Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

A charge of wikihounding**

Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) feels they're being hounded by Jaggee (talk · contribs). This all started with an ANI thread, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824, "URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation". Jaggee is a new editor who noted a possible problem in an article Luke had been working on; a somewhat lengthy thread with some animosities was closed without action toward either editor. As a result, Jaggee made various comments on their user page (now changed, but see this version). It is noteworthy that they took the supposed copyvio to ANI, claiming that's what WP:DCV suggested they do--but read Jaggee's talk page, "A second welcome to Wikipedia", where I remarked that this is the last thing it suggests, not the first. The only article edits Jaggee has made were to that particular article, Allard J2X-C-- Luke's work, and passed as a GA by Resolute. They they went on to comment on that article's talk page and on a related thread at WP:RSN ("Car racing websites"), pertaining to a DYK nomination by Luke. They made no other edits besides on my talk page and a few others, nothing in article space.

Further unpleasantries are found on my talk page, where you may find Luke being a bit brusque, accusing Jaggee of being a sock (that evidence does not yet need to be hashed out here, in my opinion). But essentially, it seems to me that Jaggee indeed has no other interest as of yet besides Luke's work, and that fits our definition of hounding, a type of harassment:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Both LadyofShalott and I suggested that each find their separate corners in which to edit, so to speak, advice that Jaggee did not follow given their edits to RSN, for instance, and what I am asking for here is confirmation that this means that Jaggee should find another corner, not one where Luke is already editing. This shouldn't be a difficult thing to do given the large number of corners available. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy to have myself and Jaggee kept separate, as I've said publicly a few times. Maybe that way I'll be able to return to editing in peace (or be able to take a break in peace, equally) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I affirm my prior advice, which as Drmies points out has not been heeded. Luke seems to want to stay away from Jaggee, but the reverse is not true. Perhaps a formal interaction ban is what is needed. LadyofShalott 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• I had previously given Jaggee similar advice, likewise not taken. Perhaps indeed it needs to be set up as an editing restriction. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke feels they're the one being hounded?!

Luke on Jaggee at Talk:Allard_J2X-C yesterday: "Wrong, and since you're only here to disrupt this article, you've yet again failed to look into anything. " (and more of the same in the past).

I don't know Jaggee from a hole in the road. But I do know that we have AGF. They're also a new editor. Even if they have acted entirely wrongly and excessively over the very minor off-wiki copyvio issue in this article, they have acted reasonably over that issue. Their actions could be mistaken, over-reactions and mis-placed, but while there is the slightest belief that they are a new editor trying to find their way through the impenetrable forest of WP:ALLCAPS, then we have to give them leeway to get it right or wrong, as best they can. We DO NOT leap on them and accuse them of being bad faith socks, troll and Luke-taunters. Even if they are, we have a strong policy that we act to editors as being genuine, until it's demonstrated beyond doubt that they aren't. Yes, this lets us be exploited by the real trolls from time to time. It's also overall a key means for us to improve access for genuine new editors (which I still do believe Jaggee to be).

Jaggee: please find some motor-racing articles to work on that are some distance from Luke. I'm sure this will improve the editing experience for both of you.

Luke: please lay off Jaggee and act as if they're genuine. I can't ask you to believe this, but please act towards them as you would towards any GF editor. If they're not, lots of other people will spot it as well, so don't worry about it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I refuse to act like I'm blind, deaf and dumb; which is how I would have to act to assume Jaggee was new. Everything they have done screams of a returning editor, and things well beyond your own involvement have furthered that case. Don't forget that other users have expressed their own doubts, or, in the case of User:Beyond My Ken, completely agreeing with my analysis of the situation. If Jaggee is a new editor, then I'm Bill Clinton. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, yes, I am the one being hounded. Everywhere they've visited has been either somewhere I've already contributed in, or something directly related to something I've been involved in. I haven't followed them anywhere. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, you are essentially asking for the same thing I'm proposing here. That initial ANI thread, pshaw, not the biggest deal. It's the rest of it, the recent edits, that brought me here. If it hadn't been for those Luke wouldn't have had any reason to say anything but as it is, I think they are right to feel as if someone is breathing down their neck. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very one-sided account of my, so far, short career as a registered Wikipedia editor.

On my first day, I spotted a potential copyright policy violation in Allard J2X-C. My first edit, a nervous and hesitant attempt, to alert those responsible to what I thought was a serious problem in that article, was totally reverted - as "Unconstructive and unhelpful."! Determined to right the wrong, and after reading through numerous paragraphs of dense policy text, I stumbled across the suggestion that, if the "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted", as was clearly the case here, the contributor should be "reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard" - which was exactly what I therefore did - with my second edit.

One well informed administrator, ignoring the pleas from those ignorant of copyright principles and without even a working knowledge of the applicable Wikipedia policy, did take the initiative - and swiftly purged the article of the dodgy material, thus vindicating my action. Note that Lukeno94 continued his fight to keep it though.

What followed was an astonishing series of personal attacks against me, including a tirade of irreverent bile peppered with puerile profanities from Lukeno94. I won't quote them here, but here are links to a few of them: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Upon viewing further results of a search of links to mulsannescorner.com, I came across discussions about another articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1 and [5]) which also involved Lukeno94. Having seen the comments about the ureliability of the website, I added it to this discussion. That addition was swiftly pounced on and bad-mindely removed by Lukeno94. I added it back the next day, convinced I was right, but was again [6] swiftly reverted by Lukeno94 (note the inflammatory summary). Another editor restored my point, vindicating my action.

Lukeno94 seems to be paranoid that I am "hounding" him. I AM NOT, I don't know (or care to know) him from Adam. What I am doing is highlighting poor use of poor references, nothing more. And I am beginning to regret signing up now. But this storm in a tea cup has aroused suspicions of cover-ups and back-scratching too, and I am not going to be intimidated it. Lukeno94 seems to be here to boost his ego, not to create great, policy compliant, articles, and I think he needs a serious slap on the wrist for reacting so badly when his infallibility is challenged. Jaggee (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you stay away from each other, and agree to report any issues like the previous copyright issue to an uninvolved administrator, we can put this to bed pretty quickly. Nick (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My only interest, so far, is the use of the mulsannescorner.com website as a reference, whether Lukeno is involved with it, or not. Jaggee (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I'll happily contribute via an intermediary - if you can name one or tell me where to find one. Jaggee (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, if I have to put together a comprehensive report of how you are clearly a returning user here just to abuse me, then I will do so. Until then, you can drop the lies like the one about how you came across the DYK nomination; you didn't edit for four days, and yet magically cropped up again to appear there. Just like you've lied to several admins; claiming you want no further part in this and would disengage. If you want me to take you apart piece by piece, then I can put together a case that will make it obvious that you are not legitimate. I have an idea of a couple of people who you could be, but that doesn't actually matter. I never claimed to be infallible; in fact, at the very beginning, I stated that had you actually come to talk to me with the issue, then there would've been no problem. Instead, you didn't, and you've made it ever more apparent that your claim to be a new user is a flat-out lie. And I'm not even the one who initially used the term "hounding". "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted" is a flat out lie as well; I received no warning, and in no way can a template in an article count as a warning; but then you know that already. Just one more example of your lies. I've made thousands of good contributions here; you can justifiably claim one, so who is the egotistical one, acting as if they know better than everyone else? Is it myself, who has admitted to mistakes, or is it the "new" user who acts like they know policy inside-out and has only ever edited in things involving me? I wonder.
• And claiming that to be your only interest is a lie. Claiming that I have some involvement in the website is beyond a joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is nothing more than additional unnecessary, and to be ignored, intimidation. And no, you can't convince us that I am accusing you of being involved with that website, just of being involved with some of the articles that have used it. Calm down - stand back and look at look at my modest contributions again - then review your (over)reactions. Perhaps you do need a break from this. Jaggee (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think both of you need to stay away from each other as much as possible. While Luke is obviously frustrated by the fact that Jaggee, currently a single-purpose account, is stalking him (which can be verified by a quick look at the latter's contribs), Luke has also been rough towards Jaggee as evidenced by his comments regarding the latter. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be perfectly happy for that to happen (particularly when I'm not dangerously overtired, like I was yesterday). I have no problem with genuine editors bringing up issues in things I've done; but I strongly object to this SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: - either disengage and edit in other areas, or you will be blocked as a disruptive single purpose account. Your smug, patronising tone towards Luke is not welcome here and is unnecessary. I'd suggest giving you a week to demonstrate you're happy to edit constructively without following Luke around or editing the same content (although I'm going to stop short of a full topic ban since we don't really know your editing interests). If we don't see any evidence you're capable of normal editing, I'd propose we indefinitely block your account.

The issue you raised has been dealt with and resolved, administrators are aware of what has happened and Luke will undoubtedly take more care in future not to link to a potential copyright violating content, so there's no need for further action. If you do have any other issues you wish to report in connection with Luke, I'm happy to handle them as an uninvolved administrator. Nick (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like nothing more than gratuitous victim blaming. This is not a "single purpose account", in your sense anyway. This is an account that, after spotting, and reporting, a violation, has been blamed, victimised, vilified and dragged through the streets. And for those reasons alone, I have not had a chance to spread my wings, yet, and now you seem to be seriously suggesting they be clipped, and an artificial restriction applied, because another editor cannot control his own temper and behave civilly towards someone who has criticised his work here.

Btw, thanks for the offer to handle the issues with Lukeno - perhaps you will look at the other unresolved issues that I have already raised. Jaggee (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• We've had plenty of people contribute here saying that Jaggee should disengage from me; can someone wrap this up with some kind of binding solution? I really don't care if the ban is one way or two way; I just want to be able to contribute effectively in peace, or actually take a break. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probable that Nick's warning above is about the best you're going to get at the moment - but you've now got an uninvolved admin keeping an eye on his editing, which should help. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose interaction ban between Jaggee (talk · contribs) and Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) (listed alphabetically) to expire 30 days three months after imposition.

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• Support as proposer. As a general rule, I don't think ibans are the best tool in the wiki toolbox -- hence the suggested expiration date -- but I think one might be useful in this situation. NE Ent 21:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (amended 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC))
• Support interaction ban, but make it longer (probably three months initially, I wouldn't entirely be adverse to an indefinite one), and obviously clarify that this means Jaggee needs to not snoop around my edits and attempt to create more drama, not that it just means they cannot contact me, or directly edit an article/article's talk page that I have already edited, or have written. Obviously, the same would happen in reverse. Anything to remove potential loopholes that they could use to carry on the abuse that has genuinely been making my life a misery for the last few days, and has taken out all of the enjoyment I had editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Time period adjusted. Oppose any modification of standard iban terms. NE Ent 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few more have voted since the 3-fold increase, so "adjusted" time again to the next order of magnitude - as there is very clearly an appetite for revenge here. Jaggee (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing any modification, I'm proposing a clarification. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as that would be pandering to the wish of the bullies. I found fault, and am being vilified as a direct result. The main aggressor here would, in effect, be protected against further similar, vindicated, scrutiny. Jaggee (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You found one thing that was a grey area, and have hounded me ever since, trying to make out as if I am the biggest sinner on the planet/project. And that's disregarding anything regarding the true nature of your identity. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's bollocks, and you know it. Shame on you for behaving so sanctimoniously and playing to the gallery the way that you are. Jaggee (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what else have you done? Pointed out that someone else was unsure about the reliability of a source, which was something I was already aware of, and that source is on a list of reliable sources for the Motorsport WikiProject? Those are literally the only two things you have done, that aren't purely hounding me. That's not "playing to the gallery", that's the facts, sunshine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not what else I have done - it's that I have not done most of what you claim I've done. Yet many here seen prepared to swallow your apparently intentionally misleading account without question. And it is the clear clamour for blood here that you are playing to, with your ever more deceitful contributions. Jaggee (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Supprt - speaking as someone who a few days ago told them to find separate corners of this very large website in which to edit. LadyofShalott 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - @Luke: I believe the standard interpretation of an interactive ban will cover your concerns. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Jaggee is clearly the aggressor in this case; Luke's frustration and occasional bluntness is understandable. Jaggee's combative refusal to accept any fault at all - his recent changes to his user page make clear that he thinks he is being baited and bullied by the community - are a bit much even for a new user. The community ought to think about penalties should the interaction ban be violated, as a deterrent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I still see this as just as much about bullying by Luke as I do about any hounding by Jaggee. If such an interaction ban were introduced, then it would first of all exclude Jaggee from motorsport, an area that's obviously of great interest to both of them. That's an excessive restriction on such a flimsy accusation. Secondly, I just don't trust Luke to act with a reasonable collegiate approach to Jaggee under such a restriction. It's all too easy for such a ban to be used as a very one-sided future excuse to drag Jaggee back to ANI on the slightest pretext, blowing that up into "Already banned user disrespected the state of WP by abusing his ban conditions", the crime of lèse majesté that is one of the few things WP ever does act upon. Such an action is unlikely to work against an established editor like Luke, but it's a very common way for new editors to be driven off the project. Just look at Spmdr (talk · contribs) who was hounded off for disagreeing with Luke over the Sunbeam Tiger article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn, change the record. No-one was hounded off at the Sunbeam Tiger article, and I wasn't the only one being highly sceptical of the claims made by this user. In fact, I wasn't even doing any hounding at all, so you can cut that bullshit claim out right now; most of my comments were made to you, and I reverted a grand total of once. Thanks for reminding me exactly why you're holding a grudge against me, though! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• And I am so guilty of hounding Spmdr that my name appears a grand total of 0 times on their talk page, whilst the other editor disputing their sources, and who was rather more active in reverting their edits, has 10 mentions (including one comment by Eric). So you're as bad as telling the truth as Jaggee is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would not exclude Jaggee from any topic area. As there seems to be a misunderstanding of the terms of a iban, I've copy-pasted the applicable text from the policy to the top of the thread. NE Ent 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is, as the wording stands, it would still allow Jaggee to come and manipulate articles I have written, and I would then be unable to remove the changes if they were detrimental (like adding in maintenance tags that have been resolved - I couldn't remove those, and would have to get a third-party involved), and this would worsen the existing situation, in some ways. This is why the user should be restricted from editing any article (but be free to edit the talk page) which I've had a heavy involvement in, and the reverse would be true as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• As is often the case, the "letter of the law" hasn't quite caught up to actual practice. There have been several instances where an editor has followed another editor's contributions to various articles where the first editor had never worked before, and, without actually deleting or changing the second editor's contributions, has edited the article. This behavior has then been found to be a violation of the IBAN, as an indirect form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. It's like having a 150-foot order of protection, and the person shows up and stands exactly 151 feet away over and over again. It's not a violation of the order, and it may not be something that the law can deal with easily, but we're not a legal system and we can make - and have made - the determination that such behavior is a violation of the purpose of the ban. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that'll do then. I would also like Andy to stop spreading lies, but that's his prerogative for now - at least I've stated the truth in public about that situation (it's a long-term grudge that he seems to hold). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke, please back off. I don't think your continued comments are helping any of this either. LadyofShalott 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He has reverted to type. Anyone who takes the trouble to look-up the history to this case against me will see that his belligerent response to my naive first edit was the root cause of all this. He came over all indignant since, but it was all a front I'm sure. He is not able to handle criticism civilly and is thus not cut-out for this type of work where close cooperation is necessary. Jaggee (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaggee. Seriously, you thought that was an invitation to get in another dig? Both. Of. You. Need. To. Stop. Acting. Like. Children. LadyofShalott 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is less than I proposed, I guess, but I will support this at a minimum. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Looks like there's consensus for this, can we have this wrapped up please? (at the very least, this post will stop it from archiving) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree. The vote for a 30-day/3-month penalty might have achieved majority support, but there is no consensus at all that the offence itself had actually been committed. I explained the course of events that led to me visiting the pages in question, and haven't seen any evidence or argument, let alone consensus to support the alternative (paranoid) interpretation of Wikihounding. Without an offence having been committed it is absurd to suggest that any penalty, even if it have 100% support, should be applied. Jaggee (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ^^ A response like that is a fairly good sign of why these sanctions are called for. A textbook example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT if I ever did see one. I second the motion for a swift close and imposition of the community sanctions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• So where is all this "hounding"? Rather than "not getting it", this still looks more like paranoia by Luke. We should not go this far, on this little evidence, for so new an editor. All I've seen so far is some clumsy handling of what was actually a valid IP rights issue, and not even one directed particularly at Luke. That's square in the middle of AGF.

The worst I've seen from Jaggee so far was his comment just above, as noted by LadyofShalott (and I agree completely with her comment). However even that is still a long way short of iBan-worthy hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Which is why you !voted against the proposal. However, the clear consensus among the entirety of the !voters was to put the IBAN into effect. Jaggee (and you) can certainly argue that that consensus is not justified, but what Jaggee did was to deny there was a consensus at all, and that is simply patently false. There is a clear consensus, and an uninvolved admin should really close the thread and put the IBAN into effect, since there's been no additional !voting for a while now, just repeat commentary from the same people. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see a majority call for the iBan, but I still don't see consensus that Jaggee committed substantial hounding to justify it. Where is it? His edit history is still tiny overall. Overall, this looks unedifying like a bandwagon of "Just block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" and we're supposed to be better than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• The only "consensus" to be found is about whether to impose on IBAN or not. That clearly exists. I'm not sure why you're looking for a consensus about underlying issues when the discussion (in this section) wasn't focused on that. This is not an ArbCom case, where every action needs to have a finding behind it, this is a community discussion, a much less rigid process, on whether an IBAN will benefit the project. Clearly they found that. The reasons for people !voting the way they did may well be varied (Bill may think it's because Jaggee has misbehaved, Hattie because Luke has misbehaved, and Xander because both have misbehaved), but there is no requirement that there be a consensus on the reason for the IBAN, just consensus that the IBAN would be helpful. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• A vote for a ban for a ban's sake - despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing - is that what you mean? Jaggee (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I should note that Jaggee is once again trying to stir up controversy where there is none, by deliberately misrepresenting things and not doing any proper checking, on the Lavaggi LS1 talk page. Yet more evidence for why this user needs to be prohibited from interfering with me; this time there wasn't any case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recognise your description of my contributions as all I have done recently is ask for clarification of unsourced engine information on the talkpage of a racing car article - here. I think you are misrepresenting me - again, and I wish I knew why. Jaggee (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• You did not ask for clarification; you claimed that sources were "conflicting" with information on the article. One bit was already sourced elsewhere, which you completely ignored, and the other bit was easily verifiable had you done a Google search; policy is that something must be verifiable, not necessarily verified, and this was EASILY verifiable. A constructive user, if they were that upset about one missing reference, would've done research to see if what was in the article was accurate, and added in a reference. You did not do that, and you made a false claim or two in the process. Yey for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• There you go again - I made NO false claims. I suppose you are banking on some of the huge quantities of mud you are throwing sticking. Why are you acting like this - do you behave this way with all new users? It's like a trial by fire. Jaggee (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "There seems to be conflicting information in the article and sources about the engines used." Verbatim quote of what you wrote, which is clearly incorrect. One of the engines was already directly cited in the infobox, the other was cited to a ref that was a little vaguer, but was not "conflicting"; the only LMP1 engine AER built at this time was the P32 (although I have found that some of our articles are giving the wrong versions of that engine). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• And there is still not a single edit from this user that hasn't been directly linked to the "dispute" involving me either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, support, as the bulk of Jaggee's edits are related to Lukeno94's edits. The WikiStalk report shows six unique pages where these users' edits overlap. Interestingly, Jaggee only has edited eight unique pages since registration. The only non-overlaps where Jaggee has edited are at User:Jaggee and Talk:Lavaggi LS1. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, perhaps there's something wrong with the WikiStalk tool because it shows similar results for me in relation to you too. I think it shows stronger evidence that Lukeno is stalking me anyway, because on 4 of the 6 pages you mention, his edits followed mine, rather than mine his. Or perhaps it's the interpretation of the results that is faulty. Jaggee (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: It isn't a one-way interaction ban. It will prevent Luke from commenting about you or talking/interacting with you, as well. Anyway, now that I see the WikiStalk report between you and me, I also see that you've made some edits to other pages recently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, how can you remotely claim that I am stalking you? You've edited Allard J2X-C, Talk:Allard J2X-C, Talk:Lavaggi LS1 - all pages I wrote, or the talk page of pages I wrote, and are therefore on my watchlist, you've edited ANI/RSN threads where I've already been involved one way or another (I posted before you in the RSN thread), and I first edited User:Drmies' talkpage on the 5th of May, 2013, as you can see from [7]; a page I have edited 32 times, so I guess we can clearly see your bullshit lies for exactly what they are, and as further proof that you are WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than hound me, troll me, and misrepresent/flat out lie about anything I'm involved in. Absolutely ludicrous claims from you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• And beyond that, you've edited User:Yngvadottir's talk page, directly in regards to this "issue", you've edited User:Beyond My Ken's talk page with regards to comments he made about this issue, and you've edited your own User and talk page; using the User page either as a platform for your lies, or as trolling - and that's been pointed out by various editors in this thread alone, so hardly evidence of me doing any "stalking". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would encourage those interested to take a look at recent edits around Talk:Lavaggi LS1. I see Luke's attitude there as far from the ideal, yet it's being reported here as if Jaggee was the one entirely at fault.

