COI. [133] Geogene (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you probably shouldn't add accusations without evidence. "User is always hounding somebody over alleged COI." That is a serious claim, and it needs to be proven with diffs or removed. It is an outright lie. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If needed, I will produce those diffs. But I don't want to go dig all that stuff up if nobody's even going to look at them. It's a waste of time. Geogene (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is needed, as you have already logged this statement, which is untrue and probably falls under "personal attack". If you don't provide links showing that I am always hounding someone over COI, you need to strike that statement. You cannot use these forums to take revenge on editors, and you certainly shouldn't muddy the water with lies. petrarchan47tc 03:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support warning. If it looks like the behavior will continue, a short block might be warranted to get the point across, but I'm not sure if that's needed yet. Looks like very clear WP:HOUNDING behavior and violates WP:COI in the manner petrachan has been approaching this. Bringing actual evidence of COI to WP:COIN to air it out with the community is what should be done if there are legitimate concerns, but interjecting this into various talk pages to this degree rises to the level of nothing more than WP:ASPERSIONS. Looking at some of these discussions, it looks like there may be a much longer term interaction where I'd be apt to suggest a one-way interaction ban against petrachan47, but considering the person being hounded is just asking for a warning, that seems fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose warning. Please tell me that providing diffs to past discussions to support an argument is not cause for a warning. Editors are warned for casting aspersions when they don't provide diffs, and now they are warned for providing diffs? I find this very confusing. To begin, the MfD was initiated before the ink was dry on the essay - no discussion first as our guidelines suggest. What we see now are arguments between Keep and Delete positions resulting from an ill-conceived MfD. Unfortunately, our overworked admins are now forced to deal with these spurious allegations at a delete request? Please tell me it isn't so. Atsme☯Consult 00:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is WP:NPA which states:
    "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 00:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: There is no official warning at Wikipedia, and this board is also not necessary for that official warning (which does not exist). Admins are needed to enact sanctions such as blocks, but if someone needs warning for violating principles at Wikipedia, just warn them. I'm not sure what additional weight a discussion like this will have. They can't claim they aren't aware that they are being warned, so further votes asking them to be warned are not meaningful here. If a ban or block or other sanction of some sort is needed, then perhaps that discussion needs to be had, but to hold a long discussion where a bunch of people say "Please stop..." is not particularly meaningful. --Jayron32 01:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you propose? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't propose anything. I am not familiar with the situation. But the purpose of a warning is to let someone know that their behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policy. It takes exactly one person to do this, and doesn't require a vote. If violations continue after the warning, then this board is appropriate for sanctions for continued refusal to comply. I don't really have an opinion on this one incident, except to note that a vote on a "warning" is a meaningless, time-wasting endeavor. The person knows they have been warned. Further piling on for the exact same incident is meaningless, unless there is either a) additional problems after the warning or b) we decide that something more severe than a warning is needed, I'm not sure what is to be gained by this. I have no actual opinion on this user in this case, I am merely noting the fruitlessness of lengthy discussions and "votes" that cannot actually lead to any action. --Jayron32 01:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Community issued warnings are issued here all the time, and have a lot more weight than a single user giving a warning. It's generally meant as in indication to the user they have gone too far in their behavior, especially when they don't take user warnings seriously are believe the warning is incorrect. It also makes it easier for the community to impose additional sanctions like interaction bans if needed if the behavior continues. ANI warnings are usually the first step in actions taken here when it appears the editor can reverse their behavior problem that could otherwise result in a ban. That's the general spirit here anyways since most prefer to treat a ban as a last resort. Maybe that's not the official stance, but if that's the case, I guess it's become practice for better or worse.Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - first thing I read in the first diff presented was the OP's statement which I found to be extremely accusatory of Petrarchan47. It really doesn't make any sense to be asking an admin to issue a warning to an editor you accused of WP:TE as follows: "I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support." Let me get this straight - the OP requested a warning against the accused for, and I quote, "expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content." This is the same OP who initiated a MfD within a few hours of the essay going into mainspace - no prior discussion, and no GF interaction - just a MfD to get rid of it. Also notice, the first diff he provided is a quote wherein he accused the editor of WP:TE? The remaining diffs devolve from there. Forgive me, but this doesn't represent battleground behavior, it looks more like playground behavior. I now have a better understanding of why admins are overworked. Atsme☯Consult 02:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Atsme::
    • The quote about "I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support." was not made by me to Petra, but was made by Petra to me.
    • The quote about "expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content." was not an accusation addressed at Petra, it was a criticism of the essay, and one that was repeated by more than half of the editors who provided feedback on the essay on the MfD page.
    I respectfully request that you strike and correct your statements above. Thanks, Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 02:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, Formerly 98 - mouse over on diffs makes it difficult to determine who said what which just taught me a valuable lesson. Click on it to see the full conversation. I did a strike. Atsme☯Consult 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, and things have gotten heated lately, but I understand that you are trying to do the right thing. I apologize that I have not been very good at communicating that the last few days. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support admins reviewing the situation. The fake essay is more like a how to guide for pro-quackery editing on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with identifying COI editors. If admins review some of the editors who want to keep the garbage Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks page you will find many interesting edits. Unless admins deal with the problematic editors the disruptions will continue indefinitely. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to say anything of the quality of the essay, as that seems to be a discussion for the deletion review already underway, the essay seems to be written in good faith based on a discussion with multiple participants. I'm really not seeing anything at that essay that requires admin intervention.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly debatable. The author is on the losing side of a months-long attempt to whitewash promotion of quackery by a minor crank, G. Edward Griffin. This essay is identified by several of those involved in that dispute, as a blatant invocation of the "pharma shill gambit". Those of ius who do have extensive experience of dealing with COI editing, both directly and in in my case via OTRS, do not recognise this essay as a productive or useful one, especially since it appears to identify use of guidelines such as WP:MEDRS as a signature behaviour of COI. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The language I would use would be tendentious in this case and I do personally find that the essay unhelpful. I agree with the position that it is a "Pharma shill gambit" and would suggest that some users have invoked a "pharma shill gambit" in defense of the essay in the deletion discussion. However I don't really see any actual evidence that the creation of this essay is tendentious or intended to be. It does seem to be a good faith effort by individuals with poor knowledge and understanding of policy. Unless there's an argument of a failure to get the point, I don't really see any necessary action to take other than the deletion discussion that has already been opened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As Petra has agreed to limit her editor-focused comments to the proper forums for such discussions, I respectfully request closure of this discussion with no administrative action. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m confused here. Is linking diffs from an editor’s contributions during a discussion (at a location other than an admin board) against policy? I think some clarity on this issue from ANI would be helpful. I’ve noticed such diffs often seem to be linked at locations other than admin boards. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of user behavior should normally be limited to user talk pages and to pages designated for that purpose. See WP:TPYES:
    "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."
    Also the summary at the top of the WP:TALK page states: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor."
    WP:AVOIDYOU on the WP:NPA page states
    "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people."
    WP:NPA further states
    "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
    The purpose of this is to keep the article discussions from becoming personalized. Discussions of editor behavior are physically segregated from discussions of article content.
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 19:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that linking diffs to past editing is related to content, although the contributor is also listed. I'm not sure how this applies to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See CLOSURE request, no admin action per OP above Atsme☯Consult 17
    24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

    Persistent tag removal, possible sock puppetry at Oscar Peñas autobiography

    User:Openas is the primary author of Oscar Peñas, an article which his user page more or less duplicates. I tagged the article for COI, autobiography, and overly detailed, and three different IPs removed them with no edit summary and no other communication. KrakatoaKatie protected the page and now Openas is back and has removed the tags again. As none of them are responding to messages and it's almost certainly a case of sock/meat puppetry with no sign of stopping, ANI seemed the most appropriate avenue at this point. I can create an SPI if that's preferred, but I don't know if that's standard if we're mainly looking at multiple IPs -- and thus, more or less, a duck test. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - did you bring this situation to the attention of WP:COIN? Atsme☯Consult 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not. There is a COI, but I regard that noticeboard for COI that affects content and discussions about the content rather than COI that is accompanied by sock puppetry and edit warring. I could be wrong, though -- it just seemed more of a straightforward behavioral thing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    According to their description, it states: (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. You might want to take it there, first. Perhaps Jytdog can advise further. Atsme☯Consult 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still generally bring it up at COIN if only to get the attention of editors who work with this kind of behavior a lot anyways. There might be enough for an SPI here, but I've dealt with similar cases where it turned out to be employees of the person in question, so they may not always be true socks. I'd bring it to COIN and see what others think is the best course of action there. COIN is also for discussing how to handle potential COI problems, so the "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI" basically sums that up as general as possible without saying that outright. It's the place to go for questions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the editors on COIN doubtless have good intentions, it does not always deliver good outcomes, so I'm not going to insist that anything COI related must be discussed there, if there's another relevant noticeboard/talkpage/whatever. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I've been away for a bit. I protected the page after an RFPP request, because I agree that this passes the duck test for socking and I wanted to see if the registered user would keep removing the tags. If the guy is notable, he's notable, but that doesn't mean he gets to run his own puppet show with multiple IPs on an article about himself (or anything else). I suggest both COIN and opening an SPI. And I gave him a warning for disruptive editing. Let me know if I can help further. :-) KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is fairly clear and has been open for 2 weeks, so I've closed it. Black Kite (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is one of the weirdest sorta-kinda legal threats I've seen.[134] An admin may want to monitor the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unwarranted Block

    User is now framing an appeal to post at WP:AE, so this discussion is now redundant. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unblock request
    You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
    Uh, assuming that this is open to other editor input, is there really any reason for such an aggressive reblocking of a year? It seems counter intuitive to, after a minor mistake or something that the editor regretted to just be reblocked for a year. Though I suppose seeing You can be a little more patient and control your anger if you want to be a judge on Wikipedia. Thank God you are not a judge in real life. Otherwise, you would be oppressing many innocent people. would probably be related to that reblocking. Though since I love to be the person who proposes something like this, I would be fine with clemency in the notion of reducing the block to 1 month or even less if the user would civilly identify what they did wrong, their plan to rectify it and failing that, how they plan to avoid such conduct in the future. It seems they're already topic banned from the topic so it honestly should be easy to avoid. Tutelary (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh.... why is this here? --IJBall (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like because the blocked user asked for it to be posted here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a brand new account posted it here. Just a note that this was an arbitration enforcement block, and administrators are not at liberty to unblock or change the block. To do so could result in immediate de-sysop. This appeal needs to be filed at the AE noticeboard. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Yes, I noticed DickJohnston (talk · contribs) posted the original message too, and was suspicious as well – possible Block evasion?... --IJBall (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Block evasion, and the name obviously a personal attack on the admin Johnston. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:How not to appeal a block. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the sock. If anyone wishes to copy the user's appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard they are free to do so. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unhatting this, because I made a mistake. WP:AEBLOCK says that the block can also be reviewed at WP:AN. If there is a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors to unblock, the editor can be unblocked. Here is the wording of the unblock request:
    Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have been falsly accused of not removing a comment, when in fact it was removed. User Kansas Bear insulted back with "ignorant childish rant". Heeded warning by EdJohnston with a warning to be unbiased but he arrogantly insulted and blocked for a year. Appealing for a decent review of the case.Yozer1 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2015
    -- Diannaa (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unprovoked combative editing from the ironically named "Peace is contagious"

    BLOCKED
    Blocked for 72 hours by Drmies.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Encountered Peace is contagious editing at Better Call Saul. A few days earlier I had just trimmed a 285 word pilot episode ("Uno") summary down to 213. The ideal length per WP:TVPLOT is 100-200 words and I had opened a discussion about this on the article's talk page days before the user showed up.

    User Peace is contagious arrived, and added a lot of unnecessary detail to the episode summary exemplified here. You'll note an analysis about black and white photography, that Jimmy has a mustache, that a VHS tape is used, a pouring of a drink, and a note that we eventually go back into color. None of these additions are crucial to our understanding of the plot. I contacted the user here and expressed my position in as polite a way as I could.

    Flip to: this conversation where a few editors chimed in on Peace's overly detailed synopses, which had now grown to include even more absurd content, like here where we get an unsourced interpretation of tone and symbolism, in a section that's intended for a straight-up plot summary.

    "Post Breaking Bad, the first seven minutes of BCS open in black and white, to a 1940's style song Address Unknown with no spoken lines of dialogue, to emphasize Saul Goodman's transformation from cavalier, loquacious "criminal lawyer" to toiling, fearful, mustached, Nebraskan, mall-Cinnabon manager. Later in his spartan apartment, "Gene" makes himself a Rusty Nail and watches a VHS tape of his Saul Goodman commercials."

    Edits not consistent with WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA

    There are numerous other matters as well, for instance, the user has no capacity for indenting responses which require fixing, and even SineBot has gotten tired of signing comments for him. Based on how quickly conversation and behavior has devolved, I'm not convinced the user is here for constructive purposes, rather they seem to be here to be pissy and fight with other editors that he pegs as lessers. Waste of time, this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Cyphoidbomb, looks like an angry teenager trying to learn the ropes of trolling. Someone should tell him about 4chan... EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a difficult editor to work with because what he does well comes in a package with a refusal to use edit summaries, chaotic over-editing, disruptive/tendentious editing, a tendency to edit war and utterly obnoxious talk page behavior. (OK, WP:NPA, but let's get real here...) He sees himself as the adult and everyone else as children, yet his comments on talk pages consist largely of insults to editors who revert or revise what he has written. He refuses to do anything that might even loosely be described as collaboration, and his writing is generally in "text speak" rendering most of his talk page comments difficult if not downright impossible to understand. I don't know whether he's a wanna-be troll or just clueless, but he treats other editors who try to work with him as adversaries, and generally makes it difficult to edit the article on Better Call Saul, its individual episodes, and from what I can tell, several other TV-related articles as well. Someone has got to take this guy in hand and do something about him. Given the pace at which he edits, I wouldn't be surprised if there are WP:3RR violations among his edits over the last 48 hours. --Drmargi (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is currently bombarding the Better Call Saul article with edits that are a clear case of WP:POINT, and when reverted reverts back without even writing an edit summary. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, I think he's up to 20RR at this point... can someone just block him and deal with the technicalities later??? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is out of control, I have to agree. I tried to set up an WP:AN3 report just now, and he's made so many reverts I can't get them into any sort of meaningful order. I have to concur; a meaningful time-out is in order. --Drmargi (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This totally looks like a trolling situation: the editor has been baiting, refuses to discuss their edits constructively, is slinging insults, and has started backpedaling, with jive comments that don't acknowledge their problematic editing. After being notified there was an open ANI case, "OK, I get it now...call me a bit obtuse. The main BCS page is for brief summaries". After Peace went through a flurry of removing incriminating posts from his talk page, editor EauZenCashHaveIt pointed out that all of the nonsense was preserved in the edit summary. The reported user replied, "I think I got it right now ? Yes ? Brief summaries on the main BCS page ?". None of this is constructive. User is ignoring the personal attacks. Typical stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's completely back-peddling now ever since the ANI came up as evident here, by playing "dumb" as like he never was making continuous disruptive edits for hours on end (which were reverted by several separate editors), making uncivil and personal attacks towards other editors on talk pages, making no effort in his edit summaries to explain his edits or being collaborative with other editors, and malforming his talk page by removing comments from other edits in full or significantly editing them. The issue plot summaries was explained by Cyphoidbomb (and myself) right at the beginning of this situation, including linking him to WP guidelines, but he acted clueless, non-responsive to the issue-at-hand, and hurled uncivil comments towards others. Cyphoidbomb has supplied plenty of diffs to support his uncivil and disruptive behavior. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Something needs to be done about this user. He since made three more unwarranted reverts, reinstating his version of the article (all while making it look it he's the one enforcing guidelines, when all he did yesterday was ignore them),[135][136][137] and has continued making uncivil comments on talk pages.[138][139] He shows no signs whatsoever of cooperation or willingness to listen or work with other editors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very disappointed that despite a serious and ongoing problem with this editor, and a posting on this board that has been sitting for over twelve hours with comments from four editors trying to deal with him, it appears not to have attracted the attention of even one administrator. I guess the drama quotient isn't sufficient to get one of the (how many?) admins we have to take a look at what's going on here and DO SOMETHING about this editor, who clearly lacks the competence and understanding of policy to be editing, much less the willingness to do anything but create trouble. And we wonder why the community has an increasingly diminishing level of confidence in the administrative corps. --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a post on WP:AN about this. The admin presence at ANI and AE is pretty light these days. I think several of the regularly patrolling admins have either retired, turned in their bit, or took the noticeboards off of their Watchlists. I saw one admin who had 1 edit in 2013, 2 edits in 2014 and is still marked as an active admin. But this is a conversation for another forum. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated vandalism on game/award show articles

    Relevant articles have been protected. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Over the last few months, RRRR8888 (talk · contribs) (and their socks) has (very oddly) persisted on adding clearly incorrect information to game and award show articles. Most notably, the articles include The Game Awards, 41st People's Choice Awards, and American Ninja Warrior. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RRRR8888/Archive for a list of accounts and the type of editing done. Some examples:

    These types of edits have persisted for months across a variety of articles, and the editor has primarily used socks to edit war and re-instate these. Myself and a few other editors have reverted these edits (pinging @JasonNolan64: and @Drmies:); however, the editor continues. Now, the same false editing has extended to a long list of IP addresses, the most obvious case shown at the history of American Ninja Warrior. List of IPs:

    Viewing these IPs' contributions show similar editing and warring on the same articles (again, mainly The Game Awards, 41st People's Choice Awards, and American Ninja Warrior). To the best of my knowledge, all these IPs geolocate to the New Jersey area. Could blocks (possibly range) be in order? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. - I just remembered that I brought this issue up before here back in December, which resulted in a one-month range block. As the edits persist, I'd like to request a renewing of the range blocks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:KWW abusing revision deletion

    Discussion on revision deletion policy can continue on WT:REVDEL or WT:BP. IP reminded of WP:EVADE. I think we're done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Kww is far exceeding their authority and acting to deliberately compromise the integrity of the encyclopaedia, in pursuit of a personal vendetta. His actions contravene numerous policies, and I believe wider scrutiny of his unilateral attacks on me will be desirable.

    His extreme attacks on me have resulted from the following chain of events.