I'd also note that we're talking about a new editor with edits to only two articles: maybe they're both created by Luke, but then someone had to create them. All I see here is two editors with a common interest in motorsport, not evidence of stalking or hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• We're not talking about a new editor, we're talking about a new account, and that is obvious to most people other than you, it seems. My attitude may be "far from the ideal", but you try having a brand-new account following you around and flat-out lying about multiple things. I cannot fathom how you are still able to defend an account whose entire purpose so far has been to shit-stir on things I have been involved in; there are literally no edits from this user that are not directly attributable to either the Allard J2X-C "debate", or the Lavaggi LS1 "debate", and that is not paranoia, that is an unavoidable truth based solely on their editing history. Unless this user is you, I strongly encourage you to actually look properly, and not let your dislike of me blind you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• "how you are still able to defend an account" - AGF.

This blew up out of nothing. An editor/account appeared and made a reasonable series of edits (maybe not correct, but reasonable) that you objected to. Much ink was wasted on various talk pages. When they moved to another article and raised similar issues (again, maybe not correct, but reasonable), you objected to them again. I think you're being paranoid, and seeing socks under the bed.

I agree, the shit-stirring since is concerning. Whether this is an editor who's actually interested in the project, or who just likes farming the old drama llamas, isn't clear. Best thing Jaggee could do right now would be to do some valuable expansion work on a motor racing article that is a long way from you. I'd still prefer to see a voluntary distancing rather than a formal iBan. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Assume good faith is not a suicide pact - and any AGF that could potentially have been there at the start should be well out of the window now, in the face of incontrovertible evidence. I would happily keep my distance voluntarily, but that is impossible when Jaggee comes after me, which is what it has been consistently. Note how that for the four days that I didn't edit, Jaggee didn't either, and yet they returned the same day I did. In line with their general actions, that isn't coincidence; those were four days in which they could've easily destroyed any of my claims of them being an SPA by editing something that I hadn't. They did not do that, and still haven't done so... (and by now, it is probably too late to make the "look, I can edit elsewhere, I was legit all along" claim) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Luke does have somewhat of an attitude problem, but in his defence, he is young. Once he enters his twenties and gains some more maturity, he will likely become less brash and arrogant. As for Jaggee, he is new here, and AGF should come into play. A community enforced interaction ban is hardly fair to a new user whole really only needs some guidance and a little more seasoning. They should be asked to voluntarily avoid each other. Failing that, a strong suggestion that Jaggee read, or re-read the policies here would seem in order, along with a warning to Luke to cool it. - ^theWOLFchild 06:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee has been asked to voluntarily avoid me by several admins, as evidenced by the discussion above. They have failed to do so, by constantly wandering back into articles I've written, and therefore I am forced to respond. AGF might seem viable, until you look at the timing of the account's appearance, where and what it appeared in, and the fact that when I took a four-day break, they stopped editing altogether, only to return on the same day I did. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, and there is simply no explanation for the account's actions than that it belongs to someone with a grudge, who created the account to hound me - as I said, the timing of its creation, the fact it hasn't edited anything that isn't to do with me, and the fact that it didn't edit for the same period that I didn't. As someone who has never had any sanctions of any kind, I didn't take the request to sort out an interaction ban lightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is in danger of being archived, and still no action, despite the consensus being clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If anything, the fact that Jaggee has continued Wikistalking Luke, literally logging in only after Luke logged in and then editing the same articles, only adds more evidence to the pile. Wearing kiddie gloves with a new user who refuses to get the point can only go so far. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support interaction ban and strong admin warning - Wikihounding cannot be tolerated. Any violation of the ban should result in an indef block. I see community concern and consensus here, and call on an admin to step up. Jusdafax 06:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Fully understanding that a community ban discussion is not a matter of simply counting !votes, at this time there are 8 support !votes and 2 oppose !votes, and the discussion regarding a mutual IBAN between Jaggee and Lukeno94 has been ongoing for 9 days. Many community ban discussions have been closed with fewer overall votes, and less time of discussion, so I believe that this one qualifies for a close. Can we please have an uninvolved admin take a look and close the discussion? Thanks. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge's "uninvolved administrator" warning should probably be removed from the case decision.

Sorry to bother about this, but I think something still has to be fixed regarding User:A Quest For Knowledge (notified on talk page) and the formal warning of someone as "an uninvolved administrator".

This (non-Administrator) editor used an Administrator warning. It contains the phrasing This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision). It looks like it did just that and logged User:Nomoskedasticity onto the case decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Here's the diff.

If I hadn't noticed that it formally and erroneously added that user to the list of individuals "warned" by administrators, I wouldn't have brought it up. I don't think the user meant to go so far as to add it to the case decision, but maybe you agree it should be removed from the case decision as an error. Thanks. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is quite poorly worded, but WP:General sanctions specifically allows anyone to issue warnings, and for such warnings to appropriately logged. It is a good example why using templates for warnings is often problematic, but not indicative of improper logging of such notifications. There has been recent discussion about this, but this is the current state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone have the patience to sort what is behind the "warning/notification"? My quick look suggests that two editors !voted in opposite directions at Talk:James Delingpole#Edit protect (and reached different conclusions at WP:BLPN#James Delingpole), and one of them dropped that irritating blurb on the other's talk, and rather triumphantly made an officious log (diff). That's a pretty outrageous loophole that gives one player a way to irritate and poke an opposing player. I know it's being thrashed out at WT:AC/DSR, but the myth that it's merely a "notice" and not a CIVIL way to say get fucked should not be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:General sanctions differentiates between community sanctions, and sanctions resulting from an Arbcom case. Arbcom sanctions, which this would fall under, are supposed to be logged by an uninvolved admin. The proposal at WT:AC/DSR is for ArbCom sanctions to be logged by anyone, but so far this has not yet been adopted. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

These warnings/loggings are being used too often to gain the upper hand in disputes. I agree with Johnuniq's and Neotarf's interpretation. Let's let admins take care of these types of warnings. - MrX 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed warning from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and notified clerks Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#non_admin_logging_DS NE Ent 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• At first look, and as someone completely uninvolved, it appears this "administrator warning" is being used as a chilling effect tactic. When I see that the defenders are hardly neutral on this overall subject, I suggest remedies and possible sanctions should be discussed at this time. This should not be tolerated. As for a page that lists "warnings" I confess to astonishment that such exists, much less appears to be being gamed. Jusdafax 13:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• The warning should probably be removed. It isn't enforceable anyway, except by administrators. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Point being that Nomoskedasticity understands the situation and has pushed back, whereas other less experienced editors could well be intimidated by it. Which raises the question whether this type of incident has occurred previously. Jusdafax 21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template was actually changed to no longer be a warning some time back and is now simply a notification. Unfortunately, the template was also changed some time back to include the term "uninvolved administrator" by default, which was previously absent from the boilerplate warning. Now a non-admin has to add a specific parameter to present it as a regular warning from a non-admin. Many non-admins issue notifications and this is useful since it means editors new to the process or to Wikipedia in general can be made aware more quickly and, if they are disruptive, makes it simpler when there is a need for restrictions since those require an editor to be aware of the discretionary sanctions regime in the topic area beforehand. I think the problem here is that the boilerplate warning says "uninvolved administrator" by default when that should be the optional parameter. That would be as absurd as a vandalism or 3RR warning template including that term by default. AQFK simply used a template without realizing it had been changed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems a fair summation. Collect (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the template was changed to "no longer be a warning" or not, AQFN explicitly stated it was meant to be both notification and warning. Having read a bit more of the case file, it is interesting that AQFN is attempting to warn people into proper behavior on a Climate Change related topic using a case where he was topic-banned from Climate Change articles for disruptive battle-grounding. And I still think it's arguably an inappropriate way to end a noticeboard discussion by a deeply involved editor. If it's supposed to be "just a notice" then it should only be allowed to be formally logged where it's "just a notice" and not something possibly point-making. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All this amounts to is keeping a record of who is aware of the discretionary sanctions in a topic area. There is no official finding of misconduct, but just one editor informing another of certain special rules regarding a topic and making sure others are aware said editor has been so informed. Non-admins warn other non-admins all the time about alleged misconduct. In this case such things get logged.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious what happened in this case—one editor used the notice/log to be as obnoxious as possible to another editor during a discussion where the two editors disagreed. There was not the slightest reason to issue the notice other than it is possible to do so. The case reported here demonstrates very bad behavior, and is not similar to the standard procedure whereby an editor should be warned if they may be wandering into trouble by aggressive editing or vigorous commenting. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be a concern about AQFK's conduct, but not specifically an issue with the notice. I have made some changes that should be sufficient to address concerns regarding the warning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But why are you warning this user at all? Your "changes" were that you over-ruled an admin, NE Ent, and re-added the user to the case decision? I don't see how this helps. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent is not an admin. My change did not overrule him either as I did not restore a diff to AQFK's warning, but added a diff of Nomo's acknowledgment that he is aware of the discretionary sanctions. This is useful as it insures that, if Nomo does do something wrong in the topic area, that there will be no question of whether Nomo is or is not aware of the sanctions regime. Such awareness is a prerequisite for action just as warnings for 3RR or vandalism are generally necessary before action can be taken.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But if the user was previously made aware that the sanctions existed and had already acknowledged this, then for what practical purpose are you ne-notifying them? Informing people more than once or informing people that clearly know the sanctions are in place seems like it could be interpreted as some kind of undue harassment. In this case, the user already knew of the issue from AQFK's notice, this discussion here, and now you seem to be trying to "only notify" them again. There's still no evidence the user required any sort of notification in the first place. How many notifications are enough? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No "re-notifying" occurred. I simply tried to note in the log that Nomo said he is aware of the sanctions. Should we say that non-admins can notify editors and add it to the log and that other non-admins can come along and edit-war it out if they think this is unwarranted then we are inviting feuds over arbitration pages where some editors object to the notification. If we say that non-admins are no longer permitted to notify editors and add it to the log, well, this won't change the need for notifications, but it may encourage non-admins to try and get admins to notify editors for them so it can be logged. You may even have editors dragged to AE for the sole purpose of getting an official notification. I think it is far simpler and less disruptive to allow non-admins to make notifications and add to the logs. The real problem here was with "uninvolved administrator" being the default term in the template, which is really a problem of the template having been changed unilaterally some time back. My estimation is that changing the template to make the non-admin version the default version is the easiest way to avoid further problems of this nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting even more obnoxious. AQFN left that notification as a hostile act, as some above have recognised. It was not merited. And so TDA's attempt to make it kosher are not welcome. There is no problem with my editing that calls for a log of a notification of this sort. Neither AQFN nor TDA are uninvolved in this topic area and I suggest that they both step back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't recall ever editing any article about climate change or even raising an opinion about the editing in that topic area. Notifications can be issued by anyone and then logged. This is not the sole domain of an admin. Looking over the dispute that sparked this, I do not think it was at all unwarranted for you to be notified. Seems a lot of bickering is going on recently regarding some climate change articles and further enforcement requests are likely. For the record, I do not think this is at all appropriate. AQFK made a mistake when he posted that template without knowing the default version now said "uninvolved administrator" and was not trying to pretend to be anything. Had he known, I have no doubt he would have made it the non-admin version. Your insistence on making this accusation by changing the section heading from a more neutral version is not compliant with policy regarding use of your user talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates, and template wording, are not policy. Policy is policy, and the current DS policy clearly specifies warnings are to be issued and logged by admins. NE Ent 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, the policy does not say that only admins can give notifications. Non-admins have been giving notifications and logging those notifications for some time without any suggestion that it was against policy, because the policy says naught on the matter. Arbitrators have similarly not suggested that there is anything stating only admins can give notifications, despite having many opportunities to do say when the issue is raised explicitly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diff of an example.NE Ent 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just look through the log of notifications on ARBPIA, where you will see numerous involved non-admins and at least one involved admin giving notifications to editors who appear in the topic area. Hell, Nomo made a similar mistake to AQFK in that topic area when giving out this notification. A notification should, generally speaking, only be about informing someone of the existence of sanctions and that can reasonably be handled by anyone. Of course, any editor can "warn" an editor to stop doing something, but those are not going to be logged unless they are also notifications.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there some past history concerning TDA and Nomoskedasticity? When TDA excused AQFK's abuse of the sanctions notification system to poke an opponent I thought it was just the standard misunderstanding, but the comment above shows that something more is involved. In that comment, TDA points to a user who has made a total of 16 edits, five of which were to change the country shown in the infobox at Ariel University (like several IPs, the user prefers Israel, whereas the article states that the university is in the Palestinian territories). That is exactly the situation for which the discretionary sanctions notification is intended, and Nomoskedasticity gave a very reasonable ARBPIA notification (diff) after the fifth change of the location. Referring to that notification as a "similar mistake" is an extreme form of misunderstanding—is it grasping-at-straws to justify a hasty and incorrect initial comment here, or is it an attempt to poke an opponent from some prior dispute? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Since TDA hasn't responded, I'll give my own answer. I'm not aware of any past clashes with TDA, so I suspect it's grasping at straws. As far as I'm concerned, the situation has been resolved satisfactorily: the original "notification" by AQFN was indeed a chilling tactic and was appropriately removed from the log. There's still the broader question of what to do when editors behave this way, but I'm pleased with the feedback AQFN (and TDA) have gotten here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but Nomo used a version of the notification, an outdated one, that said "this notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here" and that clearly gives the impression that the person giving the notice is an uninvolved administrator. If you are suggesting it is fine to accidentally claim you're an admin when the user is a nobody, then I suppose we just have a different view of things. Had AQFK given the standard non-admin warning I suspect this whole dispute would not have happened as Nomo's behavior does seem to have warranted a notification.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're the only person here who is taking that view. The others recognise things for what they were: AQFK was trying to poke an opponent, "chilling effect", etc. I don't think you're persuading anyone that my editing is equivalent to that of Ekomik (talk · contribs); as for the notification I left for him/her, I recognised my mistake and suggested it needed to be confirmed by an admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My only point is that non-admins issue notifications often without it being an issue and there is no reason why it should be an issue in itself. The default message of "uninvolved administrator" was added by an arbitrator who, all the same, added a non-admin parameter. I think a notice was warranted, even from AQFK, but since no one could argue that you are not aware of the discretionary sanctions now it makes little difference whether the log stays or not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is very much an issue when editors use these things as weapons in a dispute. I doubt AQFK will do that again (given the reactions posted here). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And if it had only been a neutrally-given "notification", I probably wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It fails that description in two places. When I opened this thread (years ago?) I gave AQFN the benefit of the doubt that a bot added the logging on the case file as both "warned and notified". Now I know it was manually added, and not unintended, and it wasn't part of using the wrong template, and that giving formal warnings (beyond notifications) goes beyond what involved non-admins are expected to be able to do. AQFN can not claim to have inadequate knowledge of what he was doing by logging it as both warning and notification, considering he would be familiar with what a warning was, citing the ArbCom case that sanctioned him with a topic ban (and which was only lifted when he said he wasn't interested in getting involved in Climate Change content disputes). People aren't mistaken to think it was stated as more than the neutral notification you say is allowed, beyond the use of the template. It seems resolved now, but I wanted to be clear that my initial concern was in what was being logged, and how involved the editor was who was doing the logging, and not purely about how it was communicated to the person formally "warned". A notification should, generally speaking, only be about informing someone of the existence of sanctions. If AQFN hadn't gone beyond that by specifically and repeatedly labeling it both a warning and a notification, or if he wasn't in the middle of a debate he was expressly involved in , this discussion could have been avoided. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Though this discussion has been useful, I remain concerned, and am clearly not alone. I believe the record shows AQFN was arguably abusive of existing process in what appears to be an effort to discourage edits on a topic in which they are involved, or formerly involved, since AQFN states on their talk page that they have recently unwatchlisted the article, in my view presumably as a result of various statements questioning AQFN's warnings. Unless there is further comment, and in lieu of administrator action seeing a number of days have gone by, I suggest an uninvolved admin close this with a brief summary for future reference if need be, and I submit that further warnings of this type from this editor or other involved editors should be taken as worthy of consideration of sanctions. Jusdafax 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Name calling

Mrm7171 called me a troll four separate times over two days on the health psychology talk when disputing my edits. He also lodged that epithet at me when commenting on his additions to the health psychology page. I want him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Below are quotes from the health psychology talk page.

You have REVERTED 6 timers now within a 24 hour period. Stop edit warring. I am going to report you. Provide rock solid reiable sources next time and stop personalizing. You seem to me to be a troll, who pretendes to be a professor of everything. I doubt you actually have qualifications in any field of p-sychology based on your poor editing. Leave professional articles that you obviously have little knowledge of alone and concentrate on your OHP club instead! Or provide RELIABLE SOURCES please. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

All iss246 does on Wikipedia is try to insert falsely this unregulated small club called OHP and try to align witgh proper regulated professions in psychology. You are nothing but a 'troll' iss246.

Unwarranted accusation. I am bringing you up on charges. Iss246 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 I doubt if you are actually an academic iss246. hat we know about you is that you are an internet troll. You post 'OHP' wherever you can in any legitimate area of the psychology profession you can. I do hold a Doctorate in psychology for your information. But that is irrelevant. Who cares! Its irrelevant. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. No, I think iss246, you are an untrained 'OHP practitioner" who wanted a career change and did not want to train in the many years it would take to train to be a professional Health Psychologist or professional Occupational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear iss246. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. Stop trolling. Lifecoaching may be more your cup of tea. That, like an 'OHP practitioner' also allows any career changer like yourself to become, without any actual training.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [end of Iss246's opening statement, ed.]

I have not reviewed the edits in article-space but did review the Talk page. iss246 appears to show appropriate conduct, while Mrm's behavior is essentially harassment and personal attacks. Saying that iss refuses to discuss the issue, then pouncing on him with personal attacks when he does, is a sign of baiting. Mrm shows a strong habit of focusing on the editor, rather than the article, in a generally disparaging manner.

In my view, we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, which is not only disruptive to Wikipedia, but negatively effects retention. If Mrm's accusation of stalking is true however, he should provide examples of other articles where iss246 has allegedly followed him.

BTW - whether an editor is an expert in a topic does not effect their credibility as a contributor, though it sometimes helps, and sometimes inhibits, good editing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• With all due respect the history between iss246 and myself goes back almost a year. You looked at a tiny, final snippet where iss246 had just reported this, and then tailored his responses for a moment. I have been subjected to masses of verbal abuse by iss246 over many months and can provide 100,200 examples. Instead I hope we can refrain from personal abuse, and focus solely on editing from here on. Stop personalizing and just focus on making Wikipedia's articles better for the general community, that is readers. Please don't judge me on a tiny fragment. I for one think we can all move on, and cease completely any further childish name calling, rather than me go back over almost a years worth of records and provide over 100 hard core examples of iss246's personal abuse toward me. Apologies to administrator for the placement of my replies on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with CorporateM. Mrm7171 seems to think s/he knows more about psychology than anyone else and thus behaves as though no one else is qualified to make changes to psychology-related articles (check out some of his/her earliest edit summaries...in all caps, mind you). S/he also shows egregious ownership issues of psychology articles, and s/he has even been blocked for this kind of behavior before. Maybe a topic ban is in order?

BTW, Iss246, you never informed Mrm7171 of this discussion (as is required), so I did just that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not informing Mrm7171. I should have asked a third party. I don't like going on his talk page. And I don't like him going on mine. Iss246 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My responses to iss246 yesterday were after months and months of long term abuse by iss246. I can collect at least 100 examples. For months iss246 has posted on his tall page, filthy, baseless lies and defamation, calling me a troll, thinking he knows best about everything, he is a professor. Therefore his opinion was all that mattered. I had enough. I am human. No-one can tolerate that type of long term abuse. Below is the section of filth still boldly pasted on his talk page, and left there for months.

On iss246's talk page he has this filth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 did not put my angry response into context. My response came after he placed on my talk page walls and walls of unnecessary text that included needling recommendations to act "calmly." Mrm7171 did not mention what I wrote at the end of my angry response, which was to I ask him to never write on my talk page again. Iss246 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In response, I know no more, or no less, than other editors. I have made excellent edits on Wikipedia. In many articles. I have been subjected to masses of abuse from iss246 over months and can provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward me such as the section posted on his talk page. Countless times iss246 talks on and on and on about how he is a professor, he knows best, etc etc etc...I can provide 100 examples. I had enough. I also hold a Doctorate in psychology but who cares!. Holding Doctorate or being an expert is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Mrm7171 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less about my doctorate. Never have. Never will. Who care's! It is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Everyone's opinion is equal. Don't use it in my title, where most others do. I know no more, no less than anyone else on the psychology topics. No individual's opinion matters any more or any less.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true. I was blocked because when I first joined Wikipedia, I broke the 3 revert rule, once. I then learnt from that block. Being blocked once should not be brought up again and again to abuse an editor? Surely?

On the Occupational health psychology page here is what was written in October 2013 and only recently revisited the article. Admittedly, after re-reading iss246's posting of his filthy, abusive defamation which remained on his talk page, my reaction to him personally came out a couple of days ago, and called him some names too. I realised straight away and apologised for my childish replies in self defence to iss246's long term abuse! We are all human. We all have a limit. No-oner stepped in and stopped iss246 from his abuse. Everyone saw his abuse. It has remained on his talk page for months.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to any administrator. I have stepped right back here. I have not reverted anyone's edits today and would not 'blindly revert' anyway, without discussing first. Iss246 is a very experienced editor, who clearly knows what three-revert rule (3RR) violations are. In fact, I posted a clear warning directly above, so there was absolutely no doubt. Further no experienced editors like Bilby have a thing to say about it, despite me asking for advice where to post this. Today, within a 12 hour period iss246 has engaged in continual blatant edit warring. Iss246 has reverted at least 7 of my good faith edits without a care for Wikipedia's strict policy applying to all editors not to cross the (3RR) line. I will not engage in edit warring, or be dragged into a continual edit war. I realize my own editing will also be assessed by an administrator. So be it. I accept whatever an administrator of Wikipedia decides to do here.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world did you post all this in the middle of my comment? That really confuses things. And if you can really "provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward [you]", well, let's see some examples. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what a mess. I can certainly provide a lot of references. Just added one from today at the base of the page. If administrator wants examples give a day or two and I will collate them in a coherent manner. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what to do. Frankly, after looking over various talk pages I'm inclined to throw a block in the direction of MRM if only out of irritation over the caps, the bold, the odd insertions of comments, the aggressiveness, and that there's supposed to be a Ph.D. attached to all that yelling in somewhat sub-par language. Would an IBAN be helpful? I'd warn MRM for personal attacks and all that, but Iss has also called the other party a troll. I can't judge whether MRM's edit history warrants such an appellation, but the comments pertaining to Iss are certainly trollish. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for bolding. And using capitals the other day. Won't do that again. Just read this message.Did not know the policy on bolding either. Sincere apologies.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at my wits end after being abused and attacked and accused by iss246 of everything under the sun. As a human, after a year of abuse, I got angry the other day. I am only human. An example just today is iss246 accusing me of not reading an article, that isi am lying. It has been endless. Here is his comments from only today.....

""Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it.".... courtesy of iss246 only today!

I did not lie. I read the article. Why does iss246 have to accuse and insinuate and attack constantly. Then one day, I snap. And give hime some back, I'm going to be slapped with a barring or whatever? That would seem grossly unfairMrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Off iss246 goes again on the base of the Talk:Health psychology all day. I cannot stop him attacking me, accusing me of bad faith. Twice today. I remain silent as I very often have. Cannot an administrator look iss246 personalizing, attacking, accusing constantly. Can he not just focus on editing? Can no-one stop him from doing this. Here is another example. I remain silent. As I mostly do, under his relentless attacks and personalizing instead of focusing on editing only. Please refer to today's accusations and personalizing, by iss246. Again apologies for 'cracking under this relentless personalization' and accusations of bad faith by iss246. I normally try and ignore his attacks and remain silent as Wikipedia recommends but this is ridiculous. We are all human. That is the only reason why I cracked the other day. Iss246 also avoids answering direct questions regarding actual editing. Talk:Health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Given this is on the administrator's page here, can an administrator please go to the Talk:Health psychology and read all of the last day's rants by iss246. I just re-readit and feel like I need to respond to his false, baseless accusations. I refrain. I keep silent. What do you recommend? All day, iss246 has personalized, accused, attacked. Not focused on editing. I stay silent. What do you recommend. Can you warn him please. Can you ask him at the very least to stop this relentless, personalization and focus only on editing. Please!Mrm7171 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, sure, gladly. I did. And what I see is a rebuttal on their part of accusations made by you. You say "I stay silent"--no, you don't, you're here again, doing a passive-aggressive dance in which you play the victim. I urge other admins to look into this matter to see if more drastic measures are necessary: I am going to block for the latest talk page disruptions.

  I note, for instance, that Mrm is the one playing the personal card on that article talk page--quite inappropriate, with headings such as "Fake references cited by iss246". They started the latest section, "Please stop accusing me of lying or not reading a journal article iss246!". One can't fault Iss for responding. The clincher, perhaps, is this edit here--the old "there you go again", with "Stop the abuse and personalizing please" as an edit summary. I've had enough of this: blocked temporarily for personal attacks, article talk page abuse, and general disruption. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been an issue for about 8 months. Iss246 hasn't always responded well, but Mrm7171 was confrontational from the start, and often seems to be goading Iss246 and other editors. I had hoped that things would calm down, but they seem to have fired up again after a break. Hopefully something short of an indef block will help, but intervention is needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to personal attacks Mrm7171 keeps starting long and unending debates over minor points on talk pages that continue even after several editors disagree. Points that seem to be settled will be brought up again weeks or months later. I hope the intervention will help. Psyc12 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Bilby, I've spent several months at Talk:Occupational health psychology (and now Talk:Health psychology) trying to resolve this dispute, basically since Mrm7171's appearance there. Speaking in my capacity as a volunteer editor who has been dealing with him since around the time of his first block, Mrm7171 appears to have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. This problem is IMO not likely to be solved. I believe that Mrm7171 would sincerely like to be more effective, but he comes across as an intransigent POV pusher with odd beliefs. For example, he makes comments about professional psychology associations being "clubs" with a "hidden agenda". He keeps starting, and then dropping, these weird discussions about whether "OHP" is the same thing as "occupational health psychology". He complains frequently that it is possible to be a practitioner of occupational health psychology without first being a licensed clinical psychologist (this is not unique to OHP; for example, professors of psychology are legally called "psychologists" even if they are not licensed, and all sorts of nurses, allied health workers, and even medical doctors are professionally involved in psychology without being licensed psychologists).

Like Bilby, I'd prefer that this was handled without an indef, although with each encounter, I'm less confident that this is possible, and I would not be surprised if other people deemed it necessary. An WP:IBAN would need to involve more than Iss246, as Mrm7171 has significantly directed his anti-OHP comments towards at least one other editor. I think that at topic ban from anything related to psychology might work. A TBAN for anything smaller than psych (e.g., health-related psych) might be too difficult to understand the boundaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has been remarkably patient through months of difficult interaction with Mrm7171. I'm sorry to say that Mrm7171's contributions have been (with rare exceptions) nonconstructive and disruptive. Not only that, his ideas and his style of discussion are so odd that I feel that he will probably not be able to change sufficiently to become a useful editor, at least within the areas of his distinctively strange ideas. I would support a indefinite ban, preventing him from editing all psychology subjects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (myself included) noticed that Drmies blocked Mrm7171 three days ago. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I did. The block is for two weeks. I think it would be more efficient to talk about what should happen when the block expires than to come back and go through this all again in eleven days. we need a long-term solution, not a two-week break followed by a return to disruption. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Never do today what you can put off indefinitely. Two weeks of real life is a great antidote to wikistress, and AGF is that when Mrm7171 returns with a fresh perspective they'll be able to contribute effectively. Support reclosing the thread. NE Ent 22:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be overly optimistic there - this isn't an issue that has flared suddenly, so much as a long-term pattern that is going to need to be addressed. But I'm uncomfortable with trying to tackle this while Mrm7171 is not able to take part. Thus I'm not opposed to letting things sit and see if we need to come back later, with the hope that we won't have to. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this was reopened? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue hadn't been resolved. Or at least, we need to confirm that it has been. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue, which is a long-term inability to function in this environment, has not really been resolved. It's only been postponed. I do agree with Bilby that it feels a bit unfair to have these kinds of discussion when the affected person is only able to post to his user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block: Per others, behavior seems unlikely to change at this point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe overcategorizing

I've come across CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been creating all sorts of silly, unnecessary categories, largely centered around fiction. For example, they created Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction, Category:Fictional racists, Category:Brain transplant in fiction, and so on. They've been warned about this before, but they've created quite a few categories since then. Just thought I'd bring this up here to see if anyone had any thoughts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There were some comments about this editor here, including comments from me. Georgewilliamherbert said he was going to follow up with that editor but it doesn't appear George did. I have my general concerns about the compatibility between what that editor does and what we're supposed to be doing as Wikipedia editors, the aims just don't quite seem to meet often enough. Zad68 03:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was cleaning up after this editor earlier today when he added a bunch of articles to strange and ill-defined categories, or to categories that are just plain wrong. I was thinking about perhaps proposing a topic ban for category-related edits, but I would certainly like to hear from CensoredScribe before suggesting this. The exchange here about the subject does not inspire me with confidence however.--Atlan (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Right... I'm not sure preventing only category-related edits will really fix the problem I am suspecting here. Can anybody review this editor's history and point to a clear area of net-positive contributions? Zad68 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of a topic ban over a block because CensoredScribe is obviously well-meaning. But going by their talk page, there are definitely more problems than just the category one. Perhaps a case of WP:CIR.--Atlan (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that link is what I was thinking of when I was writing my previous comment. Zad68 04:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Was the warning justified? No. Move on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe over the last month has had their edits to add categories reverted by over a dozen editors for the zealous overcategorization. However it's not just overcategorization, it's placing original research categories into the articles as well. Some are of dubious thought diff, some original reseach diff2, and some just plain left field diff3. They have created multiple categories, gone on a large categorization spree then after other editors have removed some of the categories from articles subsequently blanked the categories and had them deleted. Some have also gone to deletion review. See deleted contribs. The users edits are not malicious and are certainly not vandalism they're being conducted in good faith. However they are causing a lot of work for other editors to clean up and a minor bit of disruption. Not all their edits are bad either, some are useful and reasonable such as the category Body swapping in fiction, which is a good one to have (not sure we have something similar so it's useful.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that I also found this editor's contributions troublesome. It is all unsourced and WP:OR at best. Categories need to be supported in the articles at the very least. I question the utility of many of them. His work is sloppy enough that many of us have had to jump in and clean up after him. That is not constructive editing. It should be collegial, in that he learns from his mistakes and cooperates to improve articles. How many warnings and speedy deletions does he need here before action is taken? Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My edits to non medical science articles are statistically largely acceptable; such as on the environmental effects section of plastic and the bioremediation of assorted heavy metals; hydrocarbons and black carbon. Before I added categories my edits to mythological subjects were also rarely reverted; like the relics section on Gautama Buddha. With the exception of this recent categorization issue; my only other problems were with not using secondary source medical articles; which I did end up using correctly; making lasting contributions to HIV AIDS explaining the experience of aids patients in China and noted that Bonobos are immune to SIV.

Most of my categorizations are correct; excepting Blade Runner and Starwars (mostly the prequels). I suppose the idea replicants are alive enough to be considered slaves is not explicity shown nor that replicants not being allowed on earth would be akin to immigrtation in fiction. For Starwars I accurately listed Bobba Fett as an aviator like Luke and all the other characters; and listed Darth Vader as a racing driver similar to Captain Falcon do to the Podracing scene; I also listed him as a child soldier because he fought in a military action destroying the droid control ship in the battle of Naboo. He didn’t invent anything though; because he didn’t have a laboratory or machine new parts like Iron Man or use the force to mold the materials with his mind or anything; he just put pod racer junk parts together as a mechanic. Jedi and Sith are now just a category of swordsmen because there are so many of them. I think all the force users count as super soldiers and soldiers depending on their power, they seem to possess at least a few force powers with super reflexes and jumping as a standard even for a barely force trained Jedi like Luke.

Flying cars in fiction, aliens zoos in fiction, martial arts tournament anime and manga and tournament anime and manga are all easily definable and have numerous examples. I forgot to add the Jetsons as having flying cars; those cars being able to collapse into briefcases makes them fall under the same category as the Transformers. I did not add flying cars to Starwars because I stopped editing Starwars pages in protest of the EUs imminent demise and the prequels being rightfully hated. Fictional telekenetics is a good category I’ve added including many Jedi and Sith but also others like Jean Grey.

Speaking of the Matrix. I still think Neo has telekenesis because he is listed as having super speed and strength which he does not have outside of the virtual world of the Matrix. The abilities possessed in the Matrix should count as the characters spend most of their lives and the film inside of the Matrix. This would also apply to movies where most of the film is a dream or where a lot of super powers are shown in the afterlife.

I realized alternative reproduction was far too vague; as is artificial person. Artificial uterus in fiction is a well defined and commonly occurring category however; though in retrospect ecto womb would be a better name for the category as the wombs in brave new world are harvested from cows. The other examples included in artificial reproduction in fiction would have better categorized as Homunculus in fiction; and Synthetic biology in fiction.

Mythological rapists and rape victims are valid categories and the discussion is ongoing. The xenomorph from alien has been stated by Dan O'Bannon to be a rapist. There are legend of coyote having a penis long enough to go across a river. There is also a raven legend like this. My edits to various articles in the mythology project have been constructive. Mostly it is adding references from lives of the necromancers; however I also added a section to Inanna from the page for dominatrix.

The amount of female sword fighters in video games anime manga and fantasy horror and science fiction is enough the category should be renamed. I supported that the category be renamed in the discussion like with the gender neutral firefighter and police officer articles. I listed Picard and Word as being swordsmen because they spend a significant amount of screen time practicing those skills and do use them. I also added the page mythological swordfighters. For goddesses and gods depicted wielding a sword or who have legends of them wielding swords.

Fictional multidimensional will be a small category; however it has a narrow definition which excludes simply being from another dimension and walking through a portal as it is limited only to characters who posses shapes impossible in three dimensions. The Cheshire caat being non Euclidian is mentioned on the cats section on the page for alice in wonderland so at the very least a reference needed tag should be added to that paragraph.

The fictional characters with nuclear abilities and fictional characters with gravity abilities are going to be small categories; unlike characters with electrical abilities. Really the biggest mistake I think I’ve made recently in terms of original research was listing the Kryptonians as having gravity abilities; which is only ever briefly suggested by Lex Luthor. I could provide a reference to Hulk being a living nuclear weapon that absorbs universal atomic energy. Godzilla is referred to as having a nuclear reactor for a heart in Godzilla vs Destoroyah, and Godzilla going through nuclear meltdown is treated as a serious threat. Being a living nuclear reactor should count as having nuclear abilities. Also Kaiser Ghidorah has gravity beams which is a gravity power; and as other TARDIS models have functioning chameleon circuits; should be considered a shape shifter. The TARDIS can also control a black hole which would make it count as well. Captain Atom has nuclear abilities; just as Gravity and Graviton have gravity abilities. I believe the TARDIS is also telepathic so that should be noted.

I am surprised however that fictional characters with radiation absorption or resistance isn’t a category. This category would include the Kryptonians and the Hulks; as well as Starfire and the super mutants and ghouls in Fallout. Most but not all of the Godzilla Kaiju show this ability on screen. The mainstream continuity Spiderman exhibits radiation resistance during his fight with Morlun; I’m less sure of the fantastic four; in the future I would ask others on the fantastic four talk page whether their gaining their powers would count as this; or if there are later storylines where they survive large amounts of radiation.

I categorized several characters incorrectly as invisible more than any other category; the issue was whether invisibility through technology counted. I removed the Predator and Terry Mcginnis from this category, however Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the shell is still listed despite her invisibility being technology based; most of her being a technological prosthesis.

Fictional Yogis is a valid category which currently includes only Dhalsim from street fighter.

I added wookies as a race as slaves; however if this is correct most non human races in Starwars should be listed as slaves. The only other fictional slave I added was Jessie Pinkman; which no one is debating. It would also be appropriate to have mythological slaves and slave owners.

Brain transplant in fiction and body swapping in fiction are being discussed; they are both good ideas and it’s important to distinguish brain transplant from mind swapping. Body hopping seems to be the best way to describe Quantum leap; though that show in particular is difficult to define correctly as it’s inconsistent as to whether Sam has the abilities of his own body or of the person he leapt into. My other positive contributions which have remained for several weeks are fairly miscellaneous. It’s specifically characters not episodes or storylines that most of the reversions are occurring.

I have however made several valid contributions to fictional characters. I’ve made positive contributions in the past and in the future in other subjects; if allowed to edit again will bring more things up for discussion on the talk pages. It’s been a lack of references not poor references which has been the problem.

Please note you are not blocked from editing. The Censoredscribe account is not blocked, and your editing of the project is not prohibited. People just wish you to get involved in some discussion and abide by community consensus where appropriate. Feel free to edit under your account rather than this IP. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to limit categories to ones where there is a meaningful article behind it? Some of the examples being listed here are heading towards WP:OC#TRIVIAL (e.g. bald people could be fictional bald people, people who use a sword or a gun) and the other aspects in WP:OC. If there's to be a category like flying cars in fiction, there should be a decent article about flying cars to back it up. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: You may want to have a look at WP:TLDR. -- œ^™ 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Breach of copyright in a locked article

Our BlackLight Power article is currently locked, and I have just realised that it contains material copy-pasted from elsewhere - a clear breach of copyright. The paragraph beginning "In 2012 after studying the BLP process..." is copied from [8] and needs immediate removal. I've as yet not checked to see if there are further such problems with the material recently added by User:Blippy, but clearly this needs doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• It was Blippy, a few dozen revisions back. So anything copyvioed after that, you can remove and some bored admin will take care of it later without having to check too many boxes. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I hadn't looked at Blippy's talk page last night when I locked the article, but I can see a lot of warnings there about edit-warring (which he was doing) and other problems. I'm not convinced that this editor can edit constructively. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... character assassination anyone?  :-) Please bring forth your evidence of my edit warring on the BLP article. Maybe an explanation of the lock might be in order too? In any case, the phrase "In 2012 after studying", nor anything similar, exists in the cited source. I am unable to view the offending edits, so perhaps someone would be kind enough to provide the diffs. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and a little bit of defending myself - I just looked at my own talk page. There is 1 warning and 1 block for edit warring, both back in 2009 - hardly something accurately described as "a lot of warnings there about edit-warring". Just how impartial are you Dougweller? Blippy (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs) is being quite disruptive IMHO, and the aggressive anti-NPOV anti-consensus edits on Rupert Sheldrake e.g. [9] and pathetic attempts to ignore WP:REDFLAG claims. The rudeness is perhaps a little understandable on a Wiki. However, I am not convinced that Blippy (talk · contribs) is basically WP:COMPETENT to edit science or WP:FRINGE-related articles because of his apparently bizarre and very entrenched views on the subject. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

BBB perhaps you might have bothered to contribute on the article talk page rather than popping up out of the blue and sniping here? I don't quite see how your attempt to change the topic is strictly relevant, but I'm sure reasonable readers will notice the lack of responses to the core issues here, such as the fact that nobody bothered to check whether the claim of copyright violation actually occurred, why the page was spontaneously protected for no apparent reason - and without any discussion whatever, and - along with you - that people are resorting to smear tactics in lieu of having reasonable arguments or explanations for their actions. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, you might be missing the point of this noticeboard: it's where users are reported to administrators for further action because discussion elsewhere has escalated to a point of no-return, or the behaviours are just that horrible that action is required. As such, most commenters here are not nor shall they ever be involved in the article - after all, an WP:INVOLVED admin would be unable to take action in many cases. Most users who comment here are going to base their comments on their review of your recent edits, AND your behaviour in this thread. Those who are involved in the article will comment from a different perspective ES&L 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok Blippy, I will revise my comment - no one has mentioned edit-warring on your talk page since November 17th. It is a long time since your only block, over 4 years. So that's good. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L you're correct that I have limited experience of this noticeboard. And copyright violations. I've asked several times to see the violation because a whole swathe of edits have been hidden. There were three edits within 8 mins of each other concerning the content in question, so I am keen to see the content of the last of those three edits and how it compares to the source text so that I can assess the copyright breach for myself and, where appropriate, learn from any mistakes I may have made. I reject any accusations of disruptive editing - but I have encountered several people who prefer to focus more on the editor than the edits, and assume that edits from any perspective that does not accord fully with their own is disruptive by definition, rather than per WP policy. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing about a copyright violation is that reposting it (or unhiding the relevant revisions) would itself constitute a copyright violation. So, no, you are not going to be able to look at those. LadyofShalott 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That entire paragraph was lifted from the source, with only a minor change in word order toward the end. Lady, or any other admin with magic glasses, would you mind looking at this source and this magically invisible version and confirm to Blippy here that this was properly removed? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was improperly removed, I'm saying I don't understand what was removed. To the best of my knowledge I didn't paste a chunk of text into the article - or at least, if I did so, I would be very surprised if I simply left it as is. I noticed there were 3 edits, and I would like to be able to understand how the last of those edits compares with the source material as I do recollect tidying up some of that material. Unfortunately I am not a savant, so I don't have photographic memory of each of my edits, I usually use the edit history for such things :-) If the final of those 3 edits is a copyright violation I will be unpleasantly surprised and suitably chastened, and will particularly wish to know the specifics so that I don't make any such errors in future. I endeavour to strive for good writing that reflects the sources, not reproduces them. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the explanation LadyofShalott - I see this creates somewhat of a Catch22 for me. And happy anniversary Loreena. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the version Drmies linked. I don't know if it's the final one or not, but yes, that one was lifted verbatim from the website, and you just can't do that. I'm glad my explanation helped. LadyofShalott 04:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you confirm that was the third edit Drmies? I think the complexity of the name spelling was why I copied/pasted into the editor, and obviously saved at that point in error. I may plead slip of the mouse on that and be extra careful in future  :-) However, if that was the third edit, then I am more troubled. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You added it on 09:07, 15 January 2014[10]. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks Dougweller - that must have been the paste and save edit. I'm referring to the state of that section two edits later at 09:15, 15 January 2014. I'm keen to know if it still violated the copyright policy at that point or not, as I thought I had made sufficient changes to the text. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't change it. You added more text and tweaked that. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The revdel should be undone. RD1 states "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." As the revdel contains contributions by AtG and Bhny, the conditions are not met. The linked page, Copyright problems, clearly states "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it...". Unfortunately, it does get rather circular after that, with an "unless" looping back to RD:1, putting the reader in an infinite policy link loop of contradictory information... but anyway, just reverting the copyvio is common practice and common sense. NE Ent 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent, are you sure anyone's contributions have been removed? The diff[11] which includes the version before the rev/del and the one after shows quite a few changes. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. Since the revdel prevents determining who wrote what, the revdel itself is a violation of the Wikipedia CC-BY-SA license, in that removes the required attribution. NE Ent 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• That only applies "If infringement is not blatant", to cite the header of the section Ent linked. There was nothing "suspected or complicated" about this. In addition, the names of the contributors have not been removed, so the contributors can still be determined even if the particular contributions can't. A parallel situation is found in the printing of an article: for attribution a list of contributors suffices, not what they actually did. [changed indenting to keep this together.] Drmies (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I sit corrected: WMF licensing terms clearly specify a list of authorship is sufficient; nonetheless the revdel remains non-compliant with a logical interpretation of RD1. Since revdel's don't remove authorship info, if we rely on "list attribution", the terms redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution would never apply, which begs the question why they are there in the first place. The logical interpretation is revdel a copyvio if and only if it can be done without removing specific attribution of other authors. NE Ent 17:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• RD1 is OK if "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors." The question is what "attribution" means here. If my reading of "attribution" ("list attribution", sure) is correct, then RD could never accomplish that, unless the names of the non-offending contributors are deleted. It's possible to do that, of course, but I don't see how that would ever happen (unless erroneously) since user names can't contain a copyvio. Ordinarily speaking--I'm sure Borges could come up with one. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what User:Moonriddengirl has to say about this. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I started WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording. I reverted NE Ent's insertion of an anchor into WP:Copyright problems/Header#Suspected or complicated infringement. The subsection header is three lines above the anchor, and the only effect I can see is that it hides context by scrolling the header off the top of the window. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent reverted, with the edit summary "Anchor already used." Drmies rebutted NE Ent's citation by simply quoting from the lines above the anchor (partial diff). NE Ent, as I wrote in my revert edit summary, you can link to the subsection header. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is if anything a problem with the language of the criteria. As noted, attribution requires a list of authors; the step by step guide to construction we give is great but above and beyond. Otherwise, people could not reuse our content without including the full history. The criterion says, "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion" and Wikipedia:Copyright problems explicitly referenced Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins at the time that content was added, and that page has long discussed means of keeping good content while removing old. We used to routinely use selective deletion and provide a full list of authors for removed content where the risk of inadvertent or purposeful restoration seemed high; after revision deletion was created, that practice was deprecated in favor of it. I'll go check out the conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct of User:LazLong Sr