    1. a false 3RR report was filed by User:Hafspajen [153], who was upset that I removed unencyclopaedic text from Wilderness Hut. The text was in violation of core policies, being neither neutral nor verifiable. I explained this clearly but the user merely restored the text without attempting to justify it. Hafspajen has a history of reverting to restore extremely poor content to the encyclopaedia for no good reason [154], [155], [156]
    2. As a result of the false report, I was blocked. I had reverted three times, as had Hafspajen, but Hafspajen suffered no sanction for trying to force unencyclopaedic material into the article. Kww, falsely claiming that I was subject to a 0RR restriction, decided to block me for three months. The 0RR restriction was in fact no longer in effect.[157]
    3. Kww subsequently declared that he had banned me for three years.[158]
    4. In contravention of the policy on revision deletion, and apparently out of fear that people who agree with my edits might restore them, he has taken to not just undoing my work but removing it from the edit history in its entirety. See for example [159]. Revision deletion policy states that "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed", and that "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy". KWW has clearly abused the tool to remove material that should not have been removed.
    5. In contravention of policy, he has restored vandalism to the encyclopaedia. Diffs are not available because he has deleted them.
    6. In all of this he has ignored consensus (see discussions at the bottom of the page here), and his actions have contributed to the departure of a much respected administrator.[160]
    7. Kww has stated that they do not care if they are compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. Their sole aim is to drive me way. "If everyone would leave the reversions in place and not wring their hands over whether their edits were improvements or not, we could keep up the solid wall of rejection that is necessary to be rid of this editor." [161]

    The ultimate cause of all of this is the constant reverting of my edits for no reason at all. I am compiling a very extensive list of these. Three small examples are those I listed by Hafspajen earlier. One brand new fresh one is this one, made with the flagrantly false claim that "previous version is correct", when the previous version included incorrect designations and absurd hyperbole ("may potentially revolutionize thinking about the physics of supernovae").

    What I would like to happen is this:

    1. Unblock me. The block was applied for spurious reasons and has no support in policy.
    2. Warn and then block people who revert for no reason. Their actions are highly destructive but have been allowed and encouraged for many years. Hafspajen received no admonishment of any kind for their deliberately destructive behaviour.
    3. Warn KWW to stop stalking me and to drop their vendetta against me.
    4. In light of his abuse of the revision deletion tool, remove his ability to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.133.182 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the non-admin closure. While the individual may be editing through the block, that can be addressed separately. The issue presented here shows some merit and deserves some discussion. Mike V • Talk 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked over Kww's revision deletions and there seems to be a number that do not meet the revision deletion criteria: 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 (Each diff represents one instance of revision deletion and may include multiple revisions.) I must say that I am concerned about these actions as the revision deletion tool is permitted to be used only in very strict situations. Mike V • Talk 01:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They all qualify under R5:Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete. If these had been completely new articles, they would qualify as G5 speedies, meaning that they certainly qualify for deletion under deletion policy. I do not execute such deletions routinely. In this case, it is a result of a long-term abuser that has not been dissuaded by the typical WP:RBI treatment. After this many years, it's evident that stronger steps are required.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the R5 criterion says, with the exception of fixing cut-and-paste moves and history merges, if selective deletion is required, RevisionDelete is usually preferable (see above), and should be used instead of the old method of "delete and partial undelete". It is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary. Selective deletion is not used for articles created by a blocked/banned user. Also, the G5 deletion policy only covers pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. (emphasis mine) As such, it's not suitable to revision delete the edits. I understand that these sorts of situations can be frustrating, but it should be handled by reverting the edits, semi-protection, blocks, range blocks, etc. when appropriate. Mike V • Talk 02:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you include the notes about RD5, but not its definition: "Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete". If material would have qualified under deletion policy, it can qualify under RD5 of selection deletion policy. These were edits made by a blocked editor, and there were no substantial edits built on any of them (in fact, there were no cases where any edits by anyone other than the banned editor were removed: I didn't even have to make a judgement call about what constitutes a "substantial" edit). Since articles built that way would qualify for deletion under deletion policy, edits that meet that same criteria can qualify under selective deletion policy using RD5, so long as the reason (in this case, "block evasion") is made clear in the summary. Since the deletion policy they fall under is a speedy deletion policy, there isn't need for individual discussion of each edit: I'm free to do so as an individual administrator. Your reading of RD5 appears to render it meaningless: if your objection to my usage is that I didn't delete the entire article, then RD5 would never apply. As I said, this is not something I do routinely or without thought: your suggestion has been used in this case for years without discernable effect.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a small sample of these revdels, and also don't see that these merit hiding. I think we can tolerate more transparency than we seem to be giving ourselves credit for in these cases. Full disclosure: I have previously commented on Kww's extreme views as regards removing any trace of a blocked user's activity. Samsara 13:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kww: Am I right in thinking that your argument is along the lines of: G5 allows deletion of entire articles if they are created by a blocked/banned user (with no substantive edits by other users); therefore it is a legitimate use of RevDel to remove edits by blocked/banned users from the edit history of articles which do have substantive edits by other users (since this equates to "deleting" their work)? I'm not at this point venturing an opinion on whether that's correct or not, but I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from before I make any comment. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This "substantive edits by other users" issue is really strange to me. The purpose of that clause in G5 is to avoid deleting other editors' work. If a blocked or banned editor creates an article and that is followed by other editors making substantial changes to that material, an admin cannot later go in and delete that article based on G5 because that deletion would also delete good-faith work by legitimate editors. That creates a situation that requires community discussion, so the speedy deletion would be invalid.
    Similarly, if there was a case where a blocked or banned editor had made an edit and other editors had built upon that work, modifying and reusing the blocked or banned editor's work, RD5 could not be applied: since G5 won't allow us to sweep away legitimate work, G5 can't be invoked as the basis for an RD5 selective delete in that situation.
    Here, though, the blocked editor is the top of stack: the last editor to edit the page (except, in many cases, for edits that had already reverted the material) was the banned editor, and reversion deleting his material has no effect whatsoever on edits made by other editors. Take Night of the Doctor's history for example. The IP had been edit warring again (that plus personal abuse is the reason he is blocked) and there is no difference between the "before" and "after":see the total diff.
    In short, when evaluating whether G5 can be used as the basis for an RD5 deletion, I look at whether substantive edits by other users have been made to the material being considered for deletion, not whether there were substantive edits made prior to the edit (or to completely unrelated sections of the article) that will be unaffected by the deletion.
    I reiterate that the cases where I do this are quite rare: I don't do this for casual block evasion. While there are fifty diffs listed, that is a sign of how determined this editor is to evade blocks: it's all one case, it's all one editor, it's all one editor that has been evading blocks for years and has no intention of honouring them. Reverting and ignoring has been ineffective in this case, and there's no reason to expect that it will suddenly become effective.
    If you believe my interpretation is wrong, I would like to understand what you believe a proper application of RD5 to be. When can a selective deletion be applied by pointing at the article deletion policy, if this isn't a valid case?—Kww(talk) 14:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining. I don't actually think you're wrong per se, at least not from a technical standpoint. RD5 allows the use of revision deletion where the deletion policy would mandate deletion, and the deletion policy's reasons for deletion include content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion. G5 is a criterion for speedy deletion, and therefore it seems logical that if G5 were applicable, RevDel would be appropriate. I can see how your actions are consistent with this interpretation of the policies.
    However, whilst I don't think there's any abuse of RevDel here - I believe your use of it is legitimate from a policy standpoint, or at least easily defeneded - in practice, this is a pretty unusual action to take; I don't think I've ever seen RevDel applied this way before. In similar circumstances, I would be inclined to simply revert or remove the user's edits per WP:BANREVERT, but if there's no other reason for deleting them from the history, RevDel seems, I don't know, overkill? Is there any reason that you've gone with revision deletion over simple reversion? Yunshui 雲水 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply length of time this LTA has been continuing and observing how particularly determined this editor is, as well as threats from editors to continuously restore his material. You are quite correct that it is "unusual", which is why I keep bringing up that this is not my typical reaction to socking and block evasion.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my personal take on this is "no harm, no foul". The edits wouldn't have been allowed to stand, and revdeleting them doesn't hurt the encylopedia - whilst I'd suggest that this course of action might not be optimal when the rollback button is available, there's no breach of policy or abuse of the tool that I can see. Yunshui 雲水 14:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's recently been a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP about this, and the weak consensus from a few of us (principally Chillum and I) is that good faith article edits should stand, irrespective of them coming from a banned user who is subsequently blocked. All participants are pretty much agreed that no vandalism has been committed and it is simply block evasion, edit-warring and incivility that are the problems. Frankly, we are "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and will generally allow anyone from anywhere, so somebody who really, really wants to evade a block and sock *cough* Russavia *cough* will do so, and attempting to keep tabs on them is just one long game of cat and mouse that will burn out an admin or two while they try and keep up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    - (Non-administrator comment) Do not wear out the Admins! HullIntegrity\ talk / 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that would be the best attitude as fas as I can see (as per, also, my own diffs above). Samsara 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which basically boils down to not enforcing the block at all. I'll agree that enforcing the block is a tedious job, but I'm not asking you or Chillum to help, simply to not interfere.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify my position, while I think it is a poor idea to revert a constructive edit just because a block evader made it, policy does allow for it. That being said, even if policy allows something community can still decide differently. I have no opinion on if the community should discourage this behavior, but this is a good place to see what they think. Really though, we enforce blocks so that we can write an encyclopedia so reversing a constructive edit to the encyclopedia so that a block is better enforced is ass backwards. I have not looked into the revdels enough to give an opinion. Chillum 21:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To the OP, we are not going to unblock you. You have demonstrated very clearly that you will not work well with others for years now. You seem to have an unlimited supply of IPs, if you just acted in a non-disruptive manner(stop edit warring and being nasty to people) then we probably would not even recognize you. Chillum 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand why people would choose not to deal with the issue, but I would have a hard time seeing how people could reach a policy-based consensus that would prevent me from dealing with it. The policy basis for retaining his edits would be very weak, though, as it effectively would be unblocking him. That's the issue that no one seems to address: precisely how is retaining a blocked editor's good edits distinct from unblocking him?—Kww(talk) 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary policy basis in my mind is that we are here to make an encyclopedia. If an edit improves the encyclopedia then reverting it is contrary to our goal. Our goal is not to enforce blocks, it is to make an encyclopedia. Blocking is the means, building an encyclopedia is the end. We should not be letting the encyclopedia suffer for some sense of justice. Is it so much to ask that you look at the edit before reverting and ask yourself if the revert will improve the encyclopedia?
    The goal of the block was to prevent personal attacks and edit warring, reverting a good edit does nothing to prevent those issues. Blocks are preventative, but not to prevent improvements. We can have both the improvement and block the user, they are not mutually exclusive. The argument that allowing an edit that improves the encyclopedia is equivalent to unblocking the user is very much a false dichotomy.. Chillum 00:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't answered my question: what effect does blocking the editor have if we take your approach? What precisely does it mean that the editor is blocked?—Kww(talk) 02:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already said the purpose of the block was to prevent edit warring and personal attacks. Reverting a constructive edit to the encyclopedia prevents neither. I reject the idea that a user is somehow not blocked because we accept a constructive edit. Chillum 05:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the OP isn't being unblocked (not to mention the rest of the stuff he wanted to happen), and what Kww did wasn't against policy per se, shouldn't the rest of this discussion be on the talk page of the relevant policy, and not here on AN/I? BMK (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think it is foolish to throw away good edits out of spite but policy does allow for it. Short of a strong outcry from the community I don't think there is much to pursue here. Chillum 05:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy says that "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed." All the edits in question improved the articles. Policy also says "leave non-harmful fields visible". Removal of IP addresses implies that IP addresses could be harmful. Policy also says "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct". There was no prior consensus. You can see even here that consensus is that Kww should not be doing what he is doing. So yes, what Kww did was clearly against policy. 186.9.134.128 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sock! BMK (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template:Maintained

    NO ACTION
    Nothing actionable here.  Philg88 ♦talk 12:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone please take a look at this now closed deletion discussion. I'm still new here, and I don't want to make any rash accusations. Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ceannlann gorm: What exactly is it you're requesting admin action for? That's a long closed discussion and I doubt anyone wants to read through the whole thing to figure out what the issue is. Sam Walton (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ceannlann gorm: You may be looking for deletion review, if your intent is to get the deletion reversed. However I would first recommend talking to Jc37, since he was the admin that closed the discussion. Either way you go, if your intention is to open up a new discussion on the deletion then you will need to make a very good, non-partial, clear argument as to why the template should remain and why you felt that the deletion consensus was invalid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) — Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, just wanted to get someone else's opinion on the matter.Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    POV pushing editor making libellous allegations about a public figure

    User blocked by Keri -Cnbr15 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Elizabeth Flaherty Scone is a new account apparently created to add OR to Upper Hunter Shire. I've twice reverted the OR and left a polite request on her talk page to discuss on the article's talk page, but that prompted the allegation "you are in fact a troll known as (Redacted) who is a keen supporter of (Redacted) who is censoring ANY information which he and his faction of Councillors simply don't like."[162] I am not either of the people mentioned and have applied {{redacted}} to their names but, as members of the public I was wondering if the claim should be subject to revdel. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block for attempted WP:OUTING - correct or incorrect identity neither here nor there - is in order. Keri (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have issued a final warning. I confidently expect the user to continue, and then we can banninate. If someone wants to block until they give a good account of themselves then that's fine, but the user is really too new to know better. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to consider the possibility, however slight it may appear at first, that someone is impersonating "Elizabeth Scone" and trying to discredit them by acting inappropriately using a username like that. A quick Google search reveals that there is a person by this name who operates a PR firm in the Upper Hunter Shire. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Phantom" Consensus Talks

    Hello! I have encountered a few situations where editors state a "consensus talk" exists that over-rules a certain edit but, when I ask where said conversation took place, I have been told, [paraphrasing]"I don't have to tell you that."

    Is that correct? Can an editor simply state that a consensus talk exists but, never state where? What would prevent an editor from pretending a consensus talk happened (when it really didn't) just to further their own agenda (which I believe is the case - this editor has been making this "consensus talk" claim for years now but, never once backed it up - nor has any other editor confirmed they were a part of it) even though every other related page follows the guidelines myself and other editors have been attempting to implement? Thanks in advance!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The main one is here (with the most recent revert happening here - although there have been many over the years).
    However, an un-related issue (that has since been resolved) did have a user(@Raintheone:) stating "As if you have to link it" after I'd asked (multiple times) where a conversation happened.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I suggest just starting a WP:RfC. The discussions about this are a couple years old, so maybe consensus will change to your opinion. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the above. Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Also, if someone won't tell you where a consensus discussion is and a quick search can't find it, simply inform them that you are going to assume that no such discussion exists and behave accordingly.
    Question: does the material being added/removed have a citation to a reliable source attached to it? WP:V cannot be overruled by local consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Returning to the original question: Yes, when asked to provide a link to the discussion by which the alleged consensus was established, the challenged party has to provide it. Without exception. If no link is provided, the discussion may be presumed to not exist, and users may proceed accordingly. There are no "phantom" discussions, the challenger is not required to search for something that somebody else alleges, it's not easy to check 10 years of archives at 4 million talk pages and all archives of all noticeboards. Kraxler (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) As someone who has questioned Rm994 about said-discussions a few years prior — in context of adding recurring years to the List of Days of Our Lives cast members — they were never able to pin-point the discussion and nor have I ever been able to pin-point the location of the discussion. They simply revert on their own accord citing this discussion, which seems to be a case of owning the page to their own beliefs and preferences, yet allowing the years when characters are adding to the "Prior" section of the list (now re-directed to List of previous Days of Our Lives cast members. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've also been at the hand of these 'phantom' consensus discussions and it's really quite annoying as well aggravating. If they can't cite a discussion, it's easy to assume that there isn't one and that they are making it up. But you can't really assume malice, considering WP:AGF. Honestly, if they keep stonewalling any type of discussion citing this non-existent consensus, I'd say bring them to WP:DRN or ANI if that's already been tried. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the haphazard nature of Wikipedia, it is not uncommon for an editor to recall that there was consensus on a certain issue, but be unable to locate the relevant discussion. So I would not assume that the claim is false. However, as others have noted above, without evidence of consensus, a claim of consensus has no weight. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Comment I've also run into editors who say if they made an edit to an article, at some point in the past, and it wasn't reverted, that this means it represents the consensus point of view because it wasn't challenged. This, of course, is faulty reasoning as most editors do not comb through an article history, checking each edit to see if they agree with it. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually according to the nifty flow chart over at WP: Consensus, an unchanged edit is current consensus. However, I would say it's a weak consensus compared to one that involves any sort of discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But this would mean that any edits to all articles, including vandalism or copyright infringements, are considered to be consensus until a time comes when a new editor would like to remove them. If there is not an immediate reversion or if there are further edits after the original edit, the new editor would have to get a new consensus on the talk page to change the article back. This might be what the flow chart says but this is not how editing actually occurs on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism and copyright infringements would be an exception to that, just like they are exceptions to the 3RR rule.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This seems pretty straight forward. The consensus or not of a previous edit isn't particularly important in these scenarios. What is important is getting consensus for whatever change is being proposed. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having problems at Islamic calendar with SPACKlick and others who maintain that a discussion at Talk:Muhammad prevents a consensus being formed at the local talk page. They also say that the consensus of an RfC is "assessed against all our policies and guidelines whether specifically raised or not". This claim is made in the context of an allegation that following an RfC it is disruptive to strengthen an article by adding further reliable sources. Comments anyone? I'm not notifying SPACKlick as s/he is already party to this discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is raising the issue of Muhammad images yet again and is ignoring the RFC concluded on that talk page yet again and is canvassing yet again. --NeilN talk to me 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to NeilN's comment. This user is objecting to the conclusion of an RFC a couple of months ago at Talk:Islamic Calendar about the use of an image the IP claims is NPOV. The RFC concluded the image was appropriate but the IP will not accept that formed consensus and so seeks to discredit editors that disagree with them and canvasses in the hope of a new opinion rather than moving on. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The picture is of a man preaching in a mosque. Unfortunately the artist is not on hand to tell us what he had in mind. However we do have unimpeachable sources telling us that Mohammed prohibited intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage>The Farewell Pilgrimage was delivered in the open on camelback in front of thousands of pilgrims. The above editors have removed sourced confirmation of what this picture represents and replaced it with speculation. The old saying about camels passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind here. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now SPACKlick accuses me of seeking to discredit editors and stalking them and conflates the discussion on the local talk with this one here. He's also having a go at another editor who thinks it's a good idea when showcasing art to tell the readers what it signifies. That's what I wanted to do - explain to the readers that the Farewell Pilgrimage was one of, if not the most significant events in the relationship between Muhammad and his followers and that to relegate it to a sermon in a mosque is disrespectful. But then NeilN has said he doesn't believe in God. Both of them are arguing that they can satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV by citing a doubtful source and that other editors who want to cite better sources are being unreasonable. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "But then NeilN has said he doesn't believe in God." What are you on about? --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I got that slightly wrong. What Neil said was that all representations of Jesus are fictitious. But it's a fact that he's obsessed with sex, and that's inimical to the ethos of a believer. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "slightly wrongs" happen pretty often. "What Neil said was that all representations of Jesus are fictitious" Diff please? And "obsessed with sex" - seriously or are you just trolling now? --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cebr1979, wouldn't removing citations without prior discussion also be an exception to that rule?87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Can you elaborate please? What exactly do you mean by "removing citations without prior discussion?"Cebr1979 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cebr1979: This. --NeilN talk to me 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Well, that's a lengthy conversation that has been going on for over a week now with no references to any pages I have any interest in editing so I'll politely abstain from the IP's invite to comment. Thank you for you clearing up the confusion, @NeilN:.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To those still following along, be aware that these "general" questions from the IP all have one goal in mind. I've responded to their actual goal here. --NeilN talk to me 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your first point see [163]. As for your second point, here’s a sanitised three months of editing (it’s much worse later).