I contacted User talk:LazLong Sr about an editing issue regarding Greater Houston and while I have been able to help correct one issue that LazLong has had with the article and edits removing content related to universities in Galveston, I think that his attitude has been increasingly uncivil even though I feel that I have been helping him. Can anyone please give some assistance here? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've warned him about personal attacks. Minor incivility was once dealt with at WP:WQA but brilliant minds dismantled it. The best choice when faced with obstinence is abstinence...in other words, back away, go back to discussing on the article talkpage to obtain consensus, and use WP:DR where needed. Not everyone is a wiki-expert, and not everyone is able to see 2 sides ES&L 10:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute that's resulted in frayed nerves. I don't see a pattern of incivility that requires administrative intervention, or anything like that. ESL is right in suggesting the DR process, as well as giving yourself a break from the dispute. Sometimes just giving yourself 24 hours to think about something else can be beneficial, even when the dispute has run for weeks or months on end. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I asked about it on IRC and somebody suggested ANI but I'm fine with another venue. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. As long as he doesn't come to my talk page and attack me, I fine with it. Didn't know this process was here or I'd used it earlier. I'm not a "professional Wikier" and honestly don't care to be. I am a professional member of the media and I do seek honesty and balance in the few Wiki articles with which I am concerned. Thanks for your time. LazLong Sr (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional member of the media, no self-respecting member of any media organization would call someone names like that ... it's wholly unprofessional ES&L 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, exactly what names did I call him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazLong Sr (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, for not signing. I'm not used to wikiways LazLong Sr (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:WhisperToMe should have provided some differences showing the incivility but I suspect that remarks like this and this are what they are referring to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should provide diffs next time. Since much of it was on the same page and was left up I thought it would be apparent. The one that prompted this discussion was this one. This was the one before it, and this one before it said "At this point in the process, it really doesn't matter to me what you think. You've clearly shown your "true colors" as it were." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION - ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's

Please notice he has continued his attacks on me just a few hours after you suggested he lay off for at least 24 hours. This is how the entire disagreement started in the first place - Instead of a civil discussion on the article's Talk Page, he came to MY house, my Talk page, being intrusive, rude, and berating. When he should have stopped, he repeatedly returned to my Talk page with his boorish attitude.

I see he's now done the same on your page - twisting my tail here. So much for "backing off." He really has a great way of showing respect for your suggestions on how to curtailment the ill will he's fostered. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and ES&L I still respectfully ask you to point out these "names" you accuse me of calling him. Thanks for your attention. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You really don't recollect calling WTM a fool and a pompous ass? It was only yesterday. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Those are not names. Those are proper descriptions, in my opinion, of MTM's words and actions on my Talk page. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Darn, I'm sorry. I didn't sign in properly. I really do apologize, I'm not a real wikier and not comfortable with all the logins and tildes so I have to go back and correct. I'm not doing it intentionally. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's --- I'm sorry to make multiple entries without allowing adequate time for your response. Please believe me, I am not attempting to bully you by stacking things up with repeated entries. That was done to me, and it is not right to do that to someone. All that said, I'd like to remind you, I DID NOT seek out this post war. I started no attack on anyone. Someone took a civil discussion away from the article in question, aggressively brought it to MY house, to my personal Talk page, and commenced to attack and talk down to me. I responded to this affront as I would any such attack "in my house." I defended myself and yes, retaliated. I DID not seek out this fight, but I won't be bullied in my house. LazLong Sr (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read the exchange on your talkpage - and the purpose of that talkpage is, indeed, to talk to YOU, and it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation as is provided for that purpose. There is only ONE party who is uncivil on that page: you. You're the one who begins with accusations of some form of racist agenda. When the person apologizes for an error of theirs, you attack them, and continue your subtle but obvious accusations of racism. You eventually refer to them as a fool. Sincere attempts by another editor to advise you of Wikipedia policies and norms CANNOT be considered an attack. Let me repeat in case you missed it: you were never attacked on the talkpage - you were asked to follow set policies that you agreed to when you signed up to this private website, and they pointed out a few areas where you have been failing to keep up to your end of the bargain. ES&L 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I disagree with them, but I'm then not a professional wikier, just a professional member of the working media. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no "professional wikiers", and your status as a "professional member of the working media" is not relevant to your status on Wikipedia, one way or the other. Secondly, if you disagree with those "opinions", then you need not to edit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and when you edit Wikipedia you must follow these policies and guidelines, or you will - if you ignore or flaunt them - be blocked from editing until you agree to. Thirdly, I see that you comment on your talk page that you are here "attempting to keep the FACTUAL TRUTH posted in a very few Wiki articles" - "Truth" is not what Wikipedia is here for. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth; it is a sad but true fact that professing an agenda to promote "The Truth" is almost invariably a sign of a bad editor. I'd suggest you step back, take a deep breath, Read up on some relevant policies, and then either resume editing while following them - or, if you can't follow them, not to resume editing at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Beginning to feel like a hindquarter in a shark feeding frenzy. Thanks for that Bushranger, especially the links. I completely understand "verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material" and was pleased to see it's been amended to consider sources balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Some semantics - I believe "FACTUAL TRUTH" is defined as verifiable, irrefutable facts, and a step more stringent than verifiable alone. I do need to do much more reading on the "wiki way" and think a lot of this event stems from multiple misunderstandings - almost exclusively mine. Much of the animosity stemmed from what I perceived as someone taking a discussion from the article's Talk page and lecturing/attacking me in what I perceived as my personal space, my Talk page. I read others Talk pages and did not see such taking place there. More over, I felt what was brought there missed the core of the problem, that being why was everything about a major, world-renown city removed from an article where it clearly belonged. I was already distressed about the article's "serialization" of anything to do with the City of Galveston as if it were a virus, coupled with what I wrongly perceived as a personal attack in my personal space, and basically I blew a gasket. Things then quickly escalated in a back and forth that needed to stop or at lease slow down. I should not have wrote the things I wrote, especially in the hateful manner in which I wrote them. But at the time I felt I was defending myself, and my "home" - as mistaken as I now realize that feeling to be it none the less was what I was experiencing. Honestly, I wasn't aware how truly visceral some of what I wrote was as I only recently went back and read it. I apologize to all for this, especially WhisperToMe. I have learned much from this event and hope to continue learning.

I do have a question of "correct wiki action" at this point. Should I leave up or clear the page of the argument - not ES&L's admonitions which of course should remain?

And one more - Who is in charge or top rank or whatever? How does one know?

LazLong Sr (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) - There is not any one editor who is in charge. User:Jimbo Wales is one of the founders and he has some status from that, but he is not in charge either. The Wikimedia Foundation board oversees all of the projects but they are not involved in day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad WhisperToMe . I took things you did wrong, incorrectly made assumptions about Talk pages, was ticked, got bent, and bowed up. I think you're from Texas and understand my idioms. Again, sorry. All that said, is there a list of suggested reading concerning the general wiki-world and how to navigate it? Is there a mentoring program to aid people, keeping them from stumbling into a wiki septic tank? Am I even asking these questions (and making apologizes) in the right place or should I go to "your" talk page ? back to "mine"? punt? ---- Crap, messed up again. Thought I was logged in. Corrected LazLong Sr (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

At the very top of your talk page there is a welcome template under which there are a number of blue links that are very useful for new editors to read. There is indeed a mentorship program, you can read a little about what is involved at WP:MENTOR and seek out an adopter at WP:AAU. Some mentors have multiple adoptees and may be unable to mentor you but they often can direct you to another user. The WP:TEAHOUSE is another very good place for new editors to ask questions and get help from other experienced editors. It's much more informal than a mentorship arrangement and if the editors there don't know the answer they usually know someone with the requisite knowledge. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Bhtpbank: Unfounded accusations, abuse, foul language and threats

This trail started when I discovered comments left at Talk:Railway electrification system that had nothing to do with improvement of the article [12] and [13]. These comments were an allegation sockpuppery left by Bhtpbank. As the comments were in no way connected with improvement of the article, I deleted them in accordance with the warning notice at the head of most talk pages [14] and [15]. For what it is worth, the sole evidence against the alleged socks, an IP address editor 86.169.32.152 and LiveRail is that they had agreed with each other. I believe that the reality is that they both disagreed with Bhtpbank (though others had as well). I shall not pursue this part further as LiveRail has been made aware of this ANI, and if he (or she) wishes to contribute, they can.

In accordance with established Wikipedia etiquette, I left a note on Bhtpbank's talk page as to the deletion and why [16]. I also added a friendly warning that leaving unsupported accusations at talk pages can result in a block from editing. Bhtpbank's response on my talk page [17] was highly abusive and used unacceptable language. I responded not following Bhtpbank's foul mouthed manner [18]. The point about another editor being blocked for making unsupported allegations was real [19]. This was followed by the first of Bhtpbank's threats [20] also of note is the abusive and uncalled for edit summary.

I always check out the editing history of problem editors just to make sure it is not really me. In Bhtpbank's editing history, I discovered a series of edits deleting edits made by a new editor using an IP address 24.189.166.243. His first edit was on 12th January 2014. A check on the edits showed that the edits were essentially constructive, certainly to at least the standard expected of a new editor. Bhtpbank had launched into, what can be best described, as a tirade of reversions, [21] (subsequently reverted by another as Bhtpbank's reason was wrong), [22] (subsequently reverted by another as Bhtpbank's reason was wrong), [23] & [24] The edit summaries of these last two edits betrayed Bhtpbank's reasons for the reversions. He seems to believe that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit on Wikipedia and his reversion was simply because he seems to think that IP address editors should not be able to revert edits. As far as I know, this is not Wikipedia policy. He went on with more reversions, [25], [26], [27], [28] & [29]. No edit summary was left as to why these last five were reverted, but the edit summaries above a strong clue. With these eight reverts, Bhtpbank had reverted 24.189.166.243's entire contribution to Wikipedia at that time. I should point out that this new editor only edited for a total of three days having been driven away by the welcome that he got from Bhtpbank.

I reverted the two edits that gave the fact that they were carried out by an IP address editor as the reason because I believe that this is an inadequate reason to revert someone else's contribution. I also reverted one of the remaining five edits [30], but only because although Bhtpbank had not explained his reversion, 24.189.166.243 had left a perfectly good explanation of his edit. I left the remaing five edits alone but only because no edit summaries had been left at all.

Bhtpbank's response was what now seems to be becoming a trade mark tactic - an unfounded allegation [31] - note also the embedded (and unfounded) allegations and threat. I believe that: I am correct is saying that no administrator is going to regard three (in my view justified) reversions on a single day as 'hounding' another editor. The irony is: that that is exactly what Bhtpbank was doing to 24.189.166.243 with his eight reversions.

The final threat came when Bhtbank decided to clean up his talk page, [32] the threat here being in the edit summary, "You will come to regret the day that you crossed me.". One immutable sign of problem editors is that they always remove negative comments from their talk page in order to appear squeaky clean.

Policies violated: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:PROFANEand WP:NEWCOMER definitely and WP:TE probably. I'm sure there must be a policy against making unfounded allegations, but I cannot find it at present.

I do not suppose for one moment that Bhtpbank's behaviour is going to result in a permanent block, but I believe that a short term block (say 1-3 months) is fully justified just to get the message across that making unfounded allegations, abusing and threatening other editors is unacceptable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite whatever this inane slapfest is about isn't clear, but it's obvious that user:Bhtpbank is repeatedly behaving in a way that is far from the standard required of editors on a shared project like this. I would suggest that any repetition of this is blockable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I read this whole complaint twice (seriously) and I'm still not sure what it's about. Anyone else want to take a shot at it? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If an admin cannot make sense of this incoherence, then it must be thrown out. It is clear that DieSwartzPunkt does not like me, but cannot put down in clear intelligible English what complaints he has against me. Is this the quality of editor that Wikipedia needs?? If he cannot enunciate in clear sentences, then perhaps he should be blocked, for wasting everyone's time?? If an editor has read it twice, and cannot make head nor tail of it, then it is time to close this case. It seems to be a blunderbuss attack, without direction nor purpose. To be honest, I would have tried to answer the accusations made against me, but I cannot understand what crime I have committed. If someone can translate gibberish into English, then I shall be happy to face the music. - Bhtpbank (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is neither inane nor gibberish, though it is lengthy. One of the accusations is that you use bad language which, at some point and in some circumstances, can be blockable; another is that your comments about IP editing are unacceptable. (Let's put it this way: if it turns out that you reverted an IP because they were an IP, you should be blocked, as far as I am concerned.) I can find little fault with DieSwartzPunkt's grammar or coherence, but it is very, very easy to find fault with the tone of your language, here and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow up: At Talk:Power factor a user asked a reasonable question on an apparent inconsistency between that article and another (no problem here). An IP address editor (86.171.45.200 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) answered the query [33] reasonably accurately. Now I don't know whether it was because the response was from an IP address editor, or because Bhtpbank's knowledge of electrical engineering is deficient on the subject (probably both), but he deleted the IP addess editor's reply [34] (violating WP:TPOC if I read it right) without giving a reason and substituted his own response [35]. Unfortunately, Bhtpbank's response was wrong in every respect and unlikely to help the questioner.

86.171.45.200 restored his response [36] referring to WP:BLANKING in the edit summary (I assume he inadvertently referred to the wrong policy, but the principle was sound). He or she also posted a warning about blanking on Bhtpbank's talk page [37] also citing the wrong policy.

Bhtpbank left an abusive comment on 86.171.45.200's talk page [38] which more or less states that he regards himself as being entitled to delete anything he pleases from IP address editors from talk pages. He also goes on to state, "Also, [I] disregard bvllsh1t like this from unregistered users (i.e. fvckwits like you.)" (I assume the misspellings are some attempt at avoiding some perceived bad language bot). The edit summary of, "Get stuffed" says it all. Bhtpbank also deleted the warning from his talk page (not a problem in itself), but the edit summary of, "Get lost" is an indication of the attitude that newbie IP address editors are having to endure (Did I mention that this is a new editor?).

Now this last example may seem rather trivial and maybe not worthy of an ANI in its own right, but it is a symptom of a much larger problem. As a conclusion, Bhtpbank has posted a vitriolic statement on his user talk page against IP address editors [39] though citing a single case that seems to be a single user using multiple IP adresses to inflict vandalism (as far as I can tell there is no evidence to link 86.171.45.200 with this specific case).

While no one can prevent Bhtpbank (or anyone) having such an opinion, to actually persecute such IP address editors in practice is unacceptable behaviour. Deleting other users comments from article talk pages purely because you happen to disagree with such users posting them there, or disagreeing with the comment, is equally unacceptable. What would happen if we all did it? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @DieSwartzPunkt: please exercise more brevity on posts like this; multiparagraph posts on ANI are hard to follow. That said, I actually do agree that this treatment of a newbie by User:Bhtpbank is an immediately blockable action. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As this is an Admin's page, I ask for all non-admin comments to be struck out ... else this becomes a kangaroo court, pure and simple. How a non-admin can be assessed as knowledgeable in the policies of this place is unclear and does not help in the discussion. Also, we need to be absolutely clear on the difference between a genuine 'newbie" (i.e. a registered user) as opposed to an IP edit, which tends to be vandals and irregular editors. Wayne Ambler (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not how this page works. Anyone can comment here. --Onorem (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." I hasten to add that it doesn't mean that only Admins and experienced editors can comment. Anyone can. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And where did "Wayne Ambler" suddenly appear from? His first edit was yesterday. Odd that he should suddenly be an expert on "kangaroo courts" in Wikipedia pages. DieSwartzPunkt's complaints seem fairly clear to me. There is nothing confusing about them. He found an edit that seemed problematic, looked up edits by the editor (Bhtpbank) and found what seemed to him to a pattern of abusive behaviour by Bhtpbank. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• This, as VQuakr pointed out, is disgusting. The current rant on their talk page is disgusting as well, besides...how to put this delicately...untelligent? And then there's the matter of old Wayne coming by, with some nonsensical comments that indicate a complete lack of understanding. Bhtpbank, you are hereby put on notice. One more personal insult (and us kangaroos will be the judge of what that is, not you), one more disparaging edit summary, one more such remark against or about an IP editor, and I will block you indefinitely, or as long as it takes for you to understand that a. your manners are terrible; and b. IP editors have every right to edit here (and I haven't seen anything useful coming from you, just cussing and reverting).

  If any other admin sees enough reason for a block right now, power to you. And to those (Erpert et al.--"WHAT DO YOU WANT???" stop shouting please) who joked about what DieSwartzPunkt tried to argue here and how they did it (Andy Dingley?) but didn't take the time to actually read it, shame on you. This is what ANI is for, and I could repeat old Wayne's argument about non-admins needing to stay away: if all you can do is gripe at someone who is making a legitimate complaint without taking them seriously, then maybe you need to stay the hell away. They came here with a valid problem, a seriously disruptive editor, and you chewed them out. I'm done before I say something negative. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, and what goes for Bhtpbank goes for Wayne too, of course, so I'm not worried about them, sock or not. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I'm not sure why you're in such a foul mood, but I wasn't joking; I seriously didn't understand the complaint. BTW, "WHAT DO YOU WANT???" is simply the link to my talk page (I comment here almost daily; you never noticed that before now?). Now then...may I offer you a spot of tea? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here following a notice that DieSwartzPunkt placed on my user talk page expecting to make a minor contribution based on the thread title. What I discover is that this has progressed far beyond a simple matter of incivility and allegations. This is now a matter of an editor bullying and abusing new editors to the point that they give up and leave. The first of these 24.189.166.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) provided reasonable contributions for just 3 days and has not been heard from since. The second 86.171.45.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for just 2 days following this piece of abuse posted by Bhtpbank on his talk page. I note that another user made a belated and laudable attempt at trying to rescue the situation.

Bhtpbank's rant on his talk page (here) is nothing short of disgraceful. I grant that a project such as this is going to attract unwanted attention from those who have no intention of making positive contributions, but Bhtpbank's assertion is that it is only anonymous editors who cause problems (and cites an exampe of just one problem). The reality is that registered editors are just as capable of causing problems as Bhtpbank himself is demonstrating so well. In fact just taking a straw poll of complaints in this ANI page (ignoring the merits of those complaints as I am not in a position to judge) at the time I made this post, shows 31 complaints against registered editors and just 4 against anonymous.

It is my belief that most of the original ANI complaint has paled into insignificance given the way that this has developed. The only issue that needs to be considered is Bhtpbank's deliberate and unwarranted bullying of potential new contributors to the project and his success in driving them away. It is my opinion that this factor alone warrants a permanent block of editing rights. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As for you User:LiveRail, I actually like you, I honestly do. Your lack of understanding of railway electrification gives me so much amusement, that I like having you around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

In my experience Bhtpbank has difficulty interacting with others in a civil manner. I've encountered him on several occasions, all relating to rail transport articles, and in all three cases his remarks were unhelpful and laced with bad faith. Last January he left a missive on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways [40], castigating all the participants for not writing particular articles to his satisfaction. It was offensive enough that I reverted it (probably shouldn't have), on the grounds that no good would come of it. He promptly followed up with a similar diatribe: [41]. Note that, as of writing, he hasn't done any of the article writing mentioned. Last October I put North Coast Hiawatha up for GA review. Bhtpbank conducted the first review, which you can see here: Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1. His behavior was contentious throughout, and well below the usual standard for a GA review. Eventually he withdrew it, another editor stepped in, and the article was promoted. One final example: Talk:Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad (2009)#Requested move. I proposed a fairly straightforward move; the only reason I did an RM instead of just doing it was that I was not the primary author of a rather substantial article. Bhtpbank was one of two editors who commented, and left an unnecessarily inflammatory remark.

Short version: it's not just new editors. Bhtpbak treats everyone badly. In addition, he's probably sockpuppeting with "Wayne Ambler" though it's so transparent one hardly cares. If he can't treat others with a modicum of respect I think he should be shown the door. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I wondered how long it would take for you to find your way here. Cumnon in and join the party!! Seriously, I gave you very fair treatment of your GA review of North Coast Hiawatha. The ONLY problem was that you just wanted it to be a 'slam dunk', and when I gave feedback that you weren't expecting became defensive. If you ask for a critique but can't take the comments, then find another hobby, purleeeze. Reality check: your ego was bruised by my review, and you simply couldn't take it like a man, and respond positively. And now your here to stick the boot in to get even! (The truth stings ... doesn't it?) So this here we have a prime example of Wikipedia editors, when you don't get you way you complain here. It's like two brother, one weak one strong. When the weaker brother gets beaten, he runs to his mummy to complain. Thus Wikipedia editors are exposed as being 'mummy's boys' clinging on to the apron strings of their parents, fro protection from the big bad world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I welcome other editors in this thread to review Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1 and form their own opinion. I think they'll find that I responded to every critique you made, but had difficulty in getting you to actually finish the review. I believe a similar problem occurred at Talk:Bristol Parkway railway station/GA1. I was astonished to learn that after the fiasco at North Coast Hiawatha you would undertake another GA review, then claim you didn't mean to do so and leave another editor in the lurch. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Awwww, come here you big softie and let me give you a hug. ((((User:Mackensen))). There, there, there. Does your ego feel better now?? Seriously though, how do you manage with conflict in the real world?? Of course, you never experience that, stuck in front of a computer. Weel that's going to change very soon! Do you think that the internet is safe ... that you can remain anonymous and not identified for who you really are??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, that's an outing threat. On the balance of things that's a silly thing to do. I think we're done here. @Drmies: or another uninvolved administrator, can we wind this up? Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that someone uninvolved should close this; btw, I don't like where this is going... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase "dey tuk oor jerrbs!" -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the baiting, sneering, insulting, and possible threatening of real-world consequences for someone's comments here, blocked. If any admin decides that the comments to Mackensen, above, are grounds for an indefinite block for harassment, I couldn't fault them for it. Bhtpbank, you were warned, and now you got the block you deserve. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else get the impression that Bhtpbank seems to have gone out of his way to get a block? Or: since a 72 hour block seems extremely lenient to me, given the way this evolved, is it possible that Bhtpbank was expecting an indefinite block and decided to insult everyone in this ANI while he still could?

Incidentally, some administrator may wish to delete the piece at User talk:Bhtpbank regarding IP address editors since it seems to have been (almost) universally condemned here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing it from his talk page per WP:POLEMIC. Blackmane (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Information: A sockpuppetry case has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank in respect of the Wayne Ambler post above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cad and the Dandy - edits by Josephgallos

Much to my disapointment, I must request aministrator intervention re Cad and the Dandy and the edits of Josephgallos. Since getting involved with the article Savile Row some 2+ years ago, and getting that down to a less spam-like form, I have taken an interest in related articles. One such is Cad and the Dandy, created by user Josephgallos. I don't question WP:NOTAB, but persistent revision by Josephgallos - and nearly breaking the three revert rule - have recently brought to my attention the (now admitted) fact that Josephgallos is in fact commerically paid SEO consultant to the subject of this article. I have advised Josephgallos of our rules re WP:BIAS, and asked for a discussion of the issues, but am continually faced with non-engagement. Given that in the last 24hrs I have placed a vandal3 tag on his talk page, and a WP:BIAS notice on the article - the latter of which was reveresed - I am disapointingly now forced to request adinistrator intervention. The core problem here is that Josephgallos appears not to understand the difference between bias/avertorial and encyclopedic. Your quick intervention and input would be most appreciated - Thank You! Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, I noticed that you twice removed the Good Article tag on Cad and the Dandy without the article being delisted. I also don't think the vandal tag was appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! My mistake on the GA, but in light of the admitted bias/lack of engagement plus revert of my addition of the BIAS tag, I hope that you can understand the choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, you need to file a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if you want the page to be delisted from GA. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am appealing to the administrators to review this matter seriously. User:Trident13 has been trying to delete important verifiable content referenced with reliable published sources without valid reasons. User:Trident13 also engaged in a questionable practice to edit the content in question so it looks like they are inconsistent before deleting them altogether thus appearing in the history section like he deleted an inconsistent content. This is a deliberate manipulation attempt suggesting bias on his side. He is accusing me of vandalism citing content which I answered with supporting published sources. When he cannot provide valid reasons for deletion, he proceeded to attacking me and using WP:BIAS as an excuse to his Wikipedia:Blanking Vandalism. For the record, I did not create the Cad and the Dandy article. But information that is true, verifiable, and facts deserved to be included in the encyclopedia, thus I reverted back the content deleted by User:Trident13.

I have reasons to believe that User:Trident13 is biased for a few reasons:

1) User:Trident13 is the author of Chester Barrie article. Chester Barrie is a direct competitor of Cad & the Dandy

2) Just prior to accusations of vandalism by Trident13, I undid a revision from an unlogged user (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cad_and_the_Dandy&diff=589712653&oldid=588460890).

3) User:Trident13 on several occasions has been replacing the "good article" tag of the Cad & the Dandy article with advert tag since 2012 without any reason at all. example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cad_and_the_Dandy&diff=506077052&oldid=488408319

--Josephgallos

I have made it clear on the articles talkpage, I have no commercial association with the clothing industry, and was/have never been paid or asked to create an article for Chester Barrie. Yes I created it, but that was because it was mentioned on the Savile Row article which I had heavily editted, and I found it worthy of inclusion passing WP:NOTAB (I have also never bought suits from either establishment, or Savile Row). I also don't at present want to add to the current hot-pot which is the edits of Josephgallos by asking for review of GA status for the Cad and the Dandy. Simply put (again) I just want text to reflect encyclopedic content, not the SEO advertorial which Josephgallos has admitted on both the articles talkpage and his own user page (see edit record) been paid to insert. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You don't want to go through GAR but you want to come to ANI? That seems odd (I know ANI is a shorter process, but...). Anyway, I think this is another boomerang situation. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It should probably be reviewed anyway, as its GA quality is questionable. Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just how clear an indication of paid editing by a commercial "SEO consultant" do we need here? Whatever editors might think of how Trident13 has acted in some ways, there is a very obvious promotional COI issue that deserves examination. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"putin article" someone inserted "mafia state" again to the putin article DESPITE TALKPAGE RULING! this is not a content dispute

Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this is not a content dispute this is unconstructive editing! some users inserted the mafia state edit in the putin article despite in the talkpage section "dictator and "American diplomatic cables" the ruling was "The result of this discussion is that this should only mentioned in the body of the article, not the lede" Kalix94 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would help of you refrained from adding misleading [42] or no [43] edit summaries and instead pointed editors to the talk page discussion. People looking at your deletion will have no indication there's a valid reason for your deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered talking to the user? The only interaction I see is you reverting him and tying things in all caps. No administrative action seems to be needed right now. only (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

the user violated the ruling on the talkpage, so administrative action is needed Kalix94 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't take "administrative action" for making one edit against current consensus or making an edit disregarding a discussion they may not have known existed. Let it go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the user in question did participate in the discussion on the talk page, and modified the closing to his own desired outcome a few minutes after adding the information back to the lead of the article. only (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you are posting here, you are told a couple times, in bold lettering, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." You did not do this. Yet no one is suggesting administrative action is needed against you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neil, Tataral participated in the RfC, so it's hard to argue they aren't aware of it. In addition, not only did they put the material into the lead, they also modified the closing of the already-closed RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, There were two separate editors which is why I had an "or" clause. Darkness Shines did not participate in the discussion and may have just seen a deletion with no valid explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

may I suggest using your nightstick officer_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reverted a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaosname. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying whether he is or he isn't, but it did occur to me even before you posted here. I'm not familiar with that particular master, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kalix94 is indeed an obvious sockpuppet engaged in pro-Putin advocacy. I and other experienced editors who have followed that particular article over some years have noticed there is a constant campaign, often by new editors and IP addresses, to delete any criticism from the Vladimir Putin article, while drowning it in praise of Putin. There is no consensus whatsoever to change the text that has been stable for quite some time now and that was agreed by previous consensus, as claimed by User:Kalix94. The article is already 99% positive, so the very little criticism that is included must be retained. Tataral (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But you do not get to supersede an experienced, uninvolved editor's close with your own. [44], [45]. Please stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet again. Tataral, as an "experienced" editor you should know better than to change the close of an RFC you commented in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've formally warned Tataral that if they do it again, I will block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Holdek-5

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

---

Holdek (talk · contribs) found a new entertainment. This time they start to add stub templates to a start-class article and edit-war over my removal of these templates [46]. Last time they were blocked for a month for destructive editing. I am afraid time has come for an indefinite block, given that their contribution to Wikipedia is net negative.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that this editor is disruptive. Whether it is for entertainment or lack of competence is uncertain. This speedy deletion nomination is cause for concern. Some sort of block seems necessary, at least until this user can be reined in.- MrX 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Re. the SD, it's probably a rival company. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I do think the editor is disruptive and net negative, but I do not think they are a COI editor or smth. Most of their activity is to delete paragraphs from random articles which have {{cn}} templates. I never noticed any specific interest to companies.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Holdek (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good faith can only be assumed when the facts are not clear. here, the facts are available for all and sundry to see. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Holdek (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) To be fair, concerning the speedy deletion nom that MrX pointed out, that article does deserve to be deleted, as explained here. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Scratch that; the article has greatly improved since the AfD began. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Holdek, when I said the facts are there for all to see, I was referring to your semi disruptive behaviour. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think he actually knew that, and was being ironic _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Holdek (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note:The following thread got split from this and misplaced under the edit warring discussion below. Since it's clear that several editors want to continue this thread, I'm moving it back here to let it continue and allow the edit warring thread to continue separately. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

May we please return to Holdek? Concerning this accident, they believe that it was ok for them to edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Holdek's edits were reverted, with a message that the content was in fact sourced. He was invited to bring his concerns to the talk page, but instead you chose to serially revert. If there are BLP concerns over the sourced data, those should be discussed on the talk page. Edit warring over sourced material, while claiming it is unsourced is disruptive. aprock (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very typical Holdek behavior. In the article which started this thread, Zvenigora, initially they merged it into the article on the film producer, Alexander Dovzhenko, with the comment that it was unsourced and therefore not notable. I had no particular interest in that article, but I knew that the film is considered notable and is prominently featured in the books about Dovzhenko. Fine, I spent a day of my time, digged out the sources and has written a start-class perfectly sourced article. Then Holdek added three stub-templates there: Wikiprojects film, Ukraine, and Soviet Union. I explained them that I am in fact an active participant of Wikiprojects Ukraine and Soviet Union, and can rate the article. They shut up for half a year, but yesterday they returned and re-added the templates citing the fact that I am not listed at the pages of those projects as a participant. (As a matter of principle, I am not listed in any of the Wiki-project as a participant; my activity in Wikiproject:Ukraine can be easily checked at the talk page of the project). When I removed those they readded the templates without a comment, thereby starting an edit war. Unfortunately Holdek just do not hear what others say, and they have their own interpretation of the policies which is often different from the policies themselves, and they defend this interpretation until they get blocked for disruptive behavior. Last time they got blocked for a month for adding {{cn}} templates to figure captions and subsequently removing images as unsourced. I am actually surprised that we are still discussing their behavior. Given their block log, their refusal to start editing constructively, their lack of positive contribution, and their lack of clue, they should have been blocked on the spot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your representation of both my Zvenigora edits and the reason for my previous block. Post links your accusations. Holdek (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourced every single statement. Concerning your block log, everybody can easily check that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Ymblanter's edit summary for his revert was "this is not your business in which projects I list myself." Holdek (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed no business of yours. It is absolutely irrelevant in the context of the quality of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that my edit summary when I replaced the stub templates was "Replacing stub tags pending official quality reassessments; article has been submitted in each category." Holdek (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So who would do that "official" reassessment? Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Members of the corresponding projects (Wikipedia: WikiProject Soviet Union/Assessment#Frequently ask questions, Wikipedia :WikiProject Ukraine/Assessment#Frequently asked questions. Holdek (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And here is a link to my merger proposal: [[Talk:Alexander_Dovzhenko#Merger_Proposal|Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko#Merger

Edit warring

Significant edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs since Jan 9 by Holdek (talk · contribs), MrX (talk · contribs), and Aprock (talk · contribs). All warned. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy overreaction Batman! Why in the world did you deem it necessary to warn me on my talk page and add to the drama here because of my one, single revert?!- MrX 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely significant and an appropriate warning if there is any semblance of tag-teaming ES&L 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your one revert is relatively insignificant in that 7-revert (so far) edit war. However, jumping in the middle of an edit war as an additional partisan is still edit warring. All parties were noticed after I un-protected the page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Reverting a bad edit one time is never edit warring.- MrX 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is edit warring when there are 6 other reverts around it. You seriously misunderstand what edit warring is and what it's not. From WP:EW, "it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Your talk page discussion (which you closed) seems like an unreasonable response for my very reasonable request, especially for an admin. You made a false statement about my behavior and I simple asked you to retract it. I also resent your claim that I "misunderstand what edit warring is and what it's not". - MrX 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: I am astutely aware of the policy. The part of the policy that you quoted has nothing to do with this. Pure and simply, edit warring requires repeated reverts. One revert is never edit warring. If you wish it to be otherwise, propose it at a policy page and gain consensus from the community.- MrX 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe my reverts fall under exception 7 referenced in the warning since I am removing unsourced contentious BLP content about ratings for shows centered around living persons, and these shows are named after them. Holdek (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is a pathetic attempt to WP:GAME that rule. I recommend both of you stop digging. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

While you can clarify whether or not the reverts are appropriate, you shouldn't assume bad faith in my motives. Holdek (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

After what we've see you do in the last few days, Good faith is the last thing I'd expect to be assumed about you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Coda

Just a note here before this goes into the archives: Holdek is indef blocked now with talk page and email access disabled for repeated personal attacks against multiple admins and for recruiting editors by email to proxy edit for him while he is blocked. Furthermore, it seems Holdek slipped and revealed that he was one and the same editor as User:68.50.128.91 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who apparently harbored a year-long (or longer) grudge against Ymblanter, a connection that probably explains why Holdek targeted certain articles edited by Ymblanter. See this for several old ANI discussions involving the IP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ivan Štambuk

User in question is pushing his POV on Bosnian language by removing chunks of longstanding sourced content [47]. This behavior is disturbing considering the user is well established on Wikipedia. He has also launched a defamation initiative against me by deliberately misrepresenting and discrediting me in a largely unrelated discussion [48]. The issue should be treated as a part of the notorious subject matter which we know as the "Balkans" and is subject to WP:ARBMAC restrictions. If of any relevance, user in question hails from a "rivaling" ethnic group in the region and is determined to disqualify the notion of a "Bosnian language" as "imagination" [49]. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you should have added diffs to Ivan's changes in question in addition to your own revision (these two were the only troubling ones). But I agree with you for the most part (I'm not sure where the rivalry argument comes from though); this seems like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. When a user removes sourced content, there should be a valid reason; and the reasons listed in Ivan's edit summaries (as well as on the talk page) seemed to be back up by nothing but his own opinion. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the validation Erpert and I apologize on account of the substandard diffs added by me. User Ivan is perhaps most notably outlandishly claiming that "Uskuf's dictionary has nothing to do with modern Bosnian" when for example Svein Mønnesland, professor of Slavic languages at the University of Oslo and the leading Slavist in Norway, states the following in Norewegian:– I dag er det de politiske aspektene som gjør boken mest aktuell. Den viser at bosnisk språk har en lang tradisjon, sier Mønnesland. ("Today the politic aspects make the dictionary most topical. It shows that the Bosnian language has a long tradition, Mønnesland says")[50]. Note that the dictionary is written in the Bosniak Arebica which Ivan also considers to "have nothing to do with Bosnian" which was only imaginatively constructed recently we are told. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ow. This is messy, but it doesn't really rise all that much above the level of a content dispute, mainly because I don't believe either of you are generally acting in bad faith. Sure, we could censure IŠ for being abrasive, but then again I really don't see a "defamation initiative" in that diff so we could also censure you for blowing this out of proportion.

The move of pre-standardization history from the Bosnian article to the Serbo-Croatian article is consistent with the same being done to the articles about Croatian and Serbian. Granted, the question of whether the three language articles that use modern-day nomenclature should describe more than the standard languages - remains open. Nevertheless, the organic consensus that emerged over the last few years among the editors in good standing - that genetic linguistics is given priority over sociolinguistics, and that this language/group is called "Serbo-Croatian" on the English Wikipedia - stands. To actually resolve this problem, you need a Request for comment or something like that, not administrator intervention. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative, the individual articles should primarily touch upon the standards, but who is Ivan to draw a line for when Bosnian began its standardization? Croatian is claimed to have done so in the late 1500s whereas Ivan arbitrarily places that date for Bosnian to be in the start of the 20th century. He is chopping Bosnian along its foot ankles because he considers it an "imagination" without a natural process of standardization. I'm sure he would also claim that Bosniaks as a nation were invented only in 1993 during the Bosnian war. I've seen it too many times, it's mainstream Balkans. Feel free to copy-paste this to "comment request" but I experience his attitude and impudence to be quite severe. He expects to enforce his POV with impunity. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please invoke ARBMAC and ban this Praxis guy from editing Bosnian language-related articles? He's very conflictive, adds faulty sources that don't support the claims that he's making, and accuses everyone of bias when he is the one making political charges all the time and belittling interlocutors. Just take a look at Talk:Bosnian language. He has now reinstated the sentences I removed [51] - his source is a an obscure 1963 book unavailable on the Internet and written in Serbo-Croatian which he admitted he doesn't know. So basically it was randomly googled. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonfactual baseless countercharge. The source is not mine but part of longstanding content which Ivan is removing at will, and content which is attributable to RS [52]. Or is Ivan in fact claiming that Bosnian Cyrillic was not gradually replaced by Arebica amongst the Bosniaks? Speaking of bans, I think this "Ivan guy" could go with a broad topic ban. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the written corpus of Bosančica was not written by Bosniaks but by Croats (Catholics). Arebica is attested in a very few manuscripts as was not at replacing bosančica - both co-existed and grew extinct in favor of Latin. The book you're linking doesn't support the claims your making. You don't speak Serbo-Croatian, are not familiar with native grammarians' treatment of the issues involved and cherry-pick your sources to support the nationalist Bosniak view which is just one POV. You're wasting everyone's time with your petty frustrations and it's getting annoying. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ivan, you really need to stop. No one is going to ban Praxis because the sourced information s/he added differs with how you personally feel. Just look at the edit summaries in the diffs that you made: "Charter of Kulin and Uskuf's dictionary have nothing to do with modern Bosnian". "Arebica and bosančica have nothing to do with modern Bosnian". Do you have sources to prove any of that? If not, then please give this tirade a rest and stop deleting reliably sourced content. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources are articles: Charter of Ban Kulin and Bosančica. Praxis is fabricating references in a language he doesn't understand and is attacking everyone who objects to his edits on political grounds. He is reporting me when he is the one making NPOV edits. It's obnoxious nationalist propaganda that has nothing to do with reality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Obnoxious nationalist propaganda"? What are you even talking about? You're continuing to delete a lot of information without actually adding anything (with the exception of this) while leaving the same opinion-based edit summaries, so I'm coming to the conclusion that you just don't get it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow Ivan makes it that I am the nationalist around here, but claims the catholics of medieval Bosnia to be "Croats". The Bosnian Croat nation (formed along religious lines) was not established prior to the 19th century.[53] Referring to the medieval Catholic population of Bosnia as "Croat" is an anachronism and nationalist POV. That same medieval Bosnia was moreover not just Catholic, but also composed of the heretic Bosnian Church and eastern orthodox Christians. In reality, most of the bosancica (Bosnian Cyrillic) was written within the Bosnian Church. Ivan is looking to usurp the literary tradition of a highly dynamic medieval Bosnia as Catholic, and ultimately "Croat". All of his claims are thoroughly devoid of RS, as we're instead expected to settle with his opinion. As demonstrated, Ivan has challenged Bosnian and Bosniak history in response to what he calls the "nationalist Bosniak view" and "obnoxious nationalist propaganda" above, but in reality seeks to claim it as "Croat". Irredentism and hegemony at its best. I increasingly perceive Ivan as a tangible threat to the aims of Wikipedia, not least because his violations seem to pass with impunity. Quite frankly, Ivan has succeeded in disillusioning me from editing Wikipedia as he deprives it of civility, manners, RS, NPOV and what not. I have to grant him, however, of developing a very refined and sophisticated POV enforcement that is not always immediately discernible. He knows how to wrap up things and does not hesitate to use Wikipedia as a forum, though without ever posting RS. All he knows is to bash on other user's sources as "cherry-picked". Furthermore, according to his logic, one must be a native speaker to earn the right to contribute to the articles. All of this falls below my standards and dignity, and I won't have anymore of it. As a source of free knowledge, Wikipedia is nothing short of an amazing gift to mankind. Witnessing its corruption leaves a bad taste with me. I won't be trying this case any longer. I am handing it over to be closed/decided by whoever might be interested or concerned. Thank you for your help Erpert, I do appreciate it. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PI, you really need to calm down and reset your bias detector, because it's gone off the deep end. I've read the discussion on the talk page, and IŠ has simply not done what you're accusing him of - he did not claim the entire medieval Bosnian heritage for the Croats; he told you that there are sources that do that, and that you can't also do the converse for the Bosniaks. Granted, there may well be biases involved, e.g. you could ask him to practice what he preaches regarding the terminology on some medieval Croatian article, but at the same time, you just claimed that "most" of the bosančica was written among the Bosnian Church faithful, whereas there's pretty much a consensus out there that its use by the Franciscans is in no way less relevant. Battling this out like this, what with all the repetitive talking points, is utterly meaningless and it does not contribute to the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and if it needs saying, edits of glaringly retributive nature such as [54] and [55] and [56] are making you seem like a hypocrite because the mention of 1630s in the lead of the Bosnian language article still stands, together with other references to history in the article text...