    Sex symbol (2), Lovespoon, Temple of the Five Concubines, LGBT rights in Germany, Crumpet, Grease (lubricant) 3, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender, Slavery (13), Buttocks (4), Dolly Parton (3), Excretion, It sucks, Female reproductive system (5), Scumbag, Randy Brown, Scrotum (3), Blonde stereotype, John Dicks, Anti – pedophile activism, Flyleaf (2), Nine Inch Nails, Fafafini, Yaoi, Marquis de Sade, Gay (2), Epaphroditos, Cradle of Filth, Paraphilia, Daughters of Liberty, Nick Abbot, Steve Allan (2), Co – sleeping, Prostitution, Hepatitis (2). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for showing everyone on here why you shouldn't be taken seriously. By the way, if the numbers in brackets are the number of edits I've made to each article... I have 2,731 article edits in 2015 so far. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is no one going to block the IP for trolling/personal attacks? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to NeilN and Ivanvector, WP:V is not a vehicle for pushing an editor's personal point of view, it's a mechanism for ensuring articles are factually accurate. The undisputed facts are
    • the Farewell Sermon was delivered in the open, on camelback, in front of thousands
    • the prohibition of intercalation was made during the Farewell Sermon.

    Therefore, to caption a picture of a man in a mosque preaching to a congregation of six cannot be accurately captioned "Muhammad prohibiting Nasi" (which is the native term for the practice).

    As for wikilawyering, NeilN has argued that the fact that the French president walked into a clinic is justification for adding crappy content to Wikipedia. The serious argument is taking place at Talk:Islamic calendar. According to SPACKlick, an image that creates a fictitious scene for propaganda purposes is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. According to him, an image created with nefarious intent can be used with impunity. So it's OK for us to daub our houses with swastikas then. Then he says it's OK to use the caption because it follows the thinking of one source (which it doesn't). So the opposing views of dozens of experts are irrelevant. Finally, he makes the amazing claim that there is a consensus to exclude the good sources in favour of the bad.

    When I point out that this is exactly the "phantom consensus" being discussed here I get abuse. All this was explained yesterday afternoon in great detail (not by me) and since then the advocates of crappy editing have been silent. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Interested editors should look at the full discussions rather than assuming the IP has accurately summarized the situation. They have a history of getting things "slightly wrong". --NeilN talk to me 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lydiafox19

    I would like to know what is the deal with this user's edits (Lydiafox19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The user has made two kinds of edits so far:

    Strangely, the two talk pages have an extensive history of edits by unregistered users. Some of the IP users also edited Eurovision articles (and nothing else), one created Talk:Moldovie.

    Really, what gives? (I think that all articles that have been edited by these users/IP addresses ought to be checked for possible errors introduced into them.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address won't stop vandalizing

    (non-admin closure) Wrong place.TheMagikCow (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    74.62.14.55 (talk · contribs) won't stop vandalizing the talk page of Armenian Genocide. The IP has been blocked before, and is vandalizing again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take this to WP:AIV instead. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Greatink

    User indeffed by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think it would be appropriate to indef block this user for paid editing, which is a violation of the TOS. The user's contributions have been almost entirely to the articles Goldstein, Hill & West Architects and Whitehall Interiors NYC, a firm connected to GH&W. Until moments ago, when I disconnected it as a cross-space redirect, their user page redirected to the GH&W article.

    The GW&H article was recently tagged as overly promotional, and I heavily edited it to reduce it. I believe that the Whitehall Interiors article was speedily deleted at one point (an admin will have to check). I made it a redirect to the GW&H article recently, and today the article -- heavily promotional in tone -- was recreated by Greatink.

    The name of the user "Greatink" strongly implies that they are a PR firm (or person) dedicated to getting "great ink" for their clients, and a Google search confirms that the existence of "Great Ink Full Service Public Relations for a Digital Age", among whose listed clients are GW&H. [164]

    As for the articles, GW&H is clearly a notable firm, but the interior design firm is probably not. I'm also concerned about all the other clients listed on the Great Ink webpage -- have they done Wikipedia services for those clients as well, under less obvious user names? (It's a lot of articles to check.)

    I believe an indef block to User:Greatink -- and any other users which can be found to be connected to it (I'd suggest a CU, but can't file an SPI because Ihave no idea who the other users may be) -- is appropriate to protect the encyclopedia from promotional editing, and ask that it be applied. BMK (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Links: Greatink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Definitely seems to be an SPA, yeah! --IJBall (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the Google results, and the "Great Ink" website, I'd say not just a SPA, but also a paid editor. BMK (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Would someone please be able to call me to discuss? 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatink (talk • contribs)
    I don't believe that will be possible, or appropriate. All discussion on this topic should take place on-Wiki, where all editors can see it, and shoudl be centralized here. If you have something to say or ask, this is the place to do it. BMK (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, thank you. BMK (talk). I'm not sure what makes the GHWA page promotional, as opposed to long-time existing pages such as Joseph Chetrit The Carlyle Group Michel Abboud SOMA SOMA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMA_(architects) Morphosis Architects YIMBY BuroHappold Engineering. It is supported by a number of articles that, as you said, make it notable. I would be happy to work on the page with less "promotional language." I'm just really struggling to determine the difference between GHWA's page, and the others mentioned. Please let me know. Greatink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, let's see. Here's your version of the lede section of the GW&H article before another editor reduced the promotionalism:

    Goldstein, Hill & West Architects (GHWA) is a New York City-based architecture firm dedicated to the creation of the highest quality, multi-use buildings. GHWA is a collaboration of design professionals deeply experienced in the planning and design of high-rise residential and hospitality buildings, retail structures, and multi-use complexes. Together, the team has designed many of the most prominent structures in the New York metropolitan area.

    Alan Goldstein, L. Stephen Hill and David West, the company’s founders, have a legacy of excellence in design stretching back over 25 years. The GHWA team has the vision and skills necessary to create bold solutions that respond to the urban environment. They are market sensitive, pragmatic and attuned to the forces that drive successful development. Its staff of more than 100 is well suited to meet the rigorous demands and schedules of the development process, while allowing for the personal participation of the partners on all projects.

    Current clients include such well known entities as Extell Development Company, The Witkoff Group, The Trump Organization, Silverstein Properties, Tishman Speyer Properties, and The Lightstone Group. [165]

    Another editor changed that to this:

    Goldstein, Hill & West Architects (GHWA) is an architecture firm in Manhattan founded in 2009 by former partners at Costas Kondylis and Partners, principals Alan Goldstein, L. Stephen Hill and David West. GHWA focuses on the planning and design of high-rise residential and hospitality buildings, retail structures and multi-use complexes. The firm and its work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal. [166]

    and you then (gradually) re-edited it into this:

    Goldstein, Hill & West Architects (GHWA) is a New York City based architecture firm dedicated to the creation of the highest quality multi-use buildings. GHWA is a collaboration of design professionals deeply experienced in the planning and design of high-rise residential and hospitality buildings, retail structures and multi-use complexes. Together the team has designed many of the most prominent structures in the New York City metropolitan area.

    Alan Goldstein, L. Stephen Hill and David West, the company’s founders, have a legacy of excellence in design stretching back over 25 years, and have created bold solutions for the urban environment. Clients include Extell Development Company, The Witkoff Group, The Trump Organization, Silverstein Properties, Tishman Speyer and The Lightstone Group. [167]

    So, please, let's not have any guff about your "strugging" to understand what "promotional language" means. You're a public relations professional, you know precisely what it means. BMK (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Whitehall Interiors NYC is much less promotional than before, but it still has a list of projects on buildings that may not be notable, so IMO, there's still a little viewpoint-pushing in the article. Epic Genius (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I only removed the low-hanging fruit from that section, the private residences that were not identified, and therefore could not be verified. Except for two, the others were commercial projects and had citations, but I didn't look closely into them. Other editors can take a look and see what they think. BMK (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Greatink, please see our conflict of interest guideline WP:COI for our requirements regarding paid editing, and WP:NPOV about the neutral tone and content that our articles are required to follow. I agree with BMK that you sound disingenuous claiming to not understand what promotional editing is. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Especially since a read of their talk page shows that the issue of promotional language has been brought to their attention before. BMK (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To sum it up, we've got violations of WP:Terms of use (paid editing without declaration), WP:NPOV (failure to maintain a neutral point of view), WP:PROMO (deliberately editing to promote commercial enterprises), WP:COI (undeclared conflict of interest), and WP:Username (using a promotional username). BMK (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Greatink" matches the name of a PR company in NYC. I have blocked the account on that basis. I think the article Whitehall Interiors NYC qualifies for A7 speedy deletion, and in fact it was deleted as such in December 2014 based on my nomination. Prior to that, a more promotional version was deleted in October 2014 as G11 (straight advertising). Thank you for your research, BMK. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Allie X/User:WordSeventeen/Possible gaming of the system?Harassment

    WordSeventeen is continuously misrepresenting guidelines and persists that no primary source of information, even without interpretation, is not acceptable. Does not even bothering to check what he's saying; he keeps calling pages with over a thousand characters "trivial mentions", and will not cede to anyone's argument against that. Keeps calling archive.org radio interview archives and album art archives self-published material or unreliable/unverifiable (as evidenced in some of the brief summaries for reason of editing pages.) He doesn't even bother replying to me now. SanctuaryX (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the first of those diffs (it was too treacly for me to want to look at the rest) so this should be taken as a throwaway comment not resulting from a careful examination. It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article. I don't think WordSeventeen's approach as described by SanctuaryX is ideal since I'd say there's a neutrality problem rather than a sourcing problem per se with those edits. The stuff I saw isn't contentious in the BLP sense so I don't think overboard demands for sourcing provenance are called for. The issue is that secondary sources document not only the factuality of the info presented, but also its notability (notability is what makes it encyclopedic instead of WP:IINFO). Under strict interpretation of the WP:RS criteria, primary sources are ok if they fill in details of topics whose notability is confirmed by secondary sources existing about them, that should also be cited. In practice if a primary source has something non-contentious that readers are likely to find relevant, I'm ok with using them without a secondary source in place, as long as the material's presentation in the article is brief and neutral. If that article were written more neutrally I'd say it is ok to use bits of those interviews as long as the info is uncontentious and there's not significant questions about authenticity or relevance. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you're saying is I just need to make it a bit less promotional sounding? Does that mean I should undo all the edits he did to remove citations etc and then fix the gushiness? The second diff only highlighted that I an archive.org page (for archiving of cover art) was removed for being "a primary source" (even though it wasn't). So which article did you find to be not brief and neutral? The page for Allie X, CollXtion I, or Catch? Or all of them? And so do I just let the AfD proposal play out? I tried to include as many secondary source information as possible, and I tried to keep the primary source things to straight-forward facts. SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1) As mentioned I only looked at the first diff, which is about Allie X. 2) All articles should be written neutrally, which means not promotional at all, not "a bit less promotional". 3) I didn't look at the edit history except for the one diff I mentioned, but the current state of the article is in my opinion bad, full of irrelevant info like what brand of energy drinks the person likes. So yes, I'd say that that should be cleaned up. 4) Looking at the diff about the archive.org cover art, I'd say the main problem is that the archive.org link doesn't actually document the statement that sites it (it doesn't say when or where Allie X began her career). If the cover actually says that (say on the liner notes) and the photo showed it, I'd say it is ok under WP:ABOUTSELF since that particular info is not promotional etc. 4a) As a separate matter, if an album is notable (WP:NMUSIC) then we generally want the cover art to be uploaded to the Wikipedia server rather than linked from an external site. 5) If AfD's are in progress, then they will likely be decided completely on the basis of secondary RS, so the best thing to do is add more of those to the articles. Cleaning up the cruft is a mostly-separate issue but of course that should be done too. I hope this helps. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice 50.0.205.75 that you mention, "It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article." Another editor User:Miniapolis at the AFD for CollXtion I at [170] stated "Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)" and to quote User:Miniapolis again this time at the AFD for Catch (Allie X song) at [171] comments, "Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. User:Miniapolis". I find it ironic that the OP of this thread first named the thread AllieX but soon changed it to "Allie X/User:WordSeventeen/Possible gaming of the system?" In my view it is the publicity blitzer or blitzers that are attempting to game the system, and get free advertising right during the window when the debut EP is supposed to be released. For some reason the release date keeps getting pushed back. See here: [172]. Perhaps the publicity blitzers are waiting for the AFD's to close and get this messy ANI locked down. Who knows? Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your problem is but that was beyond presumptuous. Stop whatever your lttle vendetta is against me, please. The only reason I changed the name is because I misread what the guide said to name your complaint as. I reviewed to make sure I followed protocol. And for your information the EP is already released. Now stop playing the victim, and start following your own constantly spewed Assume Good Faith.SanctuaryX (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the OP SanctuaryX is in violation of WP:BULLY by the use of hidden text in an unacceptable fashion on the article Allie X. Please see this diff here: [173] OP has left hidden messages within the source code that say in short, DO NOT REMOVE, DO NOT DELETE, and DO NOT DELETE. The full hidden messages can be viewed in the diff here: [174]. The OP has even gone so far as to leave a hidden message that says, VICE Do not remove. Have contacted VICE editor to dissuade erroneous claims of unreliability. --> That is really a little scary. The OP has WP:OWN and WP:BULLY issues with the Allie X article to the point of being disruptive at the Allie X article, as well as its current AFD, and also at the other three articles which are cited at the top of this ani report, and their respective current AFD's. I would ask that the OP user SanctuaryX be blocked to prevent further disruption at the three articles and their respective AFDs. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize WP:BULLY removing them now. I apologize, that was in very poor taste. Though did I really violate it?"If there is any information that is constantly added, removed, or modified in any other way, and there may be a better alternative, hidden text may be used to let others know of that alternative. In this case, it should mention the alternative and point to a discussion, if one exists." I just didn't want you removing it again since it complied with WP:ABOUTSELF, which is something I noted and you failed to mention as well. Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you. I just hope that whatever administrator sees what's really going on here. Though I really do not appreciate you leaving out portions of that quoted text to make yourself look better. And there's nothing scary about me asking the editor of Vice magazine if they fact check, etc. And I have no OWN issues, anyone who looks around a bit will see I have told you many times I claim no owner ship. I poorly chose the word "my" in reference to an article to describe that I had substantially contributed. There was no intent of claiming ownership. I've told you this at least five times now. Please get over it.SanctuaryX (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I have bundled all three AfDs (not to mention !voting "keep"). And although I agree that SanctuaryX didn't use quite the proper method in ensuring that the articles would be retained (and I think they will), you really should let the whole thing go, WordSeventeen. That being said, we should let the AfD run its course; I don't think there's anything else ANI can do about this issue. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Erpert: @WordSeventeen: @Ansh666: I feel as if wordseventeen is in violation of WP:HA and WP:BULLY. He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again. It was VERY blatantly stated that they had been consolidated, and by Erpert, NOT ME. This random person, Ansh666, reinstated the AfD on Catch and CollXtion I for no reason. I have no evidence that Ansh666 is a sockpuppet but that makes me curious. This is getting to be ridiculous and very demeaning. I feel like WordSeventeen needs to be blocked from these articles. He is very clearly singling me out for no good reason. Please, someone who can actually do something, stop this nonsense. I am literally begging. Stop this before it gets any more deranged.SanctuaryX (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even when related AfDs are bundled, you generally aren't supposed to alter the AfD template, SanctuaryX—although I do understand what you were trying to do, and I do also see that it wasn't done maliciously. That being said...WordSeventeen, you really do need to leave him/her alone. (BTW, I doubt Ansh666 is a sock of anyone; s/he was just returning the template to its previous state.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    in short form here, diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&diff=655786072&oldid=655700312
    Also, please review this statement here at ani from user SanctuaryX:

    He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

    Yup, " if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

    It is just more disruption caused by user sanctuaryX. I posted a warning about ALTERING a AFD template. Here is the warning on her page.

    Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to ALTER Articles for deletion notices, as you did at Catch Allie X (song), you may be blocked from editing. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not alter Articles for deletion notices from articles. as you did with Catch (Allie X song) Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead.

    At the Catch (Allie X song) article the user SanctuaryX altered the AFD tag, changing the article name, date, and timestamp.