In any case, any more effort spent without adopting a consistent, suitably nuanced approach for explaining the relationship between the modern standard languages and a historical background that is ascribed to them by sources - is a failure of the encyclopedia, and a path towards yet more edit wars and other assorted nonsense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Praxis, that really wasn't the point I was making. Maybe you and Ivan should take a break from editing the article for a while. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I accept the overall conclusions reached by the both of you and shall add them to my future conduct. However, let me end this by pointing out that it was Ivan's anachronistic nationalist assertion above that "Most of the written corpus of Bosančica was not written by Bosniaks but by Croats (Catholics)" that triggered such accusations. Those Catholics had nothing to do with the notion of a Croat nation and Bosniaks are every bit as much descended from medieval Bosnia as the Bosnian Catholics are. Granted, he knows for the most part how to argue his POV on plausible grounds, but the question is how much of it is sincere and not only a charade to conceal bias. Such comments as the one above compromise his disguise, as does unadulterated POV-pushing which dismisses the notion of a Bosnian language as "imagination".[57]. He also frequently invokes the right of the Croat nationalist scholarship to be heard. Geez louise, we already know that it seeks to claim Bosnia as "Croat". However, such hegemonic and irredentist scholarship has been discredited and refuted a long time ago. It has no place in proper scholarly discourse. Ivan, however, begs to differ. In such case, should we also start giving weight to Nazi biology in ethnic articles? It's time that Ivan starts putting his money where his mouth is as opposed to saying one thing and believing another. Finally, if it matters, Ivan thanked me for the "retributive" edits highlighted by Joy by sending me a "thank you" notification via the edit history. So I have to grant him some consistency there. Also, you cannot compare Kasic, which neither described himself (AFAIK) nor his language as "Croat", with Uskufi who describes himself as Bosniak and his language as Bosnian. There's a socio-linguistic difference her. Uskufi's dictionary is widely described in sources as a dictionary of the "Bosnian language" and Ivan's paragraph in the article ([58]) is inherently POV by describing such a view as Bosniak "fringe". This will have to be my final post in this matter since I am currently preoccupied. Thank you both. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You still seem to hold on to some of these very strict views that make you seem like you're more interested in advocacy rather than in the encyclopedia. Just like you can see a certain historical consistency and a trail of evidence in support of a Bosnian language, nation, etc, in the space occupied by the modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, much the same can be done for the Croatian case - it's not an either/or situation. The connections between the two territories and peoples are so numerous that it would be entirely ridiculous to completely turn a blind eye on the reasoning why all that Catholic population started to identify with a Croatian nation at the time of romantic nationalism. The way you're arguing one may get the impression that it was an invasion of jingoist revolutionaries. Yes, there certainly existed some jingoist revolutionaries, but focusing solely on them is short-sighted and meaningless. You should really just read the rest of that book by Robert Donia that you referenced earlier, and see the level of elaboration and nuance that a foreign author saw fit to convey about that entire story.

And, again, that claim of "imagionation" (sic) is not limited to Bosnian, it's fairly clear that he feels the same about all three. It's clearly insensitive, but it in in turn does not excuse this level of railing against Bartol Kašić and whatnot. This is battleground mentality and you need to shed it if you want others to take you seriously. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Joy, ethnicity is essentially a "philosophical/political construct" rather than heaven-sent. I agree with you that it's not either/or. But in Bosnia and Herzegovina there was a bloody war and while President Izetbegovic was unquestionably a “savvy politician” who was also corrupt, these characteristics were “even more true” of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and former Croatian President Franjo Tudjman.[59]. Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats did not operate on the same grounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sincere efforts to find a middle ground were more sparse amongst the latter two. But I get your point. What I don't get is how pointing out that Kasic probably did not have a developed sense of Croationhood is "railing". I actually think Ivan would agree with me. [60] Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the strict dependency on people saying they are Xians as the sole prerequisite to mentioning them in the article about the Xian language - is ridiculous in and of itself. If every secondary source that describes the history of Xian language mentions a person as a major influence, omitting it from our articles is being prescriptive rather than descriptive - which is against the point of an encyclopedia. This is why I said originally that there is a legitimate content dispute going on here - the consensus that genetic linguistics is the primary criterion for one set of factoids might not necessarily translate in a consensus about all sets of factoids in the topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that nobody disputes that Kašić is Croatian, even though the grammar of his language is called Illyrian which was purely a regional term then. This is not the case with bosančica and Charter of Kulin. Croatian likewise didn't exist until 1990s as a separate "language" and was created by a decree. Wikipedia must both reflect what scholars and others (e.g. common people) claim, and the truth (i.e. reality). User:Praxis Icosahedron seems to be annoyed because he thinks I disproportionally target Bosniaks and Bosnians which I assure everyone is not the case. If you have specific complains use talk pages; I don't want to answer anything here because it will be unavailable later. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it only gets archived, and that can be searched. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Penguins53

This user added some changes to Thomas the Apostle as well as plenty of other articles that are unsourced and unexplained: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Penguins53&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=-1 Penguins53 has already done plenty of the same today on the 18th of January 2014 and is about to start a reverting conflict in the Thomas article without a discussion. -- ♣Jerm♣729 23:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I simply added the Aramaic/Syriac words for Biblical figures; I'm sorry, but how is this disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Both editors have been warned for edit warring. Thomas the Apostle has a talk page Talk:Thomas the Apostle -- it should be used before seeking assistance from other editors; if necessary see the venues listed at WP:SEEKHELP for content disputes. NE Ent 00:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that I was aggressively using Twinkle wrongly, but this specific user was not just wrongly editing the article: Thomas the Apostle, but multiple articles have also been edit by this user today without an explanation or a source. Other editors have already undid this user's changes in multiple articles, and Penguins53 was about start edit conflicts by reverting their changes. This user did not have the proper justification to revert changes, nor has this user discussed or started a discussion for the changes. The warning was to keep this user from continuing edits until it was discussed. -- ♣Jerm♣729 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jerm, I am also sorry. However, in the articles that I was editing, I was adding a category such as "Assyrian Turkish writers" or "Assyrian Iraqi writers." The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are all one, and the terms are used interchangeably. There was to be no need for sourcing when I was very simply making a category for the Syriac/Assyrian person at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Other editors (with, most likely, little to no knowledge of the Assyrian/Syriac people) were unnecessarily reverting my addition of a category of people who were Assyrian as writers. For an equivalence, if someone was ethnically Irish, I was adding a category of "Irish American writers" or "Irish Canadian writers" to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not worried about those other editors because some of those articles are not on my watch list, nor are those part of my category in that is Biblical articles. The only reason why you are involved in this situation because you edited a article I have on watch such as Thomas the Apostle. Edits such as language or language script input needs to be confirmed by others who know that particular field. Also, you did not source the edit, nor have you explained your edit in the Edit summary. I had suspicion with your contribution to Wikipedia, and you have done too many edits in one day without explaining it in the edit summary. -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize. I should have put an edit summary. By the way, I do know that field. I speak Neo-Aramaic, and the Syriac script is used, not the Hebrew script. That was the reason I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You may know that field, but it must also be confirmed by other registered users who also are in that field. However, if there is no one else known to confirm it, please provide a source because other will not trust the edit. -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for this incident. I will get a source. In regards to the large amount of edits I had in one day, it was because I had made a category: Assyrian writers from X country and I was adding people to the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is an online Neo-Aramaic dictionary with the word Thomas, and how it is spelled in Aramaic, Toma/Tuma, which is ܬܐܘܡܐ. The Aramaic fonts may appear differently on the sites, but they are the same script with differences in Tav, Meem, and Alap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Just try to refrain from doing so many edits in such a short time -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For instance, you reverted my change on the page of "Babai the Great." Babai was a Syriac writer (the only Christians who speak Syriac were Assyrians);he was a member of the Church of the East (which is an Assyrian church). Babai was also a writer. Therefore, I had made a category "Assyrian writers" and added him to that category and you reverted it. I mean there was nothing to source here. You might have not known that Syriac/Assyrian people are one, but can I change it back now? Do you see what I meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your now involved with multiple issues with other users. Why did you edit so much in such a short time? I got to get involved with the discussion because multiple users are now having issues about the same thing like your large sum of edits. -- ♣Jerm♣729 04:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) NE Ent already instructed you two to iron out the situation on the article's talk page; why haven't y'all done that yet? This really isn't a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and apparently I'm a troll now because I made that suggestion. Not a good plan, Jerm (btw, you don't get to tell people where and how often they can edit). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not an administrator, nor are you improving the situation by placing suggestions for users in other discussions that don't involve you. You have instigated the situation that is by what trolling means: a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory in the community. So far you have not shown any legitimate reason to actually complain. -- ♣Jerm♣729 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I "asked" you to remove unnecessary comments, not "tell". Also, I am perfectly aware of NE Ent's message. -- ♣Jerm♣729 10:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There may indeed be an issue with User:Penguins53 .... however, the atrocious behaviour of User:Jerm729, and their misunderstanding of who and who may not comment on this board is blinding me from finding those issues. I'm almost hearing the whooshing sound of one of those Australian Aboriginal crooked throwing thingies. When you report something to an admin board, the least one can do is remain civil and on one's best behaviour ES&L 10:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Plain and simple: User:Penguins53 has been creating conflicts with multiple users and edit wars like in Thomas the Apostle which I was involved in. Unsourced and unexplained edits involving multiple discussions that I warned him of the large sum of edits. However, this user continued to ignore the warnings. I viewed the contribution of this user and found nothing but the same involving Syrian figures. I am also in another discussion involving the same situation but with multiple users who are complaining about the great amount of edits by: Penguins53. What really infuriated me was the lack of investigation if any at all by NE Ent as you can see above this discussion and assumed wrong. This entire discussion was not just involving one particular article, but many by Penguins53. I don't care if you call me "too aggressive", at least I'm trying to secure the articles on Wikipedia. -- ♣Jerm♣729 11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you're quite clearly not creating conflicts with multiple users ES&L 11:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"I am also in another discussion involving the same situation but with multiple users who are complaining about the great amount of edits by: Penguins53". Looks like even administrators can't solve the problem by preventing User:Penguins53 from doing further damage — good day to you — ♣Jerm♣729 11:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

...ah, so now you're forum-shopping. You don't like the fact that your own behaviour is also being brought up (as advised at the top of this page), so your running off pouting to get satisfaction somewhere else. Bad idea. Yeah, Penguin's behaviour is not right ... but you're simply making it worse for yourself through your actions, and you're less likely to get the resolution you want because of it. It's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. So why not stop behaving improperly and trying to behave like someone that people want to try and help ES&L 11:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Penguin needs to carefully read WP:NOTDIC which explains that Wikipedia articles are not dictionary entries and do not need translations of the subject heading into numerous languages.--Charles (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what concerned me most when I saw a string of edits from on biblical characters. He does seem here mainly to add Syrian or Assyrian in various ways to articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - topic ban from categories

Having reviewed Penguin's edits and cat creation, it's a little obvious they are missing a few vital clues. They also have continued with categorization, even after posting here at ANI, and being advised they were doing things incorrectly. As protection, I'd like to propose a topic ban:

"User:Penguins53 is topic-banned from category creation, or categorizing any article for a period of 3 months. Penguins53 is also recommended to obtain mentoring, specifically in the area of proper categorization. This restriction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT. Any violations of this topic-ban will lead to blocks, as per standard escalation processes"

• Support as proposer ES&L 11:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support end the conflict -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Creation was made in good faith, and I'm not seeing any evidence any editor has discussed the creation of categories on editor's talk page. NE Ent 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Failure to assume good faith and who has clean hands here? 172.130.242.235 (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose NE Ent is correct -- and (with any luck) Penguins53 will understand why care is needed in this field (categorisation), and will avoid the mistakes made heretofore. If this comes up again after substantial additional issues, then that would be a different kettle of fish. Collect (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the rationale behind this? Why does the creation of a category of ethnic writers to a specific countries result in a ban? There were many ethnically Assyrian (Syriac) writers and I thought it'd be helpful to categorize by the country. Now, I know that countries such as Turkey did not exist in 500 C.E.; however, it was the best way to categorize the writers. I stated in the page that the category referred to Assyrian writers who had lived in and/or were born in the territory that corresponds to modern-day Turkey. I think that's self-explanatory. I am sorry. I was just trying to help and added Assyrian writers to the category. I did not know this would create an argument. In regards to why others were discussing me, they were saying that I should not have added the Syriac translation of Biblical figures to their pages. Again, I thought that Syriac is both an historically and religiously sacred language so it'd be worthy to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But when you were asked to stop and told why, you continued ... that's the problem ES&L 09:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Where? Diff? NE Ent 10:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose formal sanctions as way premature. This is a good faith content dispute. If there's some long term problem (not at all evident from the dearth of evidence above), then a WP:RfC/U should be held. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@ESL, I'm sorry. I honestly didn't think what I was doing was to cause this controversy. I'm sorry; I was trying to be helpful and make the writers easy to separate by country because there were a lot of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You contintued to change multiple articles despite the warnings from multiple users, but you suddenly stopped when I reported you here. Why? Also, when someone reverted your changes, you undid the revert to your version causing conflicts when someone would revert the changes back. Furthermore, You didn't discuss your changes anywhere despite the warnings until I reported you here, then you decided to discuss it. Again, Why? -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should not have done what I did and should have stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – @NE Ent and Dougweller: – Is it kosher for an editor to change what he/she said after another user replied, to make it look like the reply was to something quite different? User:Jerm729's reply above, originally written at 01:05 today, was further modified at 01:33, 2 minutes before it was replied to by User:Penguins53. After that, User:Jerm729 made 3 additional modifications, including changing the order of phrases and adding new content that was not what User:Penguins53 replied to. (BTW: None of the 4 edits to "fix" the statement fixed the word "contintued" [sic], the 2nd word in the paragraph.)
  • Slice of edit history showing the pertinent edits: [61]
  • Before and After diff comparing replied-to version with 02:46 version: [62]
• How many times or ways does User:Penguins53 have to say "sorry"? It is really sad, that the only editor helping Penguins53 has been SineBot. 172.130.242.235 (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• No per WP:REDACT comments should not be altered after being replied to without some visual indication they were edited. Since the edit has been pointed out I don't think any further action needs to be done in this case though. NE Ent 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One sentence did not make sense in my reply that would cause confusion. Everything is now appropriate. Nothing was added to change the meaning of the stratment. Original: “You contintued to change multiple articles despite the warnings from multiple users, and when someone reverted your changes, you undid the revert to your version. You didn't discuss your changes anywhere despite the warnings until I reported you here, then you decided to discuss it here. Why? Also, you stopped your continuous edits until I reported you here even after the warnings from users.”...as you can tell "Also, you stopped your continuous edits until I reported you here even after the warnings from users." was confusing my words so I simply moved it. -- ♣Jerm♣729 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

NE ENT, you haven't properly investigated the situation, and assume wrongfully. You say no one has bothered to discuss any topic to this user, yet the warnings in the user's talk page clearly guides the user to multiple options of discussion. And out of all the warnings, the user suddenly wanted to discuss after I placed - subst:ANI-notice - to his/her talk page. This user has to have some sort of punishment for causing havoc for multiple users in multiple articles. I don't know why you can't recognize the issue here, you want a user who has done so much in such short time to cause plenty of damage close to spamming and edit conflicts to have some sort of pass? What is the point really if your not going to stay on topic? We should just give every vandal and spammer a free pass even after plenty of warnings and hints of discussion. -- ♣Jerm♣729 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I won't be available for long, so I would like to end this depressing discussion within a two day time period. -- ♣Jerm♣729 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A new proposal

I recommend a new proposal that will satisfy and ease both sides of the conflict quicker. The proposal: Not to delete or ban the subject: User:Penguins53, but archive it. Also, to delete all "warnings" from User:Penguins53's talk page, and to assign the user to Wikiproject Syria for instruction and guidance. Furthermore, I will volunteer to help assist the user if wanted by he/she. Finally, a block from editing Wikipedia for a five-day period to fulfill the punishing side after assigning the user to Wikiproject Syria and delete all "warnings" from User:Penguins53's talk page. -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Any suggestions? -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How about you just stop being so hyperactive in this ANI thread? The thread will just be archived then, which is a suitable outcome. The fact that the previous 6 posts in it were by you and went unreplied till now should have been clue enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologize then to everyone for waisting y'all's time on this thread and my obvious attacks. I'm ending my part on this discussion, and everyone else here can decide for what is right. I see now that the majority are against me. I deeply apologize specifically to you Penguins53 for such harsh aggressions and should have consulted with you before I sent a warning. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, Jerm. I should have listened and stop and not kept editing. Penguins53 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Penguins53

Mongols

Can somebody look into Khereid (talk · contribs) actions, he is blindly reverting my edits.[63], [64].

Khereid practically re-wrote the entire Mongols article. Tendentious editing and persistent POV-pushing, promoting fringe views, and using unreliable sources,[65], [66], [67], [68], [69] incivility and personal attacks[70], [71], blanking of sourced content.[72]

What can be done about the lack of neutral point of view in the article? Thanks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am Russian, so I better do not get involved into this particular dispute, but it looks indeed from the talk page that Khereid has difficulties understanding basic policies of Wikipedia. If there no action follows this request, try WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure what this is about, but I warned the user because among other things, s/he kept deleting Tobby72's comments on the talk page (I reverted as much as I could, but I might have missed something). In fact, Kherid was even told about this behavior before. (BTW, on the surface it might look as though Tobby and Kherid are involved in an edit war, but I think Tobby is safe because reinstating his/her legitimate comments is an exception to 3RR.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He ignored the warning and removed other editors' comments again. I do not think he understands that this is against policy. Whatever the case, I think a senior editor needs to talk to him about WP guidelines and policies, especially because of the sheer quantity of changes he's making. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that s/he understands the guidelines but s/he just doesn't care. And the warnings are pretty clear; I think a block is in order (even moreso than a mere topic ban). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes

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

---

Is there a way to get this page protected? I have what appears to be a vandal IP changing source info and adding bogus airdates on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Right now there is a Powerpuff Girls marathon ongoing on Cartoon Network so I expect the page to be more visited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected for two weeks. I've reverted to the contents of 26 December; please look to see if I've removed anything that should have stayed. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks good and thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see a protection template on the article... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why not; perhaps the bot's down? The padlocks generally get added by bots, and I can't remember ever knowing what the code to add one was. It's generally not a big deal, but if you know the code and want to add it, go ahead. You made me wonder if I'd forgotten to protect it, but the page history shows that I semiprotected it until 2 February. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a template for you. only (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Self-promo/advertising by Tim Symonds

An editor I assume to be one Tim Symonds, a writer of self-published Sherlock Holmes pastiches, has abused Wikipedia to publish, advertise and promote his works. Here is a list of the accounts he has used:

• User:Tim_symonds
• 92.26.38.221
• 89.240.26.204
• 92.26.36.120
• 92.26.36.133

His edits to promote his self-published books all violate WP:SPIP, WP:NBOOK, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I have tried to revert all his edits, not only to such pages as Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works, but to the pages of historical figures, etc., he mentions in his books. Here are some of my reverts:

• Scotland Yard
• Einstein family
• Mollie Hardwick
• Battle of Maiwand
• Sexton Blake
• History of crime fiction
• Jezail

He even, at one point, added a self-described "17-page research essay on fate of Lieserl Einstein-Maric" to an article on the Einstein family. The user's disruptive editing was noted on User talk:Tim symonds and User talk:92.26.38.221; and I recently tried to warn him at User talk:92.26.36.133 and User talk:92.26.36.120. User:RockMagnetist also attempted to welcome and (re)apprise the user of how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. None of this has seemed to work, thus I am here at the Administrators' noticeboard. The author appears to have a website (alberteinsteinmystery.wordpress.com) and an e-mail address (tim.symonds@shevolution.com), but I have not contacted him at this location. (I didn't know if that was kosher.) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-spamblock}} This is blatant enough that I've blocked the username and both of the IP addresses that have edited this year. If you find any other IPs adding this type of thing, let me know at my talk or report it here. If you find any other accounts adding this type of thing, it will be time for a sockpuppet investigation. Since the guy's openly posted his email address, it's not against our policies to contact him with it, but I'd advise against it because it would be pointless in my mind. If you can imagine some benefit, go ahead. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, on 12 Jan 2014 I removed two of his ip 92.26.38.221 edits ([73], [74]) because he used fiction as sources for facts. When checking his other edit up to then ([75]), I noticed it was already removed. I then went to the publisher's website MX Publishing to check whether perhaps it should be included in our wp:List of self-publishing companies, I found that a Tim Symonds had written a few books, published at MX. I decided against adding the publisher to the list, but to keep an eye on this IP. I forgot to do just that, sorry for which. I also should have made a search for the string "Tim Symonds". Good job, Tuckerresearch. - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

¡Gracias! TuckerResearch (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the matter is going to end here. I have a feeling we might end up filing a Sock investigation for this guy soon enough. He seems hungry for publicity, and might come back again. [Maybe as Moriarty]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Germany and Denis Bratland

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

---

Closed by ϢereSpielChequers 12:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) works against some different German authors and deletes and reverts IPs from Germany. He is in my opinion a british nationalist who works against German topics. And he works with his Germany bashing camapagne over socketpuppetry "Europefan". With this trick he deletes different German authors who write all over German topics.

178.3.27.228 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

They do not seem to have any contributions on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

They had the spelling wrong, which I have fixed. The I.P is a block evading sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't DB American? Funny sort of British Nationalist; perhaps he is waiting for the redcoats to come back???? lol _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 110.174.147.166 and the Eye color article -- WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Personal attacks

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

---

IP 110.174.147.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly blocked for WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Personal attacks with regard to the Eye color article, its talk page and me: See the IP's talk page for background information, and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12#Ignorant & Unhelpful (and the section immediately after it) and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12#Idiotic Sad Case for incidents specifically regarding me. The IP comes back to argue for the same WP:Original research material at the Eye color talk page every time his block expires, and the cycle repeats itself. For example, that cycle of WP:Original research and WP:Personal attacks is currently going on with that IP at the Eye color talk page. I know that talk pages are not usually WP:Semi-protected for long, and especially not to keep one editor from commenting, but I don't know what else can be done in this case to keep the IP from abusing that talk page in the way that he has continued to do...except for once again blocking him from editing (longer this time of course). Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

His last edit is basically a threat saying he'll continue his disruptive behaviour [aka fighting for what he thinks is right] no matter how many times he's been blocked. I think this guy deserves a Perma block. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Rsrikanth05. Thanks for commenting. Permanent blocks are not given to IP addresses, however (not for long anyway)...unless they are WP:Proxies. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Long term? Extremely long term? Six months? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are given out to IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Carriearchdale's "copyedit work"

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

---

I've noticed it first on 2 occassions, when Carriearchdale changed "1990s" to 1990's" (creating an error) and then "backstory" to "back story" (another error, backstory), and called it a copydit work done, removing the copyedit request tags that I've placed there. Back then I didn't realize it's the same person.

But now I saw Carriearchdale is doing it everywhere, either just removing the tag without doing any copyedit, or just doing just few cosmetic changes (like there yesterday, where editor requested "copy edit|for=conciseness, structure, removing essay-like tone", and instead got something entirely else done - a few spellings, and the tag was then removed. Or this case, where "proper formatting of titles, copyediting, other formatting" was requested, and NOTHING was done but the tag removed. There are many such instances.

It's a dozen or more of such "copyedits" a day, every day, and very often it's just a removal of the tag (which I noticed after Carriearchdale returned to the "1990s" article to just remove the tag, previously havingg did it also with a related article). A few no-copyedit "copyedit" edits of tag removal, just today: [76][77][78][79][80][81], and so on.

Needless to say, there's a lot of damage being done. Many, MANY articles are not being copyedited properly, and often even additional errors are inserted. Something's to be done with it, and I-don't-know-how-many articles that were "copyedited" by Carriearchdale. --Niemti (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I thing a bot-revert of everything might do a job. --Niemti (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you tried to discuss the matter with her before coming here. All I see from you on her talk page is one of those annoying notification templates. I looked at a handful of the edits and don't see any serious errors (a larger sample might well find some, but the error rate is apparently not extremely high). I see a couple instances of removing copyedit tags when the article might still have issues, but that's somewhat subjective and not a big deal anyway, as those tags are useless either way (if you care about the issue, WP:FIXIT, don't tag it). So I don't think this calls for a revert bot or an ANI just yet. I'd suggest starting with some polite feedback as the person appears to be a newbie. (Also: {{Copy edit}} has two words right there in the template name--so it can be written either way. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think "those tags are useless either way", request the tag template for deletion, "50.0.121.102". If hudnreds of people requested a copyedit, sometimes even with a detailed list of what they need there, they should have received just that instead of serial tag-removal with the edit summary of "copyedit" (occasionally also some random minor error corrections AND error additions). --Niemti (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your concerns are wrong, but this shouldn't be at ANI yet. The IP is correct, you've haven't tried to work it out on talk pages yet. You shouldn't really be taking it here unless those sorts of discussions aren't working. Judging how similar discussion are going on the user's talk page right now, and he's ending his comments with since "have a nice day", it hardly seems like the type of dispute that needs to be here yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it just needs to be all reverted. I just took a closer look at this example where editor requested "copy edit|for=conciseness, structure, removing essay-like tone", and instead got something entirely else done - a few spellings, and the tag was then removed. I was wrong, not even spelling was corrected - in fact Carriearchdale just randomly inserted additional ERRORS, again (monoculture to "mono culture", clearcutting to "clear cutting", leafcutter to "leaf cutter"), called it "copyedit", which is even worse than the usual "copyedit" (edits summary) of just removing the tag, and it's not a separate case. All those edits to so many articles (apparently hundreds) should be just summarily reverted ASAP. This widespread damage is the "incident" I reported, and that is the obvious remedy. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the top of this very page: Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass reversion (the nuclear option, totally unnecessary in this case) would be extremely bitey (as is this post) to a courteous newbie. I've left a note on their talk page. Miniapolis 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to the IP I am quite surprised to see discussion here about my editing before the IP even spoke or commented to me on my own talk page.

Please be assured that I have been editing in good faith. I would never say I would never make a mistake. I surely would never agree that I have done any damage to Wikipedia. I am only trying to help improve Wikipedia in good faith. However, I have decided to take a step back and reflect on these comments. I hope everyone has a great day!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Telexfree Article - Vandalism

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

---

I´m opening this section to report Vandalism and Disruptive Editions in Telexfree article.

The article have received several disruptive editions and vandalism during the last weeks from those IPs 177.39.88.4, 190.115.177.173, 24.128.169.55, 202.152.201.13 and few users (Kovyazinaa for example). Warnings have been sent by editors but the vandalism is not stopping, actually it is increasing. BrazilianTale (✉) 10:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request to the administrators to include the Telexfree article in the articles that you can edit only if logged in (NO ANONYMOUS EDITIONS). Thanks BrazilianTale (✉) 10:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, actioned. Please take future requests for page protection to wp:RPP. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

CDisplay versus CDisplayEx

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

---

Over at CDisplay slow edit war has flared up - partly fanned by my own input I accept - over the inclusion of the application CDisplayEx in the article.

User Hgourvest has been adding full information and an infobox about CDisplayEx to the article page[82][83][84][85][86], and an IP address has been removing it[87][88]. I agree with the IP address, so also removed the info. Hgourvest has since been readding the info despite requests to stop while we discuss it - and then I noticed that the author of CDIsplayEx is "Henri Gourvest" - and he confirmed that Hgourvest is one and the same. I figured I'd cut to the chase and create the CDisplayEx page, but when I went to do so saw that it had been deleted back in 2010.

Despite all my fun and games here on Wiki, I'm not sure what to do about an editor with a potential COI editing a page, and what to do about creating a page that has been previously deleted as non-notable. Hgourvest is also insisting that any removal of content is vandalism, and stating so in edit summaries. He also placed a vandalism template on the IP's talk page - which I thought inappropriate so removed.[89]

As an added comment, 212.51.183.14 which has edited the page once[90] to re-add the info geolocates to Paris[91] - based on quacking, I think that this is Hgourvest logged out - good faith says he's a new editor and didn't know it, poor faith says it was to avoid hitting 3RR.

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a single sentence about the application, but if it is to be added in such detail then it should be done so on its own page, not the CDisplay page.

Despite thinking that the page should be held at point of discussion - when I removed the info - I'll not be removing it again as I'm at 3RR, although including the IP edit, that puts Hgourvest over at 4RR.

While I agree that this is essentially a content dispute, it also encompasses COI editing, and advice on recreating deleted articles, so I ask for help here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the sequence of events and the conclusion. Restoring the deleted page, would solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Jay-Z

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

---

The image in the infobox of the Jay-Z article is a cat. Jay-Z is not a cat. Someone is trying to be funny. Please fix, I'm not sure how. Thanks. PS: I'm not notifying anyone as I don't know who to notify. EdChem (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone overwrote the image at Commons, I've reverted it. January (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

There's something resembling a legal threat in the edit summary of this edit to Gumball 3000 by IP 87.236.129.241, which reads "To all concerned: revisions made whilst clients and legal IP owner progress legal action on grounds of IP sabotage". It doesn't appear to be directed against anyone in particular. Is any action needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Point it out to the IP? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be best to just warn them. Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

‎Obozedalteima

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

---

Can I get some attention on user ‎Obozedalteima (talk · contribs) who has used his account disruptively right off the bat and continues to do so incessantly despite numerous warnings. I have warned him for his edit warring and for his libel that he's posting on a blp talkpage. [92][93] He has since continued to edit war his tags and post libelous material on talkpages. He has been warned numerous times by many different users for the same offences, but continues the same behavior and ignores/deletes warnings. [94][95][96] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No you can't, you better stop pushing propaganda all over, i gave dispute and Original research warning in soem articles, also gave examples on talk page, so you better stop deleting it, or you will get banned from wikipedia. Obozedalteima (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, plus a threat. You've just put yourself in a tight situation there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't spoke to you, nor I'm interested in your opinion and Muslim propaganda and provocations on wikipedia. Obozedalteima (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Obozedalteima, you are on the verge of being blocked for being disruptive, per WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a quick block here for repeated insertions of [97]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jamie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Obozedalteima_reported_by_User:Ruby_Murray_.28Result:_Blocked.29 Ruby Murray 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Propaganda? So now you've decided to resort to personal attacks? [I'm not a Muslim anyway]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

TelexFree article still under attack

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

---

Even though the protection level of the TelexFree article has been increased, it is still under vandalism attack by MICHAEL JACKSON DO ALÉM and his two sockpuppets MICHAEL JACKSON DO ALÉM O RETORNO and MICHAEL JACKSON DO ALÉM A VINGANÇA. Maybe this user should be blocked and/or the protection level of the article should increase. Maurício Gomes MMN (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• All this was handled with speed and diplomacy by the intrepid admins Barek (aka MJ STILL RULES), John Reaves (aka JONAH O RETORNO) and Toddst1 (aka ADMINZILLA THE THRILLA). Drmies (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

libyan civil war

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Civil_War&diff=591597779&oldid=591597009 , one user inserted pov name "gaddafi regime" and called the original version of "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" as "pov name" i have notified the user(s) 90.132.43.11 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out what infobox has the Han Dynasty have. Other user refers WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING for this change. --112.206.31.89 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything? "Gaddafi regime" is a pov name istead of the more usefull "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" see also the disruption at National Transitional Council of Libya 90.129.77.14 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jamahiriya is just a mock-up term used by the Libyan leader to describe his government. Using this term in search engines will not yield results related to the civil war and the Gaddafi regime adheres to WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING. Discussion closed. --112.206.31.89 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Rashidun Caliphate, Roman Empire, and the Han Dynasty are not former "countries" (country in the modern sense) but they possess the infobox called "former country". Transiitonal governments like Bangladesh, France, Ethiopia, and Iran have those infoboxes. --112.206.31.89 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"gaddafi regime" is already mentioned on the infobox which makes it redundant 90.129.77.14 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are we having "Nazi Germany" everywhere, and not the Greater German Reich? Why are we using Burma and not the Republic of the Union of Myanmar? OMG POV NAMES. --Niemti (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Both of them should really be blocked for breaking WP:3RR...and since "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is what has been there for a long time and is technically the official name, it should be in the infobox. Someone should start a discussion on the talk page, though, as it's really a content dispute. (The infobox on the NTC page stays no matter what, though.) Ansh666 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you comment, you should read this: WP:RECOGNIZABLE and only when to use official names WP:OFFICIALNAMES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.13.102 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Both of those refer to article titles only. Ansh666 01:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not a "content dispute". Its just a plain and simple vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.13.102 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

vandalism from you ofcourse 83.180.164.135 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've temporarily semiprotected both pages given the level of IP editwarring. Work out changes instead of just reverting back and forth please. Ansh is correct that at least one 3rr block would be justifiable here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

Admin involvement needed. Cited content are removed under the pretext that I have COI in regard to the AAFM.EconomicTiger (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is this at AN/I? First, this is a content dispute. Second, the editor never came to me to discuss this after I posted a suggestion on their talk page that that might have a COI. Is that the way things work now? A talk page comment leads directly to an AN/I posting, without the benefit of discussion on the article talk page?

In any case, this appears to be another incarnation of the editor connected to the AAFM who periodically comes by to try to whitewash the article in favor of that organization. You might remember that after the last incident, the AAFM issued some sort of bogus legal threat (in a press release) naming certain editors, including myself, and basically telling us we had to cease and desist or face legal action. (Legal threat thread is here, incident previous to that is here)

I don't know if User:EconomicTiger is connected to User:Doctorlaw, the puppet master behind the previous AAFM-whitewashers, but regardless of whether they are connected, ET seems to be doing their best to pump up the organization, and tone down any criticism. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a neutral pointer to this report on the article's talk page, and likewise on the talk pages of all the editors who participated in the previous discussion about AAFM. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you are not professional by putting something on my page and then claiming it is on the article's talk page. That professionalism shows why a naive institution about Wikipedia would be forced to take legal action against Wikipedia. Because of a few editors like you, the entire project is compromised. Removing content cited from WP:RS needs Administrative Action, not the Dispute Resolution Initiative. If an experienced Wikipedia Editor like me could get frustrated, why the concerned institution won't go for a legal action against Wikipedia? AAFM is not the first institution, there are number of individuals and institutions personally told me they want to take legal against Wikipedia since my association with Wikipedia which started in 2007.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I launched a sock investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is good that you launched CU investigation since I can't launch a one for me.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

RJC, Can you explain on which basis you added this tag on my Talk Page. Try this next time on a Blog.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• You all seem to have matters in hand. I'm unwilling to block the Tiger right now; let's see what CU comes up with. Tiger, if you revert again you will be blocked. You may use the talk page if you like. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Drimies, I am nothing to do with Doctorlaw. And this is not the first time I visited ANI. Once CU is over, I am expecting your Admin intervention on the article since removing cited content is violation.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Violation of what? Cited content can easily be removed for a wide variety of reasons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be explained with valid reason on the Talk Page. Otherwise it is a Violation. The Wikipedia Project is built based on Content from Sources which meet WP:RS. We can't shake the foundation for a wide variety of reasons.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, ho, back at AN/I again. EconomicTiger seems very familiar - in particular, they've had not many edits since they tried much the same whitewash on the same page in 2012, and they are surely coming close to the bone on WP:LEGAL.

Most of their other edits seem to be on puff pieces and removing notability or other improvement tags from articles which have not in fact been improved. NOTHERE? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a break for different reasons on Wikipedia. I have edited since 2007 and my contributions towards AAFM is less than even 1%. Check my First 500 Contributions. You are following articles which I have edited and coming out with NOTHERE. I have contributed much more than you to enhance this project. I am not part of the legal suit against Wikipedia. But you should remember Wikipedia doesn't have any special US legislation or a UN Charter to cover it under legal immunity. But the AGF of Wikipedia Editors can protect the project over any threats.EconomicTiger (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And a brand-new editor pops up, User:Beyond8, and makes a comment on Talk;AAFM as their very first edit.

I'm adding them to the sock report. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry on Clive Palmer and Palmer United Party

There is some pretty aggressive sock-puppetry going on in these two articles. I've semi-protected, and blocked the socks as they pop up, but keep an eye out for related topics because the vandal seems to be moving around quickly. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy move?

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

---

You guys tell me; I'm just putting up the link. Talk:Dictatorship_laws_in_Ukraine#Requested_move. Red Slash 03:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Mdann52talk to me! 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) and Croatia in the union with Hungary

Can someone look into these articles and the ensuing charade there created by DIREKTOR. This guy is out of control. He behaves as if he is the owner of these pages, deletes the sourced content and entire paragraphs if they don't suit his own personal views. Edit-warring, personal attacks, refusal to reach a consensus....you name it.

I've tried to reason with this person on the talk pages (including my own [98] but he always pushes and turns the discussion into a pissing contest and mere squabble without any meaningful purpose other than to impose his own view. This is not the first time I've seen him do it and I am not the first person he did it to.

You can see him edit-warring and removing huge chunks of the article lead and numerous sources for no apparent explanation, discussion or reason: [99], [100], [101]. If you look at his earlier behavior on this article you will see he was involved in numerous revert-wars in which I unfortunately also took part recently as I was stupid enough to be drawn into it as opposed to just immediately report him. Just look at the explanation given on this edit: [102].

Personal attacks on talk page: Directed at User:Tzowu [103] [104], directed at me [105] [106].

The dispute on Croatia in the union with Hungary is mainly a spill off from the other article and you can see him reverting without any explanation there as well: [107], [108], [109], [110].

Now unless I am wrong his behavior is clear example of WP:DE in general. Clear examples of WP:TEND, WP:V, WP:CONS, WP:PA, WP:CIV, WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. And I am sure WP:ARBMAC would have some say in this matter as well. Shokatz (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that DIREKTOR was blocked several times before for the same fault (edit warring): [111]. User:Shokatz was also blocked once for edit warring. 86.127.27.244 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not much to say. The user is relatively new, is strongly in favor of a Croatian national point of view, and will not be dissuaded from his conviction that nobody can revert him simply because he has listed some source or other. His edit is, in fact, not in accordance with the position of scholarship (as has been demonstrated to him repeatedly). In my seven years of experience and 50,000 edits on these obscure Balkans articles, there never was, and is not, a whole lot to do in this sort of situation besides edit-war. That is, if the article is to be somehow wrenched back to a semblance of source-based reality, as opposed to some Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian/Albanian national POV or other. All that said, I do not necessarily aspire to elicit some kind of special treatment, and if sanctions are deemed necessary I understand completely. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

After 50,000 edits you should know that edit warring does not ever solve the disputes. 86.127.27.244 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, it often does.. people wouldn't do it otherwise. Sometimes, in fact, its very effective: just gather with your pals and edit-war into the ground any users who object to your unsourced-nonsense version. If any DR is forced on you, just claim "no consensus".. goodness knows I saw it a million times. And on these sort of obscure, complex issues on unknown abandoned articles there is no recourse but revert-warring in 99 cases out of a hundred. Believe me, I wish there was. I left that article for a few months, and just now when I returned, you had an entirely fictional coat of arms, fictional coronations, fictional Croatian names for the polity, a fictional legislature, legendary events related as historical fact, fake historical dates - just to start you off.