    Later, User Ansh666 edited and adjusted the time stamp and numerical date to the original, and left the edit summary of (replacing tag) See the diff here: [1] WordSeventeen (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) diff [175][reply]

    Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Erpert: @WordSeventeen: Ok I'm saying the point is I never DID touch the AfD. It was still there. I did nothing. And if you notice his diff doesntactually link to anything . Look at the diff. This is my last edit compared to Ansh666. The AfD notice is STILL THERE and it is unchanged when compared to the original AfD nomination by WordSeventeen. [[176]] This next edit is WordSeventeens last edit compared to Ansh666's to the page. Notice that its got the same information on the notice as mine. [[177]] And finally notice on this last diff that his first edit to the page, this edit is the one in which he nomjnated it for deletion and it is compared to Ansh666's. The AfD notice was never changed by anyone except Ansh666. [[178]] His behavior is obviously malicious and full of lies, because while he could have made an honest mistake with not including the diff, if he had actually ever LOOKED AT THE DIFFS he wouldve noticed I didnt change ANYTHING on the AfD.He is now trying to extort me by saying I am personally attacking him on this noticeboard. He is again telling me to stop under threat of being blocked from editig on wikipedia. Well guess what? I'm not letting you extort me into letting you get away with your bad behavior. And he keeps cherry picking what I said. Like saying above in his quote that "If I ever try to remove the AfD for Catch or CollXtion I again," as the whole quote, even though immediately after I said that, I refuted that I ever edited it and explicitly stated the only edits ever dome to the AfD were done by Erpert, NOT by me. He is trying to slander me now. and Ansh666 didnt just change things for no reason, he also reopened each individual AfD and made them separate again. Why is no one stopping this? I haven't done anything wrong and everyone is just letting him try and screw me over.SanctuaryX (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if I may: SanctuaryX never touched the AfD tags. WordSeventeen put up three different nominations, two of which were closed by Erpert procedurally in order to bundle the AfD. I changed the tag on those two articles such that they pointed not at the individual closed AfDs, but the main one which is still ongoing, per the instructions at WP:BUNDLE. (IMO, the discussions should have stayed unbundled, as songs, albums, and artists have different criteria, but that's besides the point.) Hopefully this clears things up. ansh666 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with editor called Flyer22

    WP:BOOMERANG. OP blocked per checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry. --Jayron32 02:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Flyer22 has continuously slandered me and accused me of being a sockpuppet (without any evidence). This is harassment, and frankly, I don't like it. The only redress that is now available to me is for you to block him for violation Wikipedia's guidelines on harassment. Thank you very much. Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I noted at Jhamilton303's talk page, Jhamilton303 (talk · contribs) is the recently WP:Blocked Cali11298 (talk · contribs), and I am in the process of starting a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on that matter. For anyone who has reasonably decent detective skills, it should not be difficult to see that Jhamilton303 is Cali11298. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a certain quackiness I must admit. The timing between the blocking of the first account and the creation of the second, and the overlap in article topic and manner in which they interact with others as well as other markers make this look pretty bad. I'd like to see a checkuser report on this one. Please link the SPI report when created so we can follow and comment as needed. Thanks! --Jayron32 00:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow.... What is this? Blaming the victim? I don't know who this Cali person is. What ever happened to benefit of the doubt? Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely. I doubt that you're providing much benefit to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, I swear on my grandfather's grave, I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET, AND I HAVE NEVER MET CALI11298. I'm just an ordinary Wikipedian going about my business. Jayron, I'm serious. Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from an SPI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add that I am more than sure the admin here have heard the swearing on the grandfathers, mothers, sisters, cousins, brothers, ect... grave song and dance here before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really nuch doubt here. That an editor with 1 day's editing and a mere 27 article edits would randomly overlap with another editor on four widely varied articles is impossible to believe. BMK (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298, everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick block needed, long-term abuse case

    IP blocked for three months by Bishonen. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Special:Contributions/58.252.167.103 has picked up where blocked editor Special:Contributions/61.156.3.166 left off in harassing me. This long-term vandal is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal. He uses open proxies and compromised servers; this new one is a recently reported spam account – a typical tactic of the guy. Binksternet (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain how I've harassed you on wikipedia administrator's talkpage. 58.252.167.103 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Bishonen and Nakon for dealing with this guy. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Another IP from same country, please check [179]. Pinging Binksternet so that he can update his list. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrisdecorte

    Since his arrival here in 2013, Chrisdecorte (talk · contribs) has been using Wikipedia almost exclusively to promote his own self-published work in mathematics. (Some of many examples: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188], plus dozens of edits in his own userspace.) Today he's using Talk:RSA Factoring Challenge to solicit money for his mathematical hobby [189].

    Since 2013, three different users (including myself) have explained to him four times that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for publishing or discussing original research, and we have asked him to stop his self-promotion ([190] [191] [192] [193]). He has never responded.

    Chris is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I suggest his editing privileges be removed until he agrees to stop promoting himself. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) To date, this user has made three (3) contributions in article main-space, two of which promote his own work and the other is trivial. I tend to agree with the nominator. WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging David Eppstein who's probably in a good position to keep an eye out should this person reemerge in some other guise. EEng (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I agree, NOTHERE, should be blocked. But at least he's mostly keeping his original research out of article space, I guess? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Invited by Psychonaut) I haven't researched his edits since I interacted with him (whenever that was), but I still don't see any which are not promoting use of his own unpublished research. At least he's staying out of article-space, for the most part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Contributions deleted on Szekely Land (again)

    Fakirbakir deleted the contribution mentioning that Szekely land became part of Romania in 1918. Please see details https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655523554&oldid=655522794

    It's the 2nd time this statement is deleted. It's perfectly referenced and the info is already validated on other wiki pages (Szekely Land is located by the very page under discussion in Transylvania and the page on Transylvania states that Transylvania united with Romania in 1918). The references posted together with the statement on the Szkeley Land page are links to: - original documents of the Declaration of Union and English translation (Romanian archives/National Institute of Heritage); - original documents of acceptance of the Union by the King of Romania and English translation (National Institute of Heritage); - link to History of Transylvania/XIV. REVOLUTIONS AND NATIONAL MOVEMENTS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE MONARCHY (1918–1919) by Zoltán Szász on the Hungarian Electronic Library; - link to Elemér Illyés / National Minorities in Romania on hungaryhistory.com (Corvinus Library); - link to the book of prof. Laszlo Kurti (teaching at the Miskolc University in Hungary), The Remote Borderland (published by the State University of New York Press). To all this Fakirbakir replies with an attitude when deleting, "the sources don't state that "Szekely Land became a part of Romania in 1918", a "proclamation" is not an internationally recognized treaty". However Szekely Land is part of Transylvania (which he surely knows, as it's stated on the page) and the significance of a proclamation is clearly not under discussion (we have the references from both Hungarian and Romanian sources mentioned - and wikipedia - stating when the moment of the Union took place, Austro-Hungarian administration was removed by the Romanian Army, border was established and he should have read this before deletion).

    Fakirbakir also deleted the statement about the area of the counties Covasna, Harghita and Mures. Please details https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655659306&oldid=655659069

    It's the 2nd time this is deleted too. Again Fakirbakir replies with an attitude when deleting "(totally irrelevant)". However the only information on the page about the area of the land is an estimation from a disputed source (James Minahan, see debate on the talk page). As the Szekely Land is located by Minahan in the counties mentioned their area is very relevant as it's the only official/reliable information that could give an idea about the size of the land. The same principle was used on the page in respect with the population, where the population of Covasna, Harghita and Mures from the census is stated together with an estimation for the Szekely Land.

    As Fakirbakir has deleted correct, relevant and referenced info without an actual reason (his notes are generic, contradicting the facts and based on personal opinion only - no references) please revert his changes mentioned above and warn him about deletion. Please notice, Fakirbakir doesn't use to answer to me on his talk page as I have already contacted unsuccessfully on other subject.

    Thank you. ID Idsocol (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Idsocol, there is a big, bright warning at the top of the page when you added this case that states you need to notify editors you're bringing a complaint against which you failed to do. You need to do this even if they have failed to answer your notices in the past. I've placed a notice on Fakirbakir's talk page. Please remember to do so in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Liz! I did put a notice on Fakirbakir's talk page. It's under the one to which he didn't answer. I've just checked and it's there. ID Idsocol (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655811951&oldid=655800923


    He also reedited the info about the Union with Romania without any references and based only on his own opinion (despite the dedicated pages for this subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania where he could debate). I think there more than 3 edits in a short period of time. Idsocol (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    merely promotional userpage

    RESOLVED
    Offending pages deleted, sock account blocked, and user warned, by RHaworth, et al. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Dr.prashant mishra (talk · contribs) seems to (ab)use Wikipedia for self-promotion, see his interesting creation Wikipedia:Dr.prashant mishra. In addition, this user seems to operate 2 accounts on :en, see Er.Prashant Mishra (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sock/Meatpuppetry at Talk:MyWikiBiz

    USER BLOCKED
    Set the record right indefinitely blocked by JzG (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 10:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See Special:Contributions/Set_the_record_right. Evading scrutiny on a talk page is not helpful, particularly to attack another editing. Expecting good behavior seems overly optimistic. There are several options - page protection, an SPI, or just some additional watchful eyes. I request the latter. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pointing to clearly-linked evidence that an editor is working with a POV conflict with the subject, is not an "attack", Joe. Anyone can see that Coretheapple for the past 5 days or so has been on a mission to hyper-edit articles related to Gregory Kohs, and he has a stated animosity toward Mr. Kohs. - Set the record right (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also User:76.24.16.127 who has performed the same general function at Wikipediocracy, albeit claiming, credibly to be User:Dan Murphy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?

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

    We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

    The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

    The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

    At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

    Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN talk to me 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.
    In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN talk to me 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.
    If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?
    Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.
    The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.
    This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Wikipedia that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Wikipedia as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm skeptical of Zad68's suggestion that any kind of short and/or voluntary ban would suffice, since again, the user has returned after ten years with exactly the same attitude as before. I support either a full site ban or a broad topic ban from politics and religion, both indefinite. If the latter, I advise that a month (or three? find a suitable timeframe) after the imposition of the topic ban, his post-ban contributions be scrutinized to see if he's behaved himself or found other topics to right great wrongs in, necessitating a siteban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion appears to be at User_talk:JoeM/ban, with the result here. Seems he was put on some early version of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I would like to say to everyone I've dealt with over the past few days, I really sincerely do apologize for the response my edits have generated. It's clear to me that my edits have been too bold to build the consensus needed to improve articles. While I'm probably not alone in thinking that many articles on Wikipedia exhibit a clear leftwing bias, I am going to take a break from editing high profile articles on politics for now until I re-familiarize myself with the way things work here. I ask everyone monitoring this discussion to please hold off for now on making any sweeping bans. Please, watch my contributions over the next few days; and I will prove worthy of another chance. Thanks. JoeM (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    JoeM I'd be willing to change my !vote if you'd commit to a voluntary topic-ban from politics and religion, broadly construed, for six months. In that time, show in other areas that you understand how to develop articles according Wikipedia's principles. If you can commit to that, I'd support giving it a go. Zad68 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JoeM I want to say that I genuinely and truly appreciate your response above. While disagreeing with various pieces of content I also appreciate a fair bit of the sentiment that you expressed, going back into some time, at Talk:Homelessness/Archive 1. I can also add comment as the editor that was instrumental in the addition of the Islamic extremist reference to the Isil article. Please try to understand the views of the Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims that this group fights against and please consider the perspective as to why editors consider it inappropriate to describe it as just another Muslim group. Having been a regular editor on ISIL related topics I can also vouch, while not making excuses, that you are far from being the only editor that has edited in that direction. Despite disagreement in regard editing content and direction I personally see no reason not to assume good faith in regard to intention. I hope that experience here does not leave you feeling too badly. I hope also that you can find great ways to invest your energies wherever they may be. All of these things can be learning experiences. I don't regularly see people making positive responses at AN/I so, believe me, you are doing better than most. GregKaye 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    JoeM (talk · contribs) has been emotionally unstable. He's pushed his POV with no verifiable sources and kept up with it. Hence, assuming good faith, I put forth my proposal:

    The community forbids the editor JoeM indefinitely from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of upto one year, if he edits in any of these fields after the ban is enacted. The topic ban may be appealed after a period of 6 months here. If the community finds that he's breached his topic ban or he's not fit for constructive editing, he must wait 6 months before appealing again. Sanctions can only be appealed to administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee shall he not wish to do it here.

    Please support this proposal only if you agree to it fully. It has been worded to the best of my abilities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Erm, should you really be diagnosing another editor as "clearly emotionally unstable"? It comes across as a personal attack to me (although I'm sure you didn't intend it as such), and I think you should remove it. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not diagnosing him as "emotionally unstable". And I don't see how, how you even call it a personal attack. All I meant that a few edits of his were affected as emotional and he might make the same mistakes, all over again. Calling this is a personal attack is overkill as I clearly meant it in good faith referring to his past activities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that you are not in a position to judge the reason he posted as he did and whether or not it was due to emotional instability, and you should not be doing so. Squinge (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, assuming good faith, that was the best I could come up with. You got any better motives? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I'm doing this is because voluntary ones are a lot harder to maintain that community-enforced ones. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but ease of enforcement should not be our priority. Our priority should be getting an editor to edit constructively with the best good faith we can muster and with the minimum of sanctions. And if they're willing to do what the community wants anyway, there's no need for force. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think that we've given him enough rope? This is merely a fallback to prevent him from drawing all the rope. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support due to his response: the topic ban merely holds him to his word. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban and not site ban. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • report back after leaving my comment above JoeM left a note of appreciation on my talk page also requesting intervention regarding some of his "minor copyedits on articles". I recommended giving assurances here on lessons that he had learned learned and also also made substantial intervention at Talk:Iraq#T. E. Lawrence in order to give some involved editor mentoring (I'm very involved with Islamic themed topics). I am pleased that my interventions may have left the impression that not editors could be on his side but would have hoped for more of a response here. Quite a lot of issues have been covered. GregKaye 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please check Special:Contributions/JoeM. It is possible (or not) that JoeM has been shaken up enough by coming through this procedure. He is also communicating as shown and is hesitant in regard to editing. His edits show, by his own statement, that he doesn't want to get blocked. Does Wikipedia have a parole or pending system? I would suggest a one day block on topics mentioned but with wording on the block to say that if there was a further situation that strong action would be taken. GregKaye 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      A one-day block wouldn't be appropriate if he's not editing problematically now, as blocks are only for preventative purposes and it wouldn't be preventing anything. (And there's no such thing as a "block on topics mentioned" anyway - you're either blocked or you're not.) Squinge (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from archive. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk)
    • Oppose per Joe's response. You cannot hold what happened 12 years ago against him - if anything, I'm stunned he remembers his handle and password. What Joe does need is a firm warning (which he has received and acknowledged the lesson learned here) and, in my opinion, a WP:MENTOR. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable behavior by Niteshift36

    I have been creating a number of new articles. The vast majority of them are related to african americans. A certain group of individuals have bee nominating them for deletion to which I would debate to keep them. [194] At this time, they are not the issue. Apparently, one individual took notice [195] and he won't nominate an article for deletion that I wrote but he certainly votes to have a large amount of them deleted. [196] [197], [198], [199], [200], and [201], . In a short amount of time, he has stalked my profile and edited on a decent amount of articles that I have written on. [202] . His behavior has been noticed [203] and excessive sarcasm and rudeness [204], [205] to which he readily admits [206], [207] He admits to rude behavior [208]. He uses WP:BULLY. I admit to not being the most knowledgeable wikipedian, [209] but I do want to make it better! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry CrazyAces, but you're wasting your time. I've been involved with the Martial Arts project for a long time. I was less active for a while, but when I returned, I became involved again. When I noticed your persistent pattern of using non-reliable sources and creating articles with no intention to make them meet the standards, I looked at other ones. Have I been sarcastic? Yes. (and that's without the alleged "admission" that wasn't) It's hard to not be when you falsely accuse people of racism. It's harder when editors attempt to help you produce better products, use reliable sources and actually improve and your response is "I create so others can work." [210]. Fact is, I haven't nominated a single one of your article for deletion. I did try to help you in the beginning and you displayed a flippant "who cares" attitude. I've voted in other AfD's that you aren't related to in the same time period and edited many other articles you aren't involved with. This is a giant waste of my time. I'll respond to legit responses from other editors, but I'm not going to do a back and forth with you here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: The title "noticed by others" is improper. Second, let's look at some of that "stalking":
    1. Ron Hubbard: Nom by another. CA was the only keep vote. Article deleted.
    2. Greg Baines: Nom by another. No consensus.
    3. Joe Marciano: nom by another. CA was the only keep vote. Article deleted.
    4. Robey Reed: nom by another. CA and an IP voted keep. Article deleted.
    5. Natalia Baron: nom by another. CA came to the discussion after me and also voted to delete.
    6. Tyson Jennette: Nom by another. AfD in progress.
    7. Shotokan Karate Union: Nom by another. CA and a new SPA voting to keep. In progress.

    Again, none of those were nominated by me. One article was a no consensus. The others are in progress or deleted, consistent with my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Even here he just referred to me as CrazyAces . He states that I said people were racist and that was blatantly false. [211] Even admins stated that it wasn't the case. [212] . I pointed a statistic that has been called WP:WORLDVIEW. He admits to his rude behavior. I don't own articles, so if people want to change it. I rarely make a big deal about it. Some people work on DRV, some on AFC, some on AFD's, etc. I like creating articles. His numerous blocks for the same behavior displays a pattern of behavior. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CrazyAces, in your SPI attempt[213], you made an issue about "MDTEMP listed 7 highly referenced articles, 6 of which are of African American Athletes all at once" and that the one "who happens to be white" was the one that survived AfD. I see you intimating a racial motive there. I wasn't the only one. Mdtemp read it that was, as did the uninvolved Invector [214]. The fact that no admins got involved in the ANI thread about that very issue [215] is luck on your part. As for my block record, yeah, there were some early on and a couple a year ago. A single one of those had to do with civility. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, CrazyAces489. Userpages contain a "Contributions" link for a reason: people are supposed to be able follow the contributions of other users. That's not a crime. On the contrary, to check up on the editing of a problematic user is a good deed, and helps the encyclopedia; admins do it all the time. Keeping an eye on a user with a pattern of using non-reliable sources and creating non-viable articles, as Niteshift has been doing with your contributions, is a good thing. It's just rude to accuse people of "stalking" for doing that. Unfounded accusations of bullying are even ruder.

    You say the new articles you have created that have been nominated for deletion "are not the issue". Yes, I'm afraid they are, because when you take somebody to ANI, your own behavior and competence will come under scrutiny as well. Since early February, you have created 7 biographical articles that have been deleted because they were non-notable and unsourced, and I don't know how many more that are currently up for deletion and mainly trending towards delete. (Perhaps User:Niteshift36 can help us with a ballpark figure.) You also have created a frivolous SPI in an obvious attempt at retaliation against several users who have been reasonably nominating your articles for deletion.

    All this has created a lot of work for other users, and your carefree attitude about that ("I create so others can work") suggests you're not prepared to learn nor slow down. I think you're here to help the encyclopedia, but your attitude is actually unhelpful. Please do your article creation through Articles for creation from now on. It exists to help people with just the kinds of problems your creations have. You say above that you're not the most knowledgeable wikipedian but you do want to make it better. Please show it by doing as I suggest here. If you continue to create non-viable articles directly in mainspace, I'm afraid I'll have to consider blocking you for disruptive editing and willful timewasting. To make sure you see this warning, I'll put a few words about it on your page as well. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Repeating harmful comments can sometimes be a bad idea. Other times though, it's the easiest way to explain what the problem is. This case seems to fall much more in to the later example. Whatever else CrazyAces may or may or not have done, you really shouldn't be mulling of the irony of CA being forced to repeat offensive and inappropriate comments on your part to point out that you did so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it was removed a while ago, before your comments, it's sort of pointless to try to tell me what I should or shouldn't think. "mulling it over" is thinking. Surely nobody here is supporting thought control, are they? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not surprising that other editors are getting frustrated with CA. His strategy has become to attack all editors that disagree with him. He accused a number of editors of racism and filed SPI allegations against them with no supporting evidence. More than once he has stated at discussions that it's not up to him to supply sources on the articles he creates because that's everyone else's job. He seems quite proud of the fact that he's creating lots of articles and doesn't care if they don't have supporting sources. He repeatedly posts the same sources and arguments at AFD discussions and tells everyone else their views are just opinions and don't really matter--even when supported by policy. It's probably time for WP:BOOMERANG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexbrn and Jtydog inserting OR material despite being warned

    Alexbrn and Jtydog have introduced Original Research (repeatedly) into Scrambler therapy, despite being warned that the material is OR.

    • At 08:08 April 8th, Alexbrn first introduced the OR here.[216] This material is OR because neither of the sources cited discuss the strength of the evidence - they simply say whether the Scrambler system is effective or not. Please note, there has been some discussion about the actual terms used ("good" or "strong") but this is a red-herring - the point remains that the 2 sources do NOT discuss the strengths of the research, and that any comment on the strength of research has been arrived at by the editor, i.e. it is OR.
    • At 16:08, April 9th, I made it clear why this is OR material.[217]
    • At 16:21, Alexbrn described the sentence as "paraphrasing", however, the error of this way of thinking was explained to them at 16:42 here.[218]
    • At 17:41, I removed the OR material leaving the edit summary "Original Research".
    • At 17:43, Alexbrn reverted to include the OR text.[219]
    • At 17:48, it was again explained this was OR.[220].
    • At 18:16, I again removed the OR leaving the edit summary "Deleting original research"[221]
    • At 18:19, Jtydog reverted to include the OR material.[222]

    These are extremely experienced editors and for them to intentionally and repeatedly introduce Original Research in a medical article against WP:MEDRS guideleines and in such a disruptive way is extremely serious. They should both be issued with at least warning and a more serious action against Alexbrn as this was a repeated action on their part.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) __DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Two observations relevant to this posting:
    • Jytdog was not notified (I've done it now).
    • The OP appears to be canvassing.[223]
    Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow..this is so extremely misrepresentative. Jytdog has asked me not to communicate with them on their Talkpage. I was aware that raising an ANI meant I had to inform the users. I informed you. I was unsure what to do regarding Jytdog so I immediately contacted the teahouse page and got an answer. This is all shown here.[224] It also shows that at 20:14 I asked the answering editor to contact Jtydog about the ANI. At 21:41, Jtydog was informed of the ANI[225]. You are misrepresenting me completely. Please strike your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this sounds like pretty harsh sanctions you're suggesting for what seems like an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The abstract of the first article says "further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness." I think one could argue either way over whether that is equivalent to "no good data is available to determine whether it is effective". Couldn't you guys split the difference and paraphrase the source as "Additional trial data is needed to determine whether this is effective?". Have we gotten that polarized here? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested that we summarise with "mixed results" here[226]. Apparently this was not OK and Jytdog reverted it.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A small pilot study specifically tested the MC5-A Calmare device on 16 patients with refractory CIPN. The device, which is hypothesized to provide ‘‘nonpain” information to the cutaneous nerves to block the effect of pain, showed an improvement in pain scores (59% reduction at 10 days, with no reported adverse effects. However, a placebo-controlled, randomized, small (14 total patients) trial, published only as an abstract, was unable to demonstrate a benefit for scrambler therapy. "Mixed results" is as OR as what you complain about. You have a pilot study (apparently uncontrolled, since it doesn't say it was) looking at only ten days out, versus a randomized, controlled study. There are some good grammatical explanations for the word however in the userbox on my userpage; pls have a look at them. "Mixed results" is just as OR as what you claim in others' edits. Next time, pls, take this somewhere other than ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a content dispute that revolves around whether the sourcing's discussion of the quality of the evidence supporting the treatment can be fairly summarized as "good/strong" or not. I do not see any evidence on the Talk page of bad behavior by the accused. How is this low-level content dispute an incident that needs Administrator attention? Where have you tried to resolve the dispute using one of the WP:DR pathways, like asking at the relevant WikiProject, using WP:3O, WP:DRN or the like? You appear to have gone right from a little discussion at the article Talk page right to ANI.

    For the record: I've !voted at the AFD for the Scrambler article, and have been in a disagreement with Chrissy at an RFC they started at Talk:Foie gras, but have not been involved in this particular content dispute. Zad68 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect we have a run-of-the-mill difference of opinion here, mixed with a failed AGF-ometer, because what Dr Chrissy proposes instead looks SYNTH/OR-ish from here. The way around this is wording like that proposed by Formerly, or: "There is insufficient evidence for its use in treating neuropathic pain", which should avoid the tempest in a teacup about the word "good". This polarization/battleground is unhelpful-- this is fixable any number of ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SandyGeorgia - I'm not sure what you mean by SYNTH/OR-ish - please could you elaborate?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you AGF, everyone is just trying to paraphrase. You want to do it one way, they want to do it another way. Your way is no less OR-ish than the text you object to. There is no good evidence; finding a way to say that is the problem, but claiming "mixed results" when the randomized placebo-controlled study found no benefit is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are not paraphrasing. The 2 studies made no comment on the quality of the research. If you are now saying that certain types of study are more powerful than others, then you are also guilty of OR. How do I know you have the qualifications to make such a judgement of scientific research?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think the sources bothered to talk about things like what kind of study each was and how many participants they included? In fact at WP:MEDASSESS--right in the WP:MEDRS guideline itself--Wikipedia provides a hierarchy of study quality, see where it says "The best evidence comes primarily from..." following through "Roughly in descending order of quality...". Zad68 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that editors on here are allowed to judge the quality of scientific research and make statements about this in WP articles?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Search me what the big issue is. The paraphrase is good (in mine or others' variants of it). DrChrissy alone insists on calling it OR (wrongly in my view, but - as I've said - I'd be happy to open up the discussion at WT:MED) and has I believe breached 3RR trying to zap it. So if there's a behaviour issue to be considered, maybe it might WP:BOOMERANG back to the OP ... ? I like Sandy's wording too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have breached 3RR but that is not the issue here. Please stick to the content of the ANI I have raised against you. Please show where the sources you used discuss the strength of the evidence about the efficacy of the system - what you wrote was your own interpretation of the sources and is therefore OR. This, and the repeated inclusion of the OR are the only issues of this discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, at ANI you don't get to control whose behavior gets investigated, see WP:BOOMERANG. Did you breach 3RR? Zad68 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have breached 3RR but that is not the issue here? Holy cow, DrChrissy, we all have more relevant things to do than settle playground squabbles over semantics. If you did breach 3RR, and then brought it to ANI, that says ... something ... at least about the respect you have for the time involved in the rest of the people who have to help sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I have ultimate respect for the people on here. We are all responsible for how we devote our time to the project. If you do not have the time to participate here, then of course you are free to go elsewhere. This is not a problem about semantics. It is about an editor that made up a phrase in their head and decided to put that into a WP article and cite 2 sources to it as if they supported their OR__DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, editors posting here (a noticeboard primarily for examining bad behaviour) should expect to have their own behaviour looked-at too. I don't believe my paraphrase was OR and have offered multiple times to widen the consensus at the Project noticeboard if you still disagreed. Meanwhile, it is you who has been advocating - on that same article's talk page - sourcing material to search engine results ... so really, this "OR" complaint is pretty rich. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexbrn I was hardly "advocating" sourcing material to search engines, I was discussing this on a Talk page! Please comment on the subject of this ANI - why is your input to the article not OR? As the editor who introduced the material into the article, the onus is on you to defend why it should be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: you're wrong. Frankly I'm sick of facing your barrage of misguided inquisition; dealing with it is a waste of time. I'll let you burn up the patience of others instead. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thank you for your contributions.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also not uncommon that complainants are being pursued and harassed by people who overly believe in MEDRS as the correct way to do it. The Banner talk 20:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, being harrassed by application of a Wikipedia guideline! Umm, aren't we here because DrChrissy decided to go to ANI with a trivial disagreement about what constitutes WP:OR? Looking over the history on the Talk page, one can see that there are some fairly serious Talk page guidelines by DrChrissy that could be contributing to the polarization of this discussion because the debate is being personalized.
    • Accusations of bullying that violate WP:TALK: "Jytdog Now that you have removed the completely inappropriate COI template you imposed to try and bully another editor, perhaps you would turn your mind to answering my question about why Sparadeo F, Kaufman C, D'Amato S (2012) is not MEDRS compliant?"
    • Suggestions that other editors are trying to "out" him. " Oh, I happen to know Anna Olsson professionally (I wonder if you are fishing to out me)"
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I am completely at a loss to see what this has to do with the repeated inclusion of Original Research__DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that this ANI complaint, along with your behavior on the article Talk pages, constitues WP:Battleground behavior, and makes collaborative editing more difficult if not impossible. In fact, these personal attacks were even copied over to a discussion about a completely unrelated article.
    Please be aware that I do not wish that this ANI descends into mud-slinging about editors' behaviour. I would like it to remain focussed on the topic - repeated inclusion of OR despite warnings. However, if this line of diversion continues, I will provide evidence that one of the editors in the ANI is currently operating under a warning for their incivility and has used some of the most offensive behaviour I have ever encountered on wikipedia. __DrChrissy (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ermmmm...could the proposer please sign this - or are they wishing to remain anonymous.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: These edits certainly look very disruptive at a first glance. They were made:
    1. After the article was proposed for deletion
    2. Before the AfD dicussion (which is still ongoing) was concluded
    3. Without any sort of prior consensus on the talk page
    Since the AfD discussion has not yet concluded, I do not see the point in making massive, controversial edits to the article at the moment. It looks disruptive enough so that a temporary block for those who nominated the article for deletion and repeatedly removed the bulk of its content may be necessary. -A1candidate 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A1candidate, this edit you just made at Scrambler therapy that introduces medical claims in to the article based on non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, among other problems, was wildly inappropriate and clearly against consensus. Zad68 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Zad, your posting clearly does not belong here, but on the Talk page of the Article concerned. Please strike your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DrChrissy, this talk page comment is ... well ... bizarre. Regardless the outcome of this article, could you please reduce such talk page behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of the comment are you referring to?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrChrissy:, while SandyGeorgia can clarify if she meant something else, I thought your commentary such as "the website (which no doubt will be removed from the article soon)" [emphasis added] and "Oh, I happen to know Anna Olsson professionally (I wonder if you are fishing to out me)- I don't think she would really like being described as Trivia." [emphasis added] at the article talk page was unnecessary and unconstructive. I too would advise you to refrain from engaging in such behaviour in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking at this diff [227], it seems unusual that the refs previously used to claim benefit are later being utilized by a different editor to claim no benefit at all. Is there a noticeboard for looking at the specific references being utilized to see if the editors are actually accurately reporting what is in those references?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, WT:MED as I have repeatedly said. (Or any intelligent person can read & decide for themselves: really there is no need to burn hard-pressed medical editors time with basic stuff like this). Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] Alexbrn, please refrain from answering questions not directed at you, if you are a "hard-pressed medical editor" and cannot answer it simply and respectfully. These sideways comments make reading through this information extra unpleasant. petrarchan47tc 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is exactly because those ever so hard-pressed medical editors do not have the time to deal with basic stuff like this, is why I raised this ANI. I felt that repeated introduction of OR is so "basic" (please read "fundamentally flawed") that it should be brought to a wider audience, rather than encroach on the time of our hard-pressed medical "experts". By the way, how does one get onto this list of "medical editors"?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see that you have stayed. Thanks - I have looked but I can't see what I have to do to be called a "medical editor". I thought ALL editors on WP were considered equal and that equal respect should be shown to all editors and their edits. Am I wrong?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It does appear to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND looking at the history of the page, But DrChrissy does not appear to be the only one involved in the battle. It seems strange to pick one editor out of the three that were reverting repeatedly over the last 48 hours for a block or ban. It appears that DrChrissy made 3 reverts but so were other editors reverting. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lot's of 'experts' weighing in...reminds me of the definition of an expert, which is someone who knows more and more about less and less until finally knowing absolutely everything about nothing! Why does this remind me of Jytdog and Alexbrn?--Pekay2 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the claim that summarizing secondary sources is WP:OR is just silly. And bringing this is kind ... vindictive. drchrissy was not satisfied with the ANI where I was warned and sought to overturn the close at AN, which was snow-closed - see here) drchrissy has been kind of following me around (he doesn't usually edit medical articles for example) looking for fights to pick. This is one is ridiculous. Trout and close, please. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please would you focus on the content of this ANI. You made a reversion which re-introduced material into an article which had been identified as OR. This is contrary to WP policy. Why did you do this? (not a rhetorical question). __DrChrissy (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    really drchrissy. your analysis that summarizing secondary sources is WP:OR, and even bringing an ANI over it, is just silly and sad. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the following NPOV approach by DrChrissy: I think a much better way of stating it would be "There is evidence that the Scrambler system benefited patients (insert source), although another study found no beneficial effects (insert source). It is not our position as editors to judge whether the scientific evidence is "good" or "strong" or whatever. But then, I'm one of those editors who believes NPOV and UNDUE are of the utmost importance in an article. Atsme☯Consult 23:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    and in responding, when you are canvassed. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather silly to think a (talk page stalker) was canvassed. Isn't that how you and a few others always seem to end up wherever I'm involved? No canvassing involved. I've been watching ANI trying to understand the various disputes which raised my curiosity as to why Jytdog and a few others appear to always be involved. Coincidence perhaps. Who knows? Atsme☯Consult 15:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing by the editors complained of other than an entirely appropriate application of MEDRS to a very problematic article entirely unsupported by reliable sources . The allegation of edit warring by the complaining editor would appear to be an instance for application of WP:PETARD Banks Irk (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeed, while Alexbrn and Jytdog might be getting frustrated with DrChrissy, it is the latter we see being disruptive on the article talk page and edit-warring in the article itself (he is at 3RR by my count). I point specifically to the suggestions from DrChrissy in this thread. "Show my the evidence that what I am doing is wrong" is a tactic as old as time. He of all people should know that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence; the prohibition against all forms of original research is codified at WP:OR which is comprehensive, but not exhaustive. Any experienced editor understands that what DrChrissy is suggesting is original research and even DrChrissy himself accepts as much later on (but argues that it "won't break WP" so he should be allowed to do it). He has tried several times to dismiss assessment of his own behavior here. There is an ongoing content dispute (most of his original compliant) and an ongoing AFD and so I don't think anything will be helped by the application of an Aboriginal artifact but DrChrissy needs to take a step back and breath. St★lwart111 05:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've been involved in this discussion on Talk:Scrambler therapy for a couple of days, and I do have a problem with editor synthesis of conclusions based on their review of specialized technical material (i.e. various medical studies). A small part of my input in that discussion:

    How is it that "experienced health topic editors" are allowed to synthesize summaries with statements like "no good evidence," or selectively highlight certain results because they are from types of studies that are considered higher quality, without explicit explanation? We remain anonymous editors, and verifiability has to take that into account, we have no special expertise when it comes to summarizing.

    And again, after more no direct addressing of the question:

    Do we recognize "experts" at Wikipedia who can essentially override core policy and guidelines? It seems what is being suggested is that, as a general encyclopedia reader (and editor), in cases where special technical knowledge is required that I don't possess, I should trust self-confirmed experts in that area to synthesize conclusions for me (at least, in cases where no secondary review source is there to do that)? Is that not what "no good evidence" is, a Wikipedia editor's "expert" summary of specialized medical data?

    FYI: I'm an originally "uninvolved editor" who randomly came to that page via AfD notice, and had never seen the handle DrCrissy or "know" that person. Personally, I wouldn't have brought this here (Ive hardly if ever been "here" before), as the discussion is ongoing in Talk, however, as of yet, I still haven't gotten a clear answer... I do get an uncomfortable walled garden feeling when multiple editors suggest that I bone up on specialized guidelines that are supplementary to the core policies and guidelines in order to edit certain content... --Tsavage (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that a complete understanding of DrChrissy's motivations in bringing this wholly trivial issue to AN/I cannot be had without reading this recent AN/I report, in which Jytdog was warned for incivility, but DrChrissy tried like the dickens to get him sanctioned. This looks a lot like another attempt on DrChrissy's part to "punish" Jytdog. I suggest that the superficial complaint is strictly a content dispute, and should be thrown back to the talk page, but the underlying problem might be addressed by warning DrChrissy that he must co-operate with other editors instead of displaying what is essentially WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. BMK (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indication of OR The OR statement uses two secondary sources. In summary, 4 studies have been examined by the two sources. Three of these (Smith et al. 2010, Sabato et al., 2005, Marineo et al., 2012) recorded a beneficial effect of the Scrambler system. One of these (Campbell et al., 2013) failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect. This 4th study is the weakest of all 4 as the treatment is applied to only 7 individuals (Being a "placebo-controlled, randomized" study is pointless with such a small n!) How can "there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain" possibly be a reasonable and balanced summary of these 4 studies.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Content disputes don't really belong here, but it's not our call to say how weak or strong primary studies are (that's becoming original research itself). We just summarize what the secondary sources (i.e., reviews) say, which is exactly what NPOV calls for. If something is "wrong" in a particular review, we wait for other reviews to either call that out or establish what the actual scientific consensus is. I really suggest bringing this to relevant noticeboards or Wikiprojects as ANI is not the place for this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-collegiate attitude It has been suggested that I should discuss concerns more with Alexbrn and Jtydog. The problem is that when I have requested an explanation or evidence of a supporting policy or guideline of their deletions or edits, they simply stop replying. These are the diffs to 3 examples of this non-collegiate attitude and behaviour, here[228], here[229] and here[230]. The interaction problem is theirs, not mine.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your last sentence is misleading, in view of the fact that your first diff shows that you made an unsubstantiated accusation of bullying against one of the editors you are complaining about (particularly here), and in view of what I and another uninvolved editor pointed out here as another example. The general feedback you are being given here is that you are engaging in battleground behaviour, and it should not be so difficult to see why. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Watching these interactions develop on the noticeboards, I agree there does appear to be a battleground behavior going on, but I'm seeing more from DrChrissy than anything. There might be a WP:HOUNDING concern as others like BMK have alluded to. Looking at these conversations, it appears DrChrissy really got wound up at the last ANI, and the posts after at least have the appearance of following Jytdog and others to other articles where DrChrissy doesn't appear to have a history editing. My few interactions with DrChrissy seemed to show the are typically a calm and rational editor, so this doesn't seem like typical behavior for them. I would hope a warning would be enough to disengage from this behavior and utilize content noticeboards, etc. rather than going after individual editors. If this kind of behavior continues, and interaction ban might need to be considered in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I raised this ANI against 2 editors. Alexbrn inserted the original OR and re-inserted it, despite my warning that it was OR. I was already preparing ANI against Alexbrn because they refuse to discuss issues (see here[231]. Jtydog joined in later in re-inserting the OR so it seemed the logical thing to do to include them too. This type of alliance behaviour is a pattern of behaviour established between the pair and it forces any editor with reasonable objections to appear to be edit-warring or even into 3RR.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the disagreement you are having with two editors is a content dispute. Can you actually point to where a consensus has developed to support your assertion that what is being inserted is original research? What attempts have you made to resolve the content dispute, and have you actually attempted dispute resolution? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing ANI It is amazing what a calm, articulate approach which does not seem hell-bent on destroying anyone who dares to use this ANI can achieve. Thank-you Ncmvocalist. I am new to this whole idea about disputes - I absolutely hate it. Your message sent me looking further into dispute resolution and I found there is a Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Clearly, that is where I should take my concerns. I will withdraw this ANI and thank ALL editors for their contributions. Ncmvocalist, you have done your good deed for the day at Wikipedia.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably a good move to withdraw your accusations of bad behavior based on your perception of OR edits. But, I don't think others in this thread are done yet discussing other topics, so this thread needs to remain open. Zad68 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually DrChrissy, while it's good to know that you had a read through that link now, it is worth bearing in mind that Zad68 actually already asked you that question about dispute resolution about 21 hours ago in this thread, but you did not appear to be responsive to it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The "This type of alliance behaviour" comment seems pretty telling of the problem I'm describing. Both are medical editors that frequent related noticeboards and Wikiprojects. I even saw some of those discussions before you started editing the article as well, so to insinuate that multiple editors with common interests showing up is problematic or an indication of something improper seems to be an issue itself. When editors edit in similar topics, well they often will show up at the same articles. To an outside observer, you do appear to be approaching this in a bristly manner coming in with guns a blazing for some reason, so I really do suggest disengaging a bit and attempting to approach this more civilly.
    Alexbrn and Jytdog do appear to be taking the standard approach we use at Wikipedia to summarizing scientific content. If you are unsure about that approach, this is not the board to discuss that. That discussion would belong a noticeboard like WP:NPOVN (we're talking about assessing WP:WEIGHT more than OR) or a Wikiproject like WT:MED as you've been directed to already. In the diff you gave, it doesn't appear you are being ignored, but just not getting an answer you either want or expect. That being said, I'd be terse with you too if I was being subjected to personal attacks [232]. If you want to have actual discussions on article talk pages, remember to follow WP:TPG, comment on content and not contributor, and avoid sniping like that. You can't expect people to want to work with you well otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And in fact I suggested several times even before this ANI posting that DrChrissy take his concerns to WT:MED to broaden the consensus, but to no avail. For some reason DrC seems averse to the idea of going to WT:MED and has just now taken his beef to WP:NORN. As I've said WT:MED would be the best place, as the issue at hand is a essentially how to translate medical content into lay encyclopedic content - so naturally we would consult editors with most experience in doing that.
    I can't help but suspect that the wretched influence of the WP:COIducks essay (of which Dr is a strong supporter[233]) is at work here, since it seems to be taken as okay to assume bad faith and view WP:MED-based editors as part of an unwanted "alliance". Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Add) And elsewhere DrChrissy has described[234] this ANI experience thus: "I have just suffered a major bruising by editors that just wanted to beat the crap out of me, rather than address the problem or indicate there might be other avenues of raising my concern". Which I would suggest indicates an unreceptive, unrepentant & problematic attitude. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alexbrn I have been accused of following and WP:Hounding Jtydog. I don't recall you ever having contributed to the talk page above before your last posting. Has someone given you the whistle to come and join in? Are you WP:Hounding me?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) @Alexbrn I requested here[235] that you strike your extremely misleading (perhaps a stronger word is more appropriate) comment about the way I raised this ANI regarding informing Jtydog. You seem to have forgotten to do this. Please give this your immediate attention - we would not want to mislead any admin thinking about closing this thread.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What I wrote was correct. I notice (as do others I'm sure) you're not addressing the points raised, but hurling out challenges. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic that gets old very quickly. Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we will let others make their minds up about that type of misleading edit. Another WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic that gets old very quickly is simply ignoring other editors questions. I asked you above whether you are WP:Hounding me - please address that question.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Thank you all for the very valuable lesson I've learned reading this discussion because I naively believed that when an editor offered an olive branch after being given guidance or proper direction, we didn't beat them over the head with it. I once likened it to strikes of comments we didn't mean but posted in the heat of the moment, or the like. Wonder where I got such a silly idea. Atsme☯Consult 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Atsme, The edit you replied to is a low blow. AlbinoFerret 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Redaction requested due to privacy concerns