Hope I'm not being forward but, who are you again? -- Director (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My "friend" it was you who came to that article, made changes without any consensus, discussion and necessary sources for the changes you made, and then you proceeded to claim your version is the consensus when there is clear disagreement to what you are doing by at least one other user beside me. It is what I have seen you do on several other occasions on several different articles. Others have pointed out to your modus operandi before, like here f.e. [112]. The fact you have been seven years on Wikipedia and have over 50,000 edits should have been more than enough for you to learn you cannot impose your views and assertions. You have deliberately deleted entire sections with almost two dozens scholarly sources and imposed a minority view which is in fact clear WP:DE and WP:FRINGE according to Wikipedia policies. Accusing me of being some bigoted nationalist is just another of your scheming methods of discrediting and reverting people from the real issues. I have provided numerous sources, tried to discuss the issue with you on talk pages despite no sign of you accepting and listening anyone but yourself. And BTW, if I am not mistaken, you are not the one who will say what one can or cannot publish on Wikipedia - [113]. Shokatz (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to squabble over a content dispute here, Shokatz. You're the one being rolled back from introducing a disputed edit, not I. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I've actually restored the lead (which you deleted for no valid reason) and slightly improved it (by adding more sources), the lead itself derives from the content which is already in the article. Stick to the facts for once, ok? Shokatz (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected both pages for a week while you both discuss this on a talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if we're always seeing ANI threads about DIREKTOR being the bad guy, but aside from one edit-warring incident in early 2012 and one mistaken block (unblock rationale was "Oops, wrong user"), the last sanctions on DIREKTOR were in 2011. Meanwhile, WP:ARBMAC has a massive history of blocks and other sanctions being levied on people since that time. Is it more likely that DIREKTOR's detractors are telling the truth, or is it more likely that DIREKTOR is following our policies in a contentious area and being attacked by people who want to tilt these articles in their own way? The latter seems much more likely, especially since DIREKTOR has been blocked in the past for ARBMAC violations: it seems to me as if he's learned his lesson from the previous blocks and is now being quite careful to heed our standards. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he just gets too riled up. Quoting from [114]: "Your Croatian-nationalist POV will be reverted every time without fail (until you present sources that discuss the dispute and indicate a consensus or prevalence of the view you peddle)." (Emphasis in original.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be perfectly objective, I would say I follow policies in a very difficult area, but can often get riled up with (what I perceive as) particularly brazen edit-warring and nationalist POV-pushing. I have to admit, both of those things are probably accurate.

Basically the problem is a mix of unfortunate circumstances. These are small countries, with relatively few English speakers. And then of these English speakers, that do edit on Wiki, only a small number will be here not to try to promote/defend their own country on the numerous contentious issues - this being a recent war zone of ethnic conflict.

In fact, the current issue is a pretty good example. During the war in Croatia, the propaganda was laying it on pretty thick, not only in the media, but in the public school history classroom (as could perhaps be expected in times of war). Young Croatian people who edit Wikipedia therefore believe as a matter of fact that Croatia belonged to a country called "Croatia-Hungary" between 1102 and 1527, which is a term completely unused in any historiography anywhere, and anyone who tries to cast doubt on that version of events is attacking the country for whose independence your parents shed sweat and blood 20 years ago (to put it dramatically). I believe Miroslav Krleza said it best:

"From Frankish times forward, Croatia was never the Croat-centered entity imagined by our patriotic historians. It was always too small to form an independent political entity and too weak to resist foreign domination. Instead of acknowledging this past, the Croats have created a phantom past and imaginary rights originating in nine hundred years of defeats, domination and exploitation."

I myself am rather sick of such nonsense, I admit, and it gets me easily riled up. What I said on that talkpage I will repeat here: all I'm tryiing to do is to have that article over there be a place where people can read the hard sourced facts about this period of history. Unmuddied by propaganda or national myth. -- Director (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:PLNR

User:PLNR makes disrupting edits, replacing text with strong non-neutral statements and disrupting citations to state the opposite of the original.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&diff=590274760&oldid=590273388
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&diff=591456134&oldid=591455654
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&diff=591635282&oldid=591633882 --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I believe that this only highlights continues disrupting behavior by User:Wickey-nl. The first two edits here followed Wickey-nl revert [115] claim it is disruptive. So I broke it down into two bare bone parts, explaining each:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah–Hamas_conflict&diff=591455654&oldid=591411360
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah–Hamas_conflict&diff=next&oldid=591455654

On top of approaching Wickey-nl [116] to see if there is any further issues so we can deal with them. Which he basically ignored and instead of make constructive edit explaining his reason, he used the opportunity to accuse me at "propagandistic edits and distortion" [117] and continued with edit warring [118] per his accusation.

While here [119] Wickey-nl has made a major revision, without any summary or previous discussion. Which among other things include several new unsourced paragraphs with vague statement. When he was asked to break down to smaller explained chunks. He ignored it reverted to what he want, so far he also ignored request to explain his edit [120]

Similarly, here [121] Wickey-nl completely removed sourced information claiming it is Distorted, ignoring my request to expand on what exactly he found distorted, which he ignored.--PLNR (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You want to draw away to the Hamas article? You refuse to explain on the Talk pages. I am sure you deliberately edit clear words to change the essence of the text and diffuse with ambiguous wording. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You had your chance to discuss content, but you decided to bring it here, so I am simply pointing out your lack of communication and bad faith edits, which result in edit warring.--PLNR (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias

For several years, the Philosophy section of theologian Ravi Zacharias has included language to the effect that the subject's belief in the incompatibility of thermodynamics with evolution has won no support from the scientific community. This consensus position has endured, in various forms, through much discussion on the talk page. Recently, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheGreatIncognito, a single-purpose account, has edit-warred to remove the disclaimer. Attempts to address this on the talk page have been futile.

It seems clear that the intent here is to push the WP:FRINGE claim that evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics. Great latitude should be shown in an encyclopedia article about religious persons, of course, but here we do not have a matter of belief, but rather one of either misunderstanding or misrepresenting science. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm a little on the fence here. While I agree that TheGreatIncognito shouldn't be edit warring, s/he does back up his/her added information with a source (how reliable that source is, I'm not sure; that's not my field). Also, the ANI seems to be going on at the same time as the discussion on the talk page; maybe it should stay there for right now? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the discussion should stay there now that there's discussion. Perhaps the point of a posting here is to attract eyes to the situation without canvassing given that edit-warring was happening?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that TheGreatIncognito does not participate on the talk page, and apparently never has. The sole source adduced is (apparently) a letter to the editor of a trade magazine more than thirty years back. I haven't been read that article, but it's been frequently cited by WP:FRINGE creationists and the position is easily debunked, as a quick Google of "evolution second law of thermodynamics" will show. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V

Can somebody please take a look at the edits of Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs). Basically, this user has proposed adjusting {{Height}} (which is widely used on biographies) to allow for a cm parameter. It hasn't received the support he hoped for - I myself have raised some concerns which he appears to be proving. So to counter this, he has been mass-replacing {{Height}} (in m) with {{Convert}} (in cm) to - or so it seems to meet - push his pro-cm agenda. I am INVOLVED and more eyes on this (i.e. to tell me whether I'm over-reacting or not!) would be welcome. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything in the MOS about the need for wikipedia articles to express human height with a particular template or in a particular unit, I did not see it, otherwise I would have brought up the discussion there (instead I brought it up at {{Height}}. In the absence of any such guidelines, I think it's best we follow reliable sources, particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons, several of which had unreferenced, incorrect heights and weights listed which I have since corrected and provided first-rate sources for. User:GiantSnowman has thus far been unable to explain what's wrong with replacing a template which forces us into using metres with one that allows for centimetres and closer matching with reliable sources. He has only been able to make repeated accusations of bad faith against me and threats at reporting me on my talk page. I welcome more views on this and for an admin to make the long-awaited change at {{Height}} for which there appears to be consensus.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is that you only seem to be introducing sources which support your pro-cm agenda, when in some cases there are more reliable sources which support the use of m e.g. Davide Astori. I don't see you "correcting" any heights in m, only in cm, which I find odd/concerning. You also only started this method of editing after a few editors raised concern both on your talk page and at the {{Height}} template talk page. You have been advised to wait for consensus but you seem unable to resist. GiantSnowman 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If I replaced sources that use metres with less reliable ones that use centimetres you'd have the ghost of a point. But I do not. Because despite what you may say, I don't have some personal agenda here. My approach is 100% source based.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But why do you only introduce sources which use cm, when I have shown you many more which use m e.g. at Talk:Davide Astori? GiantSnowman 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a two-fold problem; a request at{{Height}} to add a cm parameter, and the m vs. cm debate on BLP articles. IMO, that one may oppose the display of athlete's height in cm is not really a reason to oppose the template alteration. It is a reasonable request, and if an editor would find it to be useful then it should be added. The BLP debate should happen elsewhere, and I'd say that the mass conversion to the "convert" template should be held off until that debate is concluded; if cm is decided upon, you'll be able to use the height template anyways. Also, after reading Template talk:Height#Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres, the rhetoric got a bit snippy. Deep breaths, everyone, let's not turn this into another dash vs. hyphen fiasco. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on m vs. cm, other than the fact that m are used far more widely in my area of editing (soccerball) and I had a concern that editors would try and replace m with cm, in the face of how we edit soccerball articles on Wikipedia - and that is exactly what seems to be happening here. GiantSnowman 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

When {{Height}} was made, it seems humans weren't taken into account and that it was only intended for use with other structures, such as buildings. Adding a cm parameter to that is very uncontroversial stuff in my opinion. As for BLP MOS, the reasonable approach seems to be for sources (with more weight given to those of higher quality) to determine what unit is used, as well as WP:ENGVAR much in the same way it already determines how dates are formatted. Again, fairly uncontroversial stuff I would have thought. GiantSnowman, you'd do well to provide a guideline that states metres must be used. I've already provided policies that show Wikipedia content must take its cues from reliable sources, particularly in BLPs.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, find me a diff or three where you have 'corrected' the height but kept it in m? And you have already been directed - multiple times - to Manual of Styles which (currently) use m. GiantSnowman 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that takes us to an example of an infobox which contains the problematic {{Height}} template. What I asked for was "a guideline that states metres must be used". And of course no such diff can be found. What possible reason would I have for displaying a person's height in metres in defiance of sources that express it in centimetres? Anyway, I don't think this is adding anything new to the discussion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Human_height may be relevant though.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you admit you have only being adding sources which show cm, even though sources exist which show m (again, I point you to Talk:Davide Astori) and you don't see that as being a problem? GiantSnowman 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need me to point out that my edit history (along with yours) is right there for all to see. And of course I'm comfortable with it. I don't know how to make my position any clearer on this issue. As you must surely know, not all sources are created equal. As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height. Now, I'm going to do this page's users a favour and only carry on specific cases' discussions on their talk pages (and I think everyone might appreciate if you did the same). I will point out that a very large number of biographies of living persons had incorrect and unreferenced heights and weights listed (some not containing a single source) until I came along. I want you to keep that in mind as you read the first paragraph of WP:BLP then come back here and explain how exactly I'm harming the project.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Astori example again - you found a FIFA source which shows height in cm, and stated that was the best source available. I also found a FIFA source which shows height in m. You believe your source is superior to mine, but have not explained why, when they are both from the same organisation. You have no reason at all to use cm over m on this article (and many others) other than personal preference. GiantSnowman 11:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See 6th sentence of previous comment. According to policy, I would have been well within my rights to remove the unreferenced information from all those BLPs. This, I think, would be more likely to be construed as unconstructive editing, don't you? Instead I chose to find first-rate reliable sources, introduce them to the articles and update the information to match the sources explicitly. Now please explain to us clearly why further harm will come to the encyclopedia if sanctions aren't brought against me. Then perhaps after that, we can discuss how appropriate language such as "You see, I know you are going to abuse this template change", "You don't know what you're talking about" and "You are pushing your weird pro-cm agenda" is for someone who has managed to be appointed an administrator.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But you are pushing a pro-cm agenda. I fully support your introduction of cm to articles where the majority of sources use cm - but what concerns me is you introducing cm to articles where the vast majority of sources use m. GiantSnowman 12:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: From my outside perspective, I don't see any consensus for a change at {{height}}. It's not a high-visibility page, though, so opening an RFC is the correct next step. Letting the dispute spill over into the drama boards is not a correct next step. If the RFC ends in consensus to add a cm parameter to the height template, common sense should be followed for each domain. If the height of European basketball players is normally expressed in m, then it should be here. If the height of Australian cricketers is normally expressed in cm, then it should be here. You're not allowed to cherry-pick sources that support your view. Gibson Flying V, I suggest you wait for the outcome of the RFC before taking any more actions along these lines. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocks of MrX and Sportfan5000 on Duck Dynasty

There are, as you may know, major problems on a number of homosexuality-related articles with repeated sockpuppetry and use of alternate accounts. This article is one of them. Today, an addition was made to the article and reverted three times by SPA account Perusteltu (talk · contribs). These additions were reverted twice by MrX (talk · contribs) and three times by Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs) (five reverts were made because Collect (talk · contribs) reverted once on the side of the SPA account). This article, and especially the SPLC-related information which was involved, was previously a favourite of now-blocked sockpuppet Roccodrift (talk · contribs). This edit by Perusteltu shows all the hallmarks of Belchfire/Roccodrift.

Admin Toddst1 (talk · contribs) has blocked both MrX and Sportfan5000 for 24 hours for two and three reverts each, but has not blocked the instigator, Perusteltu, at all. This is a quite ridiculous sequence of events and I propose to undo these blocks unless there is consensus not to do so here. I will inform all parties, but obviously the two blocked editors cannot comment here. I note that MrX has suggested that they are going to leave Wikipedia over this issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support departure if the editor cannot find anything constructive to do on Wikipedia that does not involve edit-warring on duck dynasties. Per WP:DIVA, even though it's only an essay. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful. I'm asking why editors (who are constructive Wikipedia editors in general) on one side of an edit-war who have reverted twice and three times have been blocked, whilst the editor on the other side (also three reverts, and a SPA) has not. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an awful thing to say, Demiurge, and you should really rethink it. If nothing else, the briefest of glances at their contribs shows that they do a deal more than edit-warring on Duck Dynasty.

For the rest, I agree that it's concerning, but perhaps we should talk about this with Toddst1 first? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmmmm I was just thinking that too. I can't see that BK has discussed this with Toddst1. Maybe I missed it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite. There seems to be a rush to an ultimatum here ("I propose to undo these blocks") instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this was a better place to discuss it given the wider issues with these articles. And frankly such a controversial sequence of blocks should have been brought here anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history of socks on Duck Dynasty but I saw that User:Perusteltu hadn't reverted after being warned. However if you look above in the Holdek section, MrX was involved in another tag-team edit war yesterday and completely rejected the warnings. I think BK and the others are aware that it isn't the number of edits that an editor makes, it's the back and forth reversions that make an edit war. There were quite a few here and clearly a multi-party edit war which shouldn't be controversial. If you think otherwise, then you need to review WP:EW.Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• On that basis, MrX and Sportfan5000 received no warnings at all (yes, I know they shouldn't need them, but if you;re going to make the point, let's be consistent). You can't block someone for making two reverts in an edit-war and not block someone on the other side for making three in the same edit-war. To do so leaves yourself open to accusations of bias. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BK, maybe you should calm down and investigate a little more. MRX was both warned yesterday and rejected it on ANI above and SF5k has been blocked for edit warring very recently. I just explained to you why I didn't block the guy you disagree with.

If sockpuppetry was the issue, then the editor should have been tagged and the reversions should have inidicated such Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of the article would have been the better option, by far. The failure to act against the Belchfire/Roccodrift sock was a grave error. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Grave Error??? Now that's a little dramatic. Time for a visit to the tea house to come back to reality172.56.10.79 (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement. Failure to identify that editor as a sock and instead, engage in a protracted 4-party edit war was a grave error which resulted in proper blocks. Now, is someone going to open an SPI on the sock or are you going to keep bitching about your buddies being blocked for edit warring? Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

An investigation of the article history would have shown the persistent issues with SPAs and socks on this article. MrX even used the talk page on the issue - the SPA didn't, simply carried on reverting. I'd suggest at least that (a) we are consistent and block the other editor for the same time, or preferably (b) undo the blocks and protect the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You're really missing it. If User:Perusteltu is a sock, s/he should be blocked as such. If not, they s/he didn't revert after the warning and SHOULD NOT be blocked. Try applying some logic here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, BK, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't change my comments[122]. Not consulting me before running off to ANI and labeling my action as "ridiculous" was bad, assuming bad faith on my part is worse but you really need to not change my words. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That was an edit-conflict glitch. I wouldn't do such a thing. I've put it back. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's considered assuming bad faith bringing a questionable action to ANI but it's not assuming bad faith accusing someone of intentionally changing your comment when the removal was a clear edit-conflict gone wrong? Add in the fact that you made a personal attack in the removed text and you should frankly thank BK for removing it. Gloss • talk 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree and trust that no admin will wheel war on the block. In addition to Sportfan5000, there is also the multiple "Phil Robertson" articles where they also act in concert with User:Ronjohn who did the interesting edit at [123] comparable to Sportfan's edit at [124]. Yes there are problems -- but the blocks were proper IMO. The main problem is POV warriors who do not wish to abide by WP:BLP however. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × many)Clearly bogus blocks, and Toddst1's warning yesterday was not consistent with policy. Despite Toddst's suggestion to change it today [125] -- reading the whole policy -- specifically WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which says "Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; (emphasis mine) makes it clear it's not generally accepted a single revert is edit warring. (Mr. X did fail to heed the entire advice of the section in that they did not use the talk page).NE Ent 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What's meant by "multiple Phil Robertson articles"? We have one, and its lack of a hatnote suggests to me that we don't have any others. I looked for duplicates under Phil Alexander Robertson and Phil A. Robertson, but neither of those even exists as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy which is an obvous fork and about to get deleted. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"They" is I. And my "revert" was on the basis that WP:POV railroad (the reason Sportfan5000 gave in his edit summary) is not a valid reason for deletion of material that I can find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• My analysis: Blocks for Sportfan5000 and Perusteltu, but not MrX: I think protection would have been a better option, but barring that, the block of Sportfan5000 was warranted, in my opinion, but not the block on MrX. I think Perusteltu should have been blocked as well, as they are the very definition of a single-purpose POV account, and were edit warring as much as the rest. (I also have my doubts on them being a new user.) If I had my way, MrX would be unblocked with a summary of "per consensus at AN/I" and Perusteltu would get a very stern warning. Of course, if I really got my way we would also nuke the metastasized Duck Dynasty controversy, but I don't think such a cure is possible.

  A bit of evidence for why I think MrX should be unblocked: First, they only performed two reverts, and they apologized for this revert with a dummy edit (since they had been reverted so quickly). Also, MrX had WP:BRD on his side. Also, MrX is the one who started the discussion on the talk page, which only one other user so far (Collect) has participated in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think protection should really have been the only way forward here. As Toddst1 admits himself, this was a "4-way edit war", but only the two editors on one side of it were blocked (note that I'm not suggesting Collect should have been blocked, merely pointing Toddst1's analysis out). But then, as he says, I'm simply "bitching about my buddies being blocked for edit warring", despite the fact I don't think I've interacted with Sportfan5000 in my editing career. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you that protection would have been better...but that's just me. I can think of other admins who probably would have just blocked everybody. Since that is no longer an option, I think the best trajectory forward would be to unblock MrX as I suggested above and move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Note: after reading some of the comments below I should probably add that I understand the reasoning of Toddst1 and believe they were acting in good faith, though I disagreed with their actions in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend as best way to move forward would be unblocking all editors on extension of good faith as there is little reason to sustain the blocks. This would be the most peaceful way. If the edit warring recommences then full protect the article.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think the most reasonable upfront options would have been full protection, or blocking all three accounts. I don't think that blocking two out of the three parties involved in a multilateral edit war is an ideal approach. It's a bit late for that now, of course, but for future reference. I'm a bit skeptical about blocking an experienced editor for reverting twice, especially when that editor appeared to be dealing with a single-purpose agenda account—that seems to me to stretch the spirit of policy a bit thin. Maybe just unblock them all and keep an eye on the article? Oh, and Perusteltu (talk · contribs) seems to think it's OK to write things like "To destroy America's culture, (Communists) planned to use the homosexual movement to undermine religion and morality" in Wikipedia's voice. Someone should probably help educate him/her as to our content policies. Not it. MastCell ^Talk 00:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• I personally think to the least, MrX should be unblocked. He is a cool headed editor who was actually following WP:BRD at the article and also made less than three reverts. I'm not sure about the other two editors statuses, but full protection would've been the most ideal next step and having blocking Sportfan5000 and Perusteltu would be a second choice if behavior continues after protection. I'm not going to go too deep into it, but I will mention that I feel that some admins tend to pull the trigger too quickly on situations like these. Just a thought. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "cool headed editor", I was looking over Perusteltu's talk page and I saw this edit by MrX. In a topic area where the norm is to slap ideological opponents with the ugliest highest-level templates possible, I found that personalized word of caution and invitation to the talk page quite refreshing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Bad block on MrX, should be overturned. I'll just echo what Mastcell said above, "blocking an experienced editor for reverting twice, especially when that editor appeared to be dealing with a single-purpose agenda account—that seems to me to stretch the spirit of policy a bit thin". Blocking Sportsfan seems like an overreaction as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock MrX as per evidence by Adjwilley that MrX attempted to engage in efforts to quell the edit war: apologizing for a hasty revert and initiating discussion are behaviors we ought to be encouraging. Jumping into an ongoing edit war with a revert or two of one's own was certainly a mistake, but subsequent actions show that MrX got out of the bad mindset and into a better one without needing to be coerced, and so there's no preventative value in maintaining the block. I do not have a strong opinion about the block/unblock state of the other participants in the edit war, but agree with others above that protecting the page would have been a better course of action for Toddst1 to have taken. alanyst 03:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock MrX per much of the above, and with no negative judgement on Toddst1. He did what he thought was right in the situation; it may not be what others would have done but it wasn't grossly out of proportion