    Done. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My apologies if this is not the appropriate place to submit such a request. I am seeking the immediate assistance of an administrator to redact this edit and any similar edits from the The Golden Kite, the Silver Wind article history due to privacy concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have hidden those edits using revdel and will request oversight. I don't mean to be overly critical, but reporting sensitive issues of privacy at a widely trafficked noticeboard like this one is not appropriate because it just brings the edits to wider attention, which is the opposite of what you intend. In the future, you can email WP:Oversight or contact an administrator privately. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ed for your assistance. My intent was to be as discrete as possible but felt the matter was urgent. In the future I will email as suggested. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Middayexpress editing my comments on a talk page

    Comments, even when quoting material, should be left intact when there isn't an exceptional reason (e.g. blatant vandalism, threats, etc.) for doing otherwise. For lists of tasks requiring action, the {{done}} template can be uncontroversially used for item-by-item responses and indication of completion. To answer the question that arose later in the thread, I would advise on not insisting on striking a user's comments as you are addressing them, as the user may not agree that the concerns have been fully addressed or may feel offended at the striking (e.g. new users). Using the template as suggested above should be fairly conflict-free. I have separately advised Middayexpress of my view on this through their talk page. Samsara 13:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. User:Middayexpress has twice removed part of a comment that I left when starting an RfC at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom. I reverted the first removal, only for them to remove the comment a second time. I presume that Middayexpress is removing the quote because they now agree to it being included in the article, but the RfC is open and we haven't yet heard other editors' views on it. It also seems to be in breach of WP:TPO. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed it because the material is not in dispute; it is already on the page [236]. I already pointed this out to you too on the talk page ("That is no longer relevant since I've noted the business material" [237]). The discussion policy pertains to material in dispute only anything else is irrelevant. Middayexpress (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You accepted the addition of the material to the article after I had started the RfC. That doesn't give you the right to go back and edit the wording of my request. I opened the RfC after you had disputed its addition. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but that's just it; I didn't alter your personal wording. I removed the disputed passages (which I believe you didn't originally write?) because it was no longer relevant. If I erred there, it was in not using the strike-through code; I believe that is what that markup is there for. Would you be happy if that strike-through code were used instead? Or would you prefer that we instead pretend that the content is still in dispute? Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotes were part of my comment and were followed by my signature. I would prefer to leave them there so that anyone who comments as part of the RfC can comment on the whole issue. It's not just up to you and me to decide what goes in the article. Other editors might not agree with the addition of that material. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem poor etiquette to remove parts of what someone has written in a talk page comment, even if you do think part of their comment has become redundant. It's for the user who made the comment to strike if they see fit (and that's also better than removal, as it allows future readers to understand the flow of the conversation). To then delete it a second time, after the user in question has expressed a desire to see their comment remain intact, is particularly baffling. I suggest that you should not edit other people's talk page comments in future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And especially since I'd already objected to Middayexpress editing my comments on another talk page just yesterday! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have just restored the removed part of the comment, and I suggest it should be left there since Cordless Larry has expressed a desire for it not to be removed! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry: I already told you yesterday that I would add those links if you had no objection [238], and you indicated that you had no objection ("I don't particularly object to any of those, although I don't know much about the cases. Feel free to suggest those moves if you wish" [239]). You only objected after the fact. At any rate, with regard to the present page, I ask you again, would you be happy if that strike-through code were used instead? Or would you prefer that we instead pretend that the content is still in dispute? Because the strike-through code appears to be actual correct policy here. Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, yesterday's incident was probably the result of a misunderstanding, but I made it clear that I objected to what you'd done, and yet you did something similar today. Please do not edit my comments again. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You made it clear that you objected only after the fact, as the timestamps show. It's also not the same thing, as you did not originally write the disputed passage; you simply reposted it. At any rate, I believe this is a misunderstanding as well. As a gesture of good faith, please now strike-through the irrelevant passage per policy. Middayexpress (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After the fact of it happening yesterday, but before it happening (twice) today. I'm not sure which policy states that I need to strike through that text, and as I've said, other editors might want to comment on its suitability for inclusion in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not twice before today either. You can't time-travel, asfaik. Anyway, WP:WIKICODE is the relevant policy: "It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup". Given this, will you or won't you now strike-through the irrelevant passage per policy? Middayexpress (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy says it should be deleted though? No time travel is needed. I objected yesterday, you edited my comments again today, I objected again, and you edited them again. Please do not do so again. An apology would be nice, rather than constant evasion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The situations aren't the same, as shown. At any rate, we both apparently erred since, per WP:WIKICODE, the actual appropriate policy in such matters is to use the strike-through code. Middayexpress (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a read of WP:WIKICODE, and there's nothing there that says that comments that form part of an RfC discussion should be struck out when one editor has agreed with them. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an administrator please advise on this? I'm happy to strike the comment out if policy dictates that's what I should do, but Middayexpress hasn't been able to point me to such a policy, and I'd personally prefer to leave the RfC in tact. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can see this is perfectly clear-cut. Only in a very limited range of circumstances is it acceptable to change another editors' comments, such as in the case of serious libel or personal attacks. Neither the fact that another editor believes the content is no longer relevant nor the fact that the content has now been agreed to justifies such a change. There was no good reason for Middayexpress to remove the content in the first place, but what is more edit-warring to keep the content out was really not a good idea: that the sort of thing could lead to being blocked from editing. However, I see that since the last time that Cordless Larry's content was restored to the talk page, Middayexpress has edited the page again without removing it, so presumably the dispute is now over, and we can all move on to more constructive things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Moxy_reborn

    Closed for the sake of our own sanity. Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi

    I have no idea what is going on with this users userpage but I think it could do with deleting. The page refuses to finish loading so i cant tag it for deletion. Any ideas? Also its a distinct possibility they may be attempting to ipersonate User:Moxy. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi. I am not trying to impersonate anybody. I do not know who that user is anyway. I don't know what's wrong with the page and am trying to fix it. If you delete my user page is my account gone as well? Moxy reborn (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If the page is deleted it just turns it into a blank canvas again. Which should fix the issue currently going on. Amortias (T)(C) 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. Then delete away. If you're able to. Thank you Moxy reborn (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok problem partially solved. Managed to delete the images so its back to blank. Not quite sure how you managed to post 1 million bytes of Angela Merkel but its gone now and lets never speak of it again. Amortias (T)(C) 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I like Angela Merkel. She's sexy. Moxy reborn (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Protection request: Gino D'Acampo article

    This has been cross-posted to WP:RFPP. Requesting administrative assistance with this page, as there are several dozen different IP addresses and sleeper accounts being utilized to commit WP:BLP-offensive edits. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [240] --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected by at least 2 admins... Zad68 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding the following IP addresses and vandalism-only accounts for consideration. Some of the accounts have been active since 2013. Bypassing AIV in this instance due to special circumstances.

    Please use discretion, as some edits are more egregious than others. See the article history for additional IP editors, as not all have been listed here.

    Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irishman on the wikicircuit

    Quack, quack, quack... (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Irishman on the wikicircuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) caught my attention with this edit to Horror film [241], particularly the sentence which reads: "During the 1947 elections in Greenland, very little happened on the world stage, but it should be noted that David Beals has defeated the administrators of this sad project again, as the edit here is not even serious and yet the fools have been fooled once more." Raising it here on the chance that someone may recognise the MO, perhaps as a previously sanctioned editor? Certainly appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Keri (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Yeah, some sort of block might be in order for that. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David Beals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a well known serial spammer and banned user. Requesting immediate block and CU check for sleepers. KonveyorBelt 01:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, checkuser needed. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     CheckUser note: All known accounts have been blocked. Mike V • Talk 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'd like some of my pages and templates deleted.

    And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    May you please delete the following pages and templates.

    Thanks!, TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done – EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abuse of rollback by User:Aurora2698

    I think we're done here. IP blocked for partially-related disruption and we have an acknowledgement with regard to talk page protocols (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 13:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has for the fifth time restored warnings to my talk page which I've deleted. 91.125.152.104 (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly learn to discuss the issue with the editor in question before you come here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. Apologies for any inconvenience. I should have known this beforehand. This will not happen again. Aurora (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues

    This user apparently has a single issue that he is now concerning himself with, which takes a discussion from November 2014 (may have been an RfC) as his inspiration for changing the infobox entry of every atheist and similarly convinced person he can find to "religion: none". I questioned that choice on an article I happened to be watching, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as this person is notable because of her change of faith. His latest action was to post an approximately two-page (printed ones, remember those? ;) ) exposé of his motivations. In the meantime, I had contacted the closer of the debate who seemed to think the closure was less prescriptive than interpreted by Guy Macon. The twist is that Macon has now met opposition to his changes on several articles, and seems to be pasting the same boilerplate into the talk pages of all atheist/agnostic/etc. biographies where this has occurred. It looks to me like a situation that could spin out of control, and I didn't want to have to tell myself that I saw it coming and did nothing, so I'm raising a flag here. As far as my "involvement" is concerned, I'm not really interested in pursuing this debate any more, but for obvious reasons will not be posting advice or suggest sanctions or anything like that. However, like I said, in my view this could be a problem in the making. Samsara 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've encountered this at Christopher Hitchens, and was inclined to agree with Guy that atheism is not a religion. The closing statement on the discussion notes: "There is also a consensus that the phrase 'Religion: Atheist' should not appear, being a contradiction in terms". Is your concern with this (which sounds pretty prescriptive to me) or rather with the way in which Guy is going about the task? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the title states, the concern is the posting of text blocks. The fact that this is happening in a growing number of venues suggests a certain likelihood to become disruptive. Samsara 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the clarification. Guy's post at Talk:Christopher Hitchens was rather overwhelming. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samsara: are you referring to the use of ""Non-religious" is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby." in the edit summary? Because other than that, the edits themselves don't look like a large block of text, but rather the removal of one or two words from the infobox. I can't see anything particularly problematic about the edits myself at the moment. It's probably worth having a conversation with the user on his/her talk page first as well - many disputes or worries can be resolved that way without needing to come here to ANI.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look for the article talk page edits that add 13k characters. Cheers, Samsara 12:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear. The only issue is whether it's appropriate to post the same lengthy explanation on the talk pages of articles where he's met resistance. Based on a look at his history, it seems this text has only been added 11 times. That doesn't seem ideal but doesn't quite seem disruptive either. Still, imagine if e.g. Giraffedata copy/pasted his "comprises of" essay into the talk pages of every article where someone took issue with it :) Maybe the best thing for Guy to do would be to put the text on a page in his userspace or even as an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, and point people to that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to agree that it would be better for Guy to link to this text if it's basically the same thing, rather than to post it to many different places. 11 places isn't that many, but it is starting to get up there. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My own view is that Guy should take a step back from editing the Religion boxes. If you take a look at his contributions, he has made dozens (hundreds?) of edits, including a couple of dozen reverts, to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheist" from infoboxes, on at least two separate occasions, at the end of last year, and again more recently. I personally think this is borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Even if Guy is right, is replacing "Religon = None (atheist)" with "Religion = None" really the most useful thing he could be spending his time on? Even if this is a true reflection of consensus? And I would personally dispute that anyway, see Talk:Johann Hari if you particularly care about the content dispute. But I think the issue here is more to do with conduct than content. The content dispute can hopefully be resolved by discussion and introducing a new field for non-religious spiritual beliefs. The way Guy has gone about his campaign suggests (to me at least) that he is too emotionally involved and should find something else to spend his time on until things have calmed down. The use of "shock and awe" cut and paste of a few thousand characters to multiple Talk pages on a disputed issue does not help.
    Having been advised by Guy to consider dispute resolution I had been seriously considering raising the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on this page. Having taken a few deep breaths and looked at Guy's contributions history (and he's clearly a valuable member of the community) I decided there were more constructive ways to proceed.
    My suggestion to Guy however would be to take a few steps back and consider how his actions might appear to others. Taking some time to concentrate on other Wikipedia activities might be a good idea. --Merlinme (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus. However, I'm inclined to agree that Guy copy-pasting the same talk page argument is a tad unhelpful, although using the same edit summary consistently IS a good idea, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute, vigorously, whether Guy's position has been backed by a large discussion. I've read the large discussion multiple times. I took part in the large discussion. I dispute Guy's conclusion, as do other editors. The summariser is on record as saying that they didn't mean the summary to be as conclusive as Guy is taking it to be.
    But I don't wish to get into a discussion about the content here. I mean, I will if you want me to. (Have you read my response to Guy's cut and paste points, at Talk:Johann Hari?) But that is not why I am here. I am here more because of how Guy is behaving in the dispute.
    S Marshall, the summariser who Guy is invoking in defence of his attempt to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheism" from the Religion box, even in brackets, has clarified their position here, at the request of Samsara: [242]. Essentially, S Marshall says that they did not think local consensus should be trampled over in quite the way Guy seems to be attempting. (My personal comment would be that in the case of "No Consensus", the "victory" frequently goes to the editor prepared to devote most time to the matter. Guy seems to be attempting to exploit that fact.) After that clarification, on the same Talk page, Guy did a 13,384 character cut and paste which ignored S Marshall's comments:[243]
    At this point, I have to question whether Guy is actually reading the Talk pages he's cutting and pasting to. It seems to me more like a bulldozer approach than anything else.
    I repeat, he should take a step back and find something else to occupy him with for the time being.--Merlinme (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it, Merlinme. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behaviour, and reminds me a bit of Collect. Returning to the original poster's concern: I don't think that Guy Macon's post is excessively long. I managed to read through it in a couple of minutes. Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The copy/paste edit summaries have been an issue. Pretty much everything I had to say on that specific matter I said here. The immediate response was just removing my comment without making any of his own but he did seem to stop that specific habit afterwards. Normally that would be the end of it but this is a pattern of his. He seems to think this is all somehow very clever and the only explanations I can think of is that he either doesn't care that behavior is an extremely unproductive way of going about things or that he actually intends to agitate. Neither is great. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In reply to Kraxler's post, I repeat, I am not here because of the content dispute. There are other ways to resolve that. I am here because of the rather combative approach Guy Macon has taken to the content dispute. His approach seems to be more designed to cow into submission than persuade, and in my opinion is highly likely to start an edit war one of these days. I also think he's too emotionally involved in the Religion/ atheist content dispute, which probably leads to the style observed; and that is why I've suggested he take a break. --Merlinme (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. GraniteSand, there is a maximum number of characters for edit summaries, it's impossible to complain about their size. This thread was opened by Samsara to complain abouut the size of a certain post added to several pages where users apparently were unaware of the discussion which established the current consensus. Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot. Kraxler (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Ohnoitsjamie, keep an eye our for block evasion because user has openly said that they get a new IP by unplugging their modem when they are in disputes.

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

    The page (Apple Watch), was semi-protected after this user was edit warring (under a different IP), and they are now making legal threats on the talk page saying "I WILL be seeking legal action against you for the FULL cost of you interfering with my computer" to KAMiKAZOW (talk · contribs). Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why IPs are able to edit Wikipedia. GregKaye 16:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive sock/proxy IP

    120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the unconstructive editing of recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), like adding nonsense to a sentence about a lawsuit.

    The blocked sock [244] modified the sentence "A central allegation of the suit is that Barclays misrepresented the level of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool to other clients." by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source. Here the IP sock [245] modified the same sentence, also by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source.

    I assumed good faith, started discussion on 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC) and followed the protocol of talk page explanations and warnings, e.g. here [246] about the lawsuit. The IP, despite some niche topic knowledge about high-frequency trading, is acting as if it could not hear me. When being warned about edit warring, [247] the IP responds by making three reverts in different articles, [248] [249] [250] inlcuding re-inserting "from using GPUs" in the lawsuit sentence (last link), with an edit summary of "senteice is not talking about lawsuit".

    Obviously unconstructive and disruptive, and I think sufficient to block the sock IP and semi-protect the articles edited. I wanted to make this report concise, there are more issues pointed out in the section "April 2015" on the IP's talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have account just forget to log in, this person is very bad . she keep undoing everyone edit and I see admin already warn her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) I ask her nicely on her talk page why she keep undoing my edit and also give reference on the article talk page before editing, she never discuss and just report me. Mkb764920 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The April 9/10 timestamps of your edits with 120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs) and Mkb764920 (talk · contribs) show that you did not "just forget to log in". Mkb764920 is an obvious sock, created yesterday. Kristina451 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    admins, I just start using en.wikipedia. using IP for few month and now create account. I have long time account in ja.wikipedia. I see she only spend time on edit war, I contribute more than her already （＾∀＾）and will no need to argue with her, I will only talk to admins. please stop her from undo war. Mkb764920 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by CrazyAces489

    CrazyAces489 accused a number of editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse of being racist saying they were biased against African American athletes. Besides the original comment, he made additional ones that were removed by Vanjagenije [251]. The SPI accusations are bad enough, but accusing a bunch of editors of being racists is a total violation of WP:NPA. Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's also a WP:AGF Issue. Did they redact their allegations? Weegeerunner (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Weegeerunner, you'll notice he not only hasn't retracted his allegations, he keeps spreading them (see below).Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I simply make a larger number of articles that consist of individuals who are African American. [252]. I pointed out the statistic that 6 of 7 articles nominated for deletion all at once were African American. Every article was deleted except for James Thompson (a black national champion in Judo) and Karl Geis (who happens to be white). [253].

    Racism did exist in the martial arts especially in the 1960's and individuals formed federations to combat it such as Steve Sanders (karate). In AFD,I stated that racism existed in Judo [254]. To which I received a reply of "it didn't seem to stop other African Americans from reaching the Olympics. [255]. I stated that only 1 black person reached the Olympics during that period of the 1960's. [256] . Racial discrimination existed in the United States as we can see via programs like Affirmative action in the United States, John Carlos was kicked out of the Olympics in 1968 for protests against racism, the US Government was actively working against civil rights groups via COINTELPRO, even Olympic Gold Medalists suffered huge discrimination for being black and engaging in interracial relationships Milt Campbell. My point being that ignoring (or downplaying) the fact that many of the individuals werent given a lot of media attention to which can plausibly be attributed to discrimination. Fact remains that Racial inequality in the United States still exists. Now I am deemed a racist because I pointed out a statistic? Should I ignore that statistic?

    I believe this is retaliation for putting up a Sockpuppet Investigation on the individuals (which wasn't the first sockpuppet investigation into the trio). They have accused me of being barely literate. [257], [258], [259], [260], [261]. Have told me to "stick my head in the sand" [262] They claimed there was no indication of race in my articles [263] I stated the articles of individuals who are black are tagged with African American Portal. [264] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not going to get into the racism part of this except to say that CA489 has highlighted some... interesting... statistics and anomalies and from the outside, his interpretation those statistics doesn't seem way off-base. That doesn't mean those interpretations are correct but I don't think he's wrong to suggest it should be investigated. That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. The suggestion that editors have worked together to secure particular AFD results in this area is not new. In fact, it was the basis of the last sock-puppetry investigation which (while not drawing specific conclusions) did point out that there was a high degree of correlation between specific accounts in AFDs in this topic area, and we're talking now about some of the same accounts. This was admin Dennis Brown's closing statement there. Rather than do their damnedest to get some separation between the accounts and broaden their horizons to ensure that the same accusations couldn't be made again, it seems little has changed from the situation that concerned Dennis 3 years ago. Even in defending himself, one editor confirmed that, "yes when someone like [...] puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article...". At a minimum, this is a form of WP:TAGTEAM which, while not sock-puppetry, is concerning. I don't think anyone's hands are clean here. Strongly suggest CrazyAces489 leaves the SPI to do its work - there's a fine line between raising legitimate concerns in an SPI and making accusations you simply don't have evidence for. St★lwart111 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalwart111, are you saying the victims are too blame? That it's OK to call editors racist and bigoted if they vote to delete poorly written articles on non-notable African American martial artists? This isn't about sockpuppets, it's about CrazyAces 489 calling a group of editors racist simply because they voted to delete some of his articles.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. - I think I made myself pretty clear on that point. You need to perhaps have a look at this from the perspective of an outsider - a group of editors who have been accused of meat-puppetry in the past (with well-respected admins drawing the conclusion that there was at least some collusion) collaborate to delete a series of articles. Upon being called out for the "collaboration" part (and before any accusations of racism) one of the editors confirms he does indeed track and tag-team on some articles. So an admittedly collaborative effort deletes a series of articles - what do those articles have in common to warrant that effort? The particular personal attacks used in retaliation certainly don't help. Whether you meant to or not, the result remains the same. CrazyAces489's comments were not appropriate, but you guys aren't helping yourselves either. St★lwart111 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to just leave this alone but a couple points need to be made. First of all it is my name on the SPI title and I have never previously been part of any investigation - this constant referral to the previously investigated trio is nonsense. Secondly in an attempt to answer the allegation I described how some of the overlap could occur. I actively search out and comment on newly created martial arts articles and those put of for deletion and make sure they are visible via categories, project tags, deletion sorting. This is not tag teaming by any stretch but knowing the behavior of other long term AfD contributers making the search more efficient (if this is so wrong wikipedia should remove the user contribution tag). I certainly disagree with the one example I gave enough to make that pretty clear. Now to the allegations of racial bias - I challenge anyone to find any sort of bias of any of the people listed in that SPI investigation. They/I are long term editors with a very long history in martial arts AfDs. The person making the allegation chooses to write articles about African-American athletes (no issue there) that have questionable notability (where the issue arises) - and that and only that is the overlap. I am at a loss what the false accusations of Sockpuppetry and suggestion of racism are meant to accomplish - both are certainly upsetting.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused why we're allowing this to get so far off points. Hundreds of words about racism and the martial arts.....but nothing even sounding like Crazy retracting his allegations of racism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked CrazyAces489 indefinitely for all this. Indefinitely because this was such an egregious violation of the WP:WIAPA standards, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." I'm open to an unblock if he's ready to repent or otherwise behave more properly. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyttend: Isn't this too harsh? CrazyAces489 has never actually called anyone a racist. He just pointed out that some articles were nominated for deletion by a group of users, and that those articles were about black people. I agree that this is a kind of bad faith accusation, but it's not really the kind that deserves indefinite block. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You got indefinitely blocked in this incident, and he's done worse than you: why does he deserve a lesser sanction? I don't follow your reasoning :-) Speaking seriously, while the charge of racism is a problem, the big problem is the extensive accusations of WP:SOCK violations without any evidence whatsoever. We routinely block people for making a pile of "ordinary" personal attacks, and per WP:WIAPA, this kind of accusation is as bad, or worse, if made without evidence. Do you think I ought to unblock him completely, or reduce the unblock? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to bed momentarily, and I'll be offline most of tomorrow; any admin who believes it appropriate should feel free to remove or reduce the block without further discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a difficult case. I do believe the guy is here to try and improve things and there are article he's created which are going to be useful additions (though arguably the work required to bring those up to scratch offset the values somewhat). And I do believe there are elements of systematic bias which end up causing some of the articles to be deleted (That bias will be related to our policies and outside world factors), though much of it is that the subjects are at best borderline.
    The racism thing to my mind (and I was one of the editors listed at the SPI) was undoubtedly an attempt to smear those being listed, as is the repeated referral to previous accusations against individual which led no where (the SPI, he's done the same to me in other contexts) (He also created and article on the racism topic synthesizing the same accusation of such racism on wikipedia)
    But the real problem is the amount of time and effort to get him to see where the problem lies and adapt his ways.
    • The unblock request for this he still doesn't seem to understand that casually mentioning statistics on race in an SPI case for that context is going to be taken as implying something, and could be deeply offensive.
    • The Ron Duncan article, where a DRV last year had several editors point of the poor references, the same got pointed out again by at least one new editor in the more recent DRV. Yet when it came to another editor doing the heavy lifting to sort it out, he complained essentially it was all an attempt to gut the article to have it deleted, he readded the references which were removed to the talk page as "needed for later", it took a fair bit of effort to move him to the idea that the references were simply no good. And even in the last 24 hours he seems to still not really get it [265] again thinking others sorting out the articles were the problem.
    • A few of his articles have gone the one event way, so we end up with him listing articles for deletion on that basis Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crispus_Attucks
    I'm sure I can dig out much more, but all this is offseting the positive work he puts in. Really I don't think indefinite block is right at this stage, but he really really does need a mentor and some restrictions around certain actions without using that mentor. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the comments by Bishonen in the ANI (Questionable behavior by Niteshift36) got it right and I certainly did not expect an indefinite block. There is a cycle of victimhood that has developed (clear when one reads the request for block review) and now that the block has been imposed a cool down period makes sense. If it is lifted clear restrictions on article creation (must go through AfC) and zero tolerance for the type of accusations he has engaged in would be a good idea.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock on hold. Not having noticed the comment by Nyttend about being offline today etc (I only read the other ANI thread above), I put the unblock on hold and asked Nyttend about it on his page. Now that I've been advised of Nyttend's note about it in this thread, I'm planning to unblock without waiting for him, provided CrazyAces responds constructively to the note I've just put on his page. You make a very good point about the "cycle of victimhood", Peter Rehse; I hope CrazyAces will be able to break out of it. Compare also my earlier comments on my own page. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I agree that an indefinite block was too harsh, but a shorter one might provide an appropriate cooling off period. CrazyAces489's argument that he never called anyone racist is, at best, disingenuous when he repeatedly (in at least 3 separate discussions) claimed the only reasons articles were deleted was because they were about African Americans. Even several independent editors said he was calling people biased. It's even more egregious because a number of people he included didn't even vote at those discussions. Clearly he needs to learn appropriate WP behavior. I've fixed several of his articles (one of which didn't contain a single complete sentence) by rewriting, correcting facts, and adding sources and his response was to accuse me of hounding him. I like Bishonen's idea of not allowing him to post any articles directly to mainspace--that seems like it would alleviate much of the problem. Given his combativeness and poor track record at AfD discussions, it might be best if he avoided them (either by mandate or voluntarily) until he has demonstrated a much better understanding of WP policies. Papaursa (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was a bit surprised about the indef (though in fairness, indef means no set length. It can be a day or forever). Papaursa's comments are pretty accurate. When we tried to talk to CA about his constant use of sources that weren't RS's, and adding trivial lines just to stuff more sources in, his response was to tell us that "I create so others can work". When we tried to discuss that with him, his focus was solely on the number of articles he has created and refused to see that Wikipedia is improved more by some quality articles than by 3 times as many crap ones. I did make a suggestion to him on Bishoenen's page that I thought would really help him grow into a productive editor (to go through the process of trying to bring one article to GA status), but the response to it was mostly reasons why he didn't want to. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristina451 edit war

    Sorry my English is not very good.

    This person is keep undoing my edits.

    First I make good edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:120.137.174.133&diff=prev&oldid=655757780) but she don't like the edit so she delete.

    Every edit I make she follow me and undo my edit!

    I try ask her nicely why (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=655756643) on her talk page but she threaten me about some lawsuit.

    Then I make edit to other article that have 2 good refs (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_running&diff=prev&oldid=655823479) but she still delete and ask me to use talk page because she don't like me.

    So I did use the article talk page ! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Front_running)

    Now why she still make up this story and report me? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=655856044) She never even look at the evidence I give on the article talk page !!

    I see other admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) already tell her on her talk page not to edit war and insist undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.137.174.133 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    by the way she say I use IP??? this is static ip register to my company, I just forget to log on, this is my account. crazy!! Mkb764920 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) If you forgot to log in, you ipso facto an IP-editor. No shame in that, BTW, many IP-editors make useful contributions. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just curious, do you have any connection to User:David Adam Kess or his Japanese account? Because your use of English is quite similar as is your interest in Dark liquidity and Front running and both of you accused Kristina451 of stalking. Liz Read! Talk! 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is impersonation by the same person with a history of socking and proxy abuse. The blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs) previously tried to implicate David Adam Kess when he almost certainly was not involved. "David, Melissa and I agreed to stop WP:MEAT." [266] Kristina451 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV backlog

    RESOLVED
    AIV backlog cleared! (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a backlog presently at WP:AIV which is approaching the 2 hour mark. Would it be possible for an administrator to please review? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV has been cleared. Thanks, Nakon 02:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Midnight Rider(film) and Randall Miller Large Scale deletions

    User:NorthBySouthBaranof has deleted massive sourced sections of both Midnight Rider (film) and Randall Miller that relate to the felony criminal conviction of Randall Miller. User sighted incorrectly WP:SUMMARY which would not apply to simply deleting material. Seems like a clear effort to remove only information related to crimes that are highly notable and sourced. Concensus on talk page is that there should be a spinoff from film page to one focused on tragedy and crimminal convictions. As this is a substantial effort the active editors familiar with complicated issues surrounding page had agreed on talk page to wait until completion of criminal trial, OSHA hearing and report by the FRA which could result in federal criminal issues. These edits have been done such that edit conflicts do not allow for a revert.DFinmitre (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no reason to do anything. This is a garden variety dispute, and there has not been enough time given to normal dispute resolution processes. No one (has yet) done anything inappropriate, except maybe the OP, who ran here seeking some sanction against someone merely on account of a single disagreement. Make your case on article talk pages, listen to the statements others make, and allow the consensus building process to work. Otherwise, I can't see there is any reason to do anything right now. It is really bad form to run to get someone sanctioned as soon as a disagreement begins. --Jayron32 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When you bring an issue to ANI, you are required to notify the other editor, which you did not. I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof for you. However, as Jayron32 notes, there is nothing material to discuss here. This is a content dispute. Discussion on the article talk pages is still underway. You have provided no indication of conduct issues by the other editor. Read the dispute resolution policy. If talk page discussion is not successful, follow one of the various content dispute resolution procedures described in that policy rather than coming here about a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My appologies for not notifying editor, thank you for doing that. Thank you to the admin that resolved this. The clear issue, and why I brought it here was that due to the inability to revert due to edit conflicts, there was no way for regular users to fix this without the assistance of an admin.

    This can now be closed as resolved. Thank you. 76.97.45.210 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no "vandalism" involved here. The article in question was far too long, far too detailed and violated NPOV in several areas. The reporting user is effectively a single-purpose account with an axe to grind and a clear advocacy interest in this issue. For example, they have repeatedly made unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about people related to this event, have called such people "cold-blooded murderers", "sick sick people", etc. This is not the behavior one expects of a neutral Wikipedia editor interested in creating articles which accurately and dispassionately describe events. It is clear that they have some sort of vested interest or deep-rooted personal feelings about the issue. While those may be understandable in the wake of a tragic workplace accident that could and should have been avoided, Wikipedia is not the place to further such a campaign, nor is it a place to express displeasure or hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed the issue at Midnight Rider (film) and Randall Miller from a report at WP:BLPN. As NorthBySouthBaranof has hinted, there are SPAs trying to use Wikipedia to punish a living person (albeit, one imprisoned for involuntary manslaughter) and further eyes on the articles would be useful. The issue is that a person working on a film was killed and the director has been held responsible. The SPAs want to trumpet the details of the director's problems, when the correct approach is to write an article on the incident, if WP:N is satisfied. If a separate article on the incident is not warranted, the articles on the film and the directory should not be turned into fake articles on the incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling and edit-warring IP

    86.24.128.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), probably a logged out editor, has been trolling the ref-deks over te past week, and is curently engaged in edit-warring. Sample diffs: [267], [268]. Can some admin apply the needed block ? Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's a case of long-term abuse. He's been at it for months, and he hops IPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 31 hours for the 3RR violation. If another admin concludes a longer block is necessary based on the long-term abuse, I have no objection to it being increased. Monty845 22:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Found the previous threads: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Mandruss (a boomerang block when he tried to report Mandruss for reverting his stupidity) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#Refdesk_troll_resuming_activity_after_returning_from_block. There were other IPs after that.
    The IP usually registers to the UK, but they seem to use proxies or spoofing as well (quack). They usually ask some lurid or fecal question that they clearly did not bother checking our articles on, or even think about. When reverting other editors, they put their response in the piped link for the reverting editor's talk page (like here or here), and regularly bring up "AGF" despite their obvious trolling.
    The only way we're going to deal with this is if admins are given carte blanche to block and page protect any time that IP becomes active. Don't even wait for him to edit war, just revert, revdel, and block for a long time. If he hops, page protection. Everything short of that has regularly and completely failed, and he clearly gets off from it all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the troll used the account User:Csssats, can we just treat any and all activity by the user as block evasion? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad faith editing and falsehood summary description by 213.164.7.130

    This IP user continuously pretend to fix the bad English on above article since several months ago, and he always summarize his editing as "English ..." (i.e. "fixed the bad English". see summary fields on his contribution page). However, his above editing is clearly not in the scope of grammatical correction nor rewriting of expression, but in the delusional rewriting without reliable sources. I have already pointed out the issue on his talk page [269]. However, he don't admit his mistake on the summary field, and even not admit the falsehood on his rewriting [270]. As a conclusion, his above editing seems an intentional vandalism. I need a solution to handle his bad faith editing. --Clusternote (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. This IP user started the reverting war on above article [271] before reaching a consensus on his talk page, thus I've reverted it as vandalism [272]. --Clusternote (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eh, reverting that isn't fixing vandalism. At best you can call it disruptive editing, or editing against consensus. And I'm guessing from the mdash in the text you restored that they were undoing your edits? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is not delusional rewriting but correcting seriously deficient English--is this one of the edits you mean? (It corrects a verb error--I noted a few verb errors in your complaint as well.) This edit is an improvement (it corrects your earlier edit), as is this, and this. I don't think someone needs talk page consensus for grammatical corrections. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed your valuable advices before editing the article... I will try to re-examine my editing by following your advices, from now! --Clusternote (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Clusternote, you know a lot of useful stuff; this IP editor knows a few different things. It's from the collaboration that we get decent articles that make this encyclopedia so worthwhile. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by User:Panewithholder?

    (non-admin closure) Collectively taken care of by the admin corps, in particular Monty845 and Nakon. BMK (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The newly created editor User:Dickordat appears to be Panewithholder evading his block. It's also worth checking these accounts for their connection to Panewithholder or Concordat:

    Since Dickordat posted the same poem and image to the user pages of all these users. BMK (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, this seems to have been taken care of by various admins. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uncooperative IP adding unsourced future air dates to anime articles and lists

    Originally posted at WP:AIV

    85.211.129.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This one is rather complex case. This user flat out ignores previous warnings about requiring sources for future dates of upcoming television broadcasts. This has been going on for months now, often changes IPs ever week or two, without the user ever discussion their edits with others. Because this a range block may be required. Has previous edited using the following IPs (not complete).

    If this was a logged in account, the user would have been blocked long ago under WP:COMPETENCE. I would like to thank KirtZJ for adding some of the IPs in the original AIV report. Jayron32 suggested that this be moved to ANI because of the need for a range block. —Farix (t | c) 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • We're an encyclopedia, not a TV guide--but hey, I guess this is what we do these days: listing future TV broadcasts. Does anything need (semi-)protecting, or is a rangeblock enough? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How feasible is a range block? Because otherwise, we are taking about semi-protecting some 20 articles and they do get plenty of productive edits from IPs. —Farix (t | c) 04:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest IP still continues to add unsourced future airdates despite warnings and this very topic.[273][274][275][276][277] This demonstrates the editors unwillingness to discuss their troublesome activity with other editors. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyer22

    Flyer22 has been following me around, talking mad trash, and accusing me of general malfeasance. He wont stop. He has disrupted the article I am editing and is now encouraging other editors to get in my face. I tried to talk to him but he wouldnt listen worth a damn. Bottom line, will someone tell this guy to just LAY OFF?? Sorry but dont give me a shit sandwich and then tell me it tastes like French Vanilla ice cream.

    Ok here is the first link where he accuses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=655748010

    I tried to talk to him and he just basically told me to pound sand and that he wouldnt listen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655748010

    Then one of the bosses erased his garbage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655749664

    But he wouldnt stop with the trash talking. I asked one of the bosses about making A complaint but decided to be COOL about it and not do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cavalierman#Complaint

    But again he wouldnt stop with the garbage. THEN listen to this! He accuses a DIFFERENT editor (capitalismojo) of using socks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22&diff=prev&oldid=655864877

    The other editor who is very respected on wikipedia is rightfully scandalized and defends himself. Then when I go to the other editors page to tell him what a nutjob Flyer22 is he gets mad at me! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capitalismojo#Flyerr22

    All I want is for Flyer22 to keep my name out of his mouth and if he has A problem with me then come to me about it and discuss it like adults. And stop posting shit about me at the articles I am doing!

    Thank you Cavalierman (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh brother! Not this again!! --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the above an example of "discuss it like adults"? Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone wanting know more on this matter can see here, here, here and here. Whether or not Cavalierman is Cali11298 (talk · contribs), I noted that he is not entirely new to editing Wikipedia; he isn't. I did not call him a WP:Sockpuppet, even though I'm certain that he is one (of whatever registered editor, whether he is using a WP:Proxy or similar "protection" to keep from being connected to the master account). In my opinion, that he is so concerned with what I'm stating on my user talk page, and pursued me on this matter (despite being advised not to on his user talk page), points to truth in my words regarding him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This person is obviously very ill. All I am asking is to please stop him from harassing me. That's it. Just leave me alone and stop accusing me of things I didnt do. Cavalierman (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The tone of this complaint is remarkably similar in its adolescent quality to the previous one made by Jhamilton303, in an AN/I report that's probably still above this somewhere. I'd venture that they're connected, and I'm heading over to the SPI to say so. BMK (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flyer22:, why does your userpage contain instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation? Samsara 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samsara: Are you seriously suggesting "if you see a "new editor" making superficial edits to an article (such as WP:Dummy edits) in a row (meaning at least ten edits), you have likely spotted a WP:Sockpuppet or a different type of returning editor." equates to instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation? --NeilN talk to me 06:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility by Prashant and suspected sock

    I recently opened a sockpuppet investigation on Prashant! and Daan0001. Soon after opening it, Prashant! went into a barrage of personal attacks directed towards me on my talk page, on the investigation page, and on his own talk page by misusing the "help me" template. A sample statement would be: "These kind of users should be ashamed of themselves and their face should be blackened to show how much they are..". Soon after, the suspected sock Daan0001 vandalised my user page by posting this threat: "Told you to keep away from me ! I won't repeat lol". Prashant and Daan also had this gem of a conversation on the latter's talk page. Even if the two accounts aren't related, which we'll only know when the investigation reports comes, both these users need a lesson or two in civility. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is after me since day one and first prove that Dan is my sock and then say this. You have dragged me in this situation without any fault. That's why I busted on you as you didn't even replied my message on your talk page. I just want to say that you manipulate things very much. Who knows Dan might be your sock.—Prashant 03:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this exchange, I'd endorse the SPI investigation. There's something odd going on here. Nakon 03:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I was saying. Plus, Krimuk90 and I does not get along, so obviously he would try every trick to avenge me. He is very frustrated person. When I posted a message on his talk page he didnt replied and reverted with no reply. But, he is good at manipulating things. So, I guess his story is quite interesting. But, is abolutely fiction.—Prashant 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Prashant, please we know we are totally different people. Please let the admin do their work. We don't need to communicate or interact with haters. This sock thing between you and me really cracked me up last night ! I'm still laughing for this fact. Lol Daan0001 (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were so nonchalant about it, you wouldn't have vandalised my user page. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I have my viva exams today and I'm here to prove something that is as claer as water. So, who won't be unhappy about this. Tell me?—Prashant 06:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Prashant, please concentrate on your exams as it's much important like I was last months. As it's priority. We don't need to prove anything or make any statements or waste our time on this silly accusation. ( This really crack me up though how people hate others lol ) For a moment I thought it was April 1st haha. Take it easy and let ADMIN sort this. Daan0001 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with Kelami

    Article semi-protected for three weeks by Nakon. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some IP editors, in particular 86.1.121.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are repeatedly adding information about a World of Warcraft character to the article on an Azerbaijani town of the same name (Kelami). I have tried to discuss the issue on talk pages (Talk:Kelami, User talk:86.1.121.29, and User talk:86.22.124.190), with no success. Is there anything that can be done to deal with this issue? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the article in question for three weeks. In the future, please report these articles to WP:RFPP. Thanks, Nakon 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Subtle vandalism, user warned multiple times

    The problematic IP editor 76.167.232.59 has been performing subtle vandalism in China-related articles, and has been disruptive site-wide despite being warned multiple times by different editors. They make inappropriate changes to Chinese romanisations (for example, changing "Xueqi" to "Hsuechi"), edits which ordinary non-Chinese speaking editors may not be able to pick up and notice. China-related articles have a standardised format for romanisation (see WP:MOSZH), and this editor is intentionally attempting to increase the workload of editors by making subtle incorrect changes that deviate from the Manual of Style, or otherwise are simply wrong. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How certain are you (or can you prove to us) this is a deliberate attempt to ruin Wikipedia, rather than a good-faith, but badly executed, attempt to improve Wikipedia in the mind of that particular person. Are they, perhaps, working from an alternate Romanization scheme, which perhaps Wikipedia doesn't use, but which that person doesn't know, and is thus doing what they think is right? [[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism is 100% about intent), and unless you can show that the user intends to harm Wikipedia (rather than being merely mistaken about the proper way to do things, or disagreeing with established conventions earnestly). While both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIR violations are blockable offenses, they are still not vandalism, providing something like a CIR block requires proving a long-term pattern of cluelessness and many attempts to educate the person in question. --Jayron32 05:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been blocked before, check their history. A genuinely good-faith editor would seek clarification after being warned as many times as they have been, rather than ignore everything and continue on as if nothing happened. In addition, this user removes simplified Chinese text from templates on-sight (see diffs [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284]), and called Soong Ching-ling a, quote, "lover of communist bandits" (see diff), which makes it very hard to assume good faith. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive reverts by Sturmgewehr88

    See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan § RfC: Flag of Ryukyu

    Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) conducted mass (~100) reverts to reinstate a flag after it became clear that his proposal to do so failed to gain support from other Wikipedians at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu. I believe admin actions are needed to stop his disruptive editing practices. --Nanshu (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I had intended to revert your mass removal of the flag as a "Wikipedia hoax" the moment I saw it, but I wanted to discuss it with you first. I have every right to revert you for removing a "hoax" when it clearly is not. The RfC (which failed to gain support in either direction) is about wether we should keep or completely remove the flag after you challenged its legitimacy. Note that I didn't revert all of the edits concerning the flag, and none of the edits concerning another flag. The flag appeared in some infoboxes and should be removed per WP:FLAG (BTW Nanshu, you should've removed the Japanese flag too), and the second flag is possibly a Wikipedia hoax (shown by Nanshu's sources). I was in no way making disruptive reverts anymore than Nanshu was making disruptive edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Manipulated and mystified sources

    Obviously Josip Broz Tito's text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! In introduction there are sentences which describe mirabilia of Broz Tito's in national economy and diplomacy with sources which don't claim those situations: sources are total invented! In talk page you can read critics by several users but User:Tuvixer started edit war on article against: Tzowu, Silvio1973, Passando, Teo Pitta and some IPs. Again in talk, at my question why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism, no answer was result.My question: is this post personal attack? Am I loony? --Passando (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) With all due respect, I'm guessing English is not your first language, so I'm not 100% sure what the dispute is. What I can figure out is that you think the article is non-neutral. I read the article and I don't see a neutrality problem; where do you think the problem is? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been dealing with this editor on my talk page and on the article talk page. He has been asked to provide specific changes and challenges but has been more interested in assailing the editors. JodyB talk 12:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have personally used a RfC instead of an ANI to report this concern. However, the issue is real. IMHO the article is non-neutral. Indeed, what is non-neutral is the lead rather than the article in its whole. And other users (see in the Talk page) have raised this concern. Some examples:
    1. 'His internal policies successfully maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation.' This sentence is not sourced. Indeed I provided a source stating exactly the opposite, but my edit has been reverted and qualified of revisionist.
    2. 'Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator'. Indeed one source claims that, but the way the lead is written suggests this opinion is shared by the most of the sources.
    3. In the lead the first five lines report 14 sources. Too many. The sources are used to selectively report a POV description of Tito, instead they should be used in the rest of the article. The lead in the actual state is not the summary of the article, but rather an article on its own. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for a content dispute. Please see WP:DR for other avenues which you can take. --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Anglicanus - constant hounding

    Wrong place. Amortias (T)(C) 10:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

    (Non-administrator comment) Huh? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anglicanus - constant hounding

    Dear Sirs - for a long while now I have been confronted by Anglicanus' constant interference. It is becoming difficult to introduce new info without him challenging my edits or MOS - I have tried to explain as best I can about how some info doesn't always sit (or fit) well with this MOS policy. However should Anglicanus & others wish to adapt the narrative to Wiki's current MOS then that is fine by me, but from my point of view I simply wish to represent the facts.
    Since there are very many articles which are substandard I fail to understand why Anglicanus engages in such petty disputes with me (which could so easily be avoided - eg I provide info & he can correct the MOS, if that is his wont). Anyway please issue a decree as to what should happen going forward - he & I are locked in a constant argy-bargy - I trust Wiki prefers to have genuinely good content introduced & not forsaken for MOS? I am sure you can think of a solution to this mess. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. perhaps you can guide me ref MOS?
    Justice of the peace article is a perfect case in point - it makes no sense to me how some proper nouns are capitalized and others are in lower case, qv Crown & Lord Chancellor versus justice of the peace. It makes no sense to me since it is inconsistent - what is the policy? Many thanks M
    for your guidance, it should really be: Justice of the Peace, qv: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/25/contents
    • Mabelina, you need to provide diffs to demonstrate the activities or behaviors you are talking about; otherwise, anything you say is just a vague accusation with no proof or evidence. Also, remember to sign your posts; and do not add snide comments like "for your guidance, it should really be: Justice of the Peace, qv: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/25/contents". Also, please remove the duplicated thread posting above and move it to the talk page of the editor you are discussing, where it belongs. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This really isn't what I came to Wikipedia to engage in - turf wars. Surely the Admins can see the quality of info being provided? (I've seen how some do massive quotes about who said what to someone else - is this is what is required to launch a formal complaint?) M Mabelina (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't provided any information or proof, just vague complaints. If you are not willing to back up your claims with proof, then you'd best withdraw this complaint entirely, or it may WP:BOOMERANG against you. Read WP:DIFF, which I posted twice to you already. Right now you just appear to be whining, and lecturing people on how great the "quality" of the info you provide is, and lecturing experienced editors you haven't even interacted with on how to spell/capitalize things. Please also remove the bizarrely duplicated thread posting above and move it to the talk page of the editor you are discussing, where it belongs. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just offhand, glancing at the page history of the OP's talk page, block log, and the nature of their comments and replies, I think we may have a WP:CIR issue here of long standing, and it may be time to show them the door unless they agree to cooperate, listen to experienced editors who know what they are talking about, and edit collaboratively rather than edit-warring over what they believe should be the way things are around here. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Remenu and Aromanian articles

    Remenu (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA whose sole interest seems to be adding a very dubious and contentious flag in articles on the Aromanians, as well as other occasional WP:OR items like sun worship and other nonsense. He has been reverted numerous times, the reasons have been made abundantly clear to him, proper procedure for editing and sourcing has been explained over and over, he has been warned several times by me and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has been repeatedly blocked, and yet every time after a couple of days there he is adding it back and making a few cosmetic changes to mask it. So far his contributions have produced nothing of substance except needless work for other users in the articles he frequents. I propose a permanent block of the account. Constantine ✍ 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm. Considering that Cplakidas had to have a 15,000-byte conversation with him, in German, and he still didn't get the message, perhaps an indef block is the only answer since the three previous blocks, and assorted attempts at getting through to him, didn't take. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an indef topic ban concerning Aromanians, Vlachs, and Macedonia, broadly construed, under the Balkans discretionary sanctions is not an unreasonable reaction after this sustained edit warring and disruption. This editor has been given plenty of chances and it's time to put an end to the disruption. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    User:TYTA Mahesh

    Edits reverted request for additional help sought. Amortias (T)(C) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone with rollback privileges please review User:TYTA Mahesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Looks like all edits made today need to be reverted (per previous edits) - nonsense user warnings, unsourced content, copyvios, bias, obviously false claims, etc. 82.132.236.222 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-constructive edits reverted. I'm going to go drop a note at the teahouse to see if they can help to prevent them getting blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 10:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Advocate

    I'm a writer. What I do is I'm an advocate. I've so far had publications in two of Australia's most renowned libraries and I feel I could be of use here on Wikipedia. 82.132.233.229 (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So what case are you bringing to AN/I? Liz Read! Talk! 11:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the page youve posted on is designed to deal with problems complaints and the likes. If your looking to learn what you might be interested in or what might be an area you can add to the best bet would be to drop by the Teahouse where you can get a bit of an introduction as to whats what and where to go from there. Amortias (T)(C) 11:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an issue surrounding terrible things which happened, but this may not be the best platform. Anyway, I've posted in the Teahouse so thanks for your help. I award you the anti-vandalism barnstar! 82.132.225.85 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your editing experience would be enhanced if you created a user account. Since you are using multiple IPs, it makes it almost impossible to communicate with you since you don't have a stable user talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection expired vandalism continues

    The article Visa requirements for Indian citizens: Revision history was locked on April 5 until April 8 for persistent vandalism (adding deliberate factual errors). Today it continued again, the same thing, the same IP address behind it. I propose a seriously longer protection (as in 6 months) as the IP address apparently belongs to a University and can't be blocked for too long.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're talking about Visa requirements for Indian citizens, I don't see any recent problems in the edit history. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    None of the edits have got through but edit filter 30(large deletions) 172(section blanking) and 636(unexplained removal) have been tripped many times. It might be better taking this back to WP:RFPP as the appropriate venue for page protection. Amortias (T)(C) 12:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad article restore

    Recently Graeme Bartlett restored Matt Henshaw after a speedy deletion. This was wrong on many levels. 1. The first step to challenge such a deletion is to approach the deleting admin, in this case CactusWriter. Staying true to form, Mr Bartlett did not do so. User talk:CactusWriter#Matt Henshaw? Deleted? Why??, just informed 707 that his page was back. 2. As the editor who published this page from AfC Mr Bartlett is involved. 3. Most significantly Mr Bartlett chose to restore an old version. He chose to ignore any edits after his Cleaning up accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9). When asked to explain why he just avoided the question User talk:Graeme Bartlett#Matt Henshaw. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On a purely technical level, it was also a bad delete because the article was not eligible for G4 (not being a straight recreation of the version killed at AFD). Even given that, I wouldn't have restored the article in this way either, but I'd like to hear an explanation from Graeme Bartlett before we break out the torches and pitchforks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Disruptive editor refusing to allow consensus, violations of WP:CIVIL

    Hello, I need some help with an editor, Cebr1979. They have insisted on adding dates to recurring cast members of the List of Days of our Lives cast members page. Originally, when the page was created, the dates were added. They were removed in 2007 because they can't be verified. Recently, Cebr1979 has decided to add them back, despite the fact that they do not pass WP:V. He/she says that WP:SOAPS allows the show itself to be used as a source, even though the recurring cast members are not listed there every day. My first issue with this editor is the violation of WP:V, and their insistence that "there doesn't need to be a consensus", his/her unwillingness to wait and see what other editors have to say. My second issue with this editor, is his/her blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. There are several instances on my talk page User:rm994, where he/she has calle d me names like "roadblock" and "bully". I also believe we are seeing an issue with WP:OWN. I tried to offer this up for consensus, and he/she did not respond or wait. I need some help to resolve this. Otherwise, it's just going to turn into an edit war, as you can see by his/her contributions, they are determined to make the page how they want it, despite what anyone else may think. Rm994 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rm994, there is a big, orange notice that asks you to notify all involved parties that you have posted this report. I've alerted Cebr1979 on their talk page. It's an important step so that they can respond. Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that. Was doing that right when you did it for me. Thank you for doing it :) Rm994 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User :Klõps

    he keep edit warring over the articles of Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and Template:Republics of the Soviet Union he keeps removing Preceded and Succeeded in the infobox but all other soviet republics use that, he keeps classifing equal republics in the soviet republics template by the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s when another user already warned it by him!, yes i reverted many times but so has he but the diffrence is that hes reverts are unconstrutive 81.235.159.105 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=655985348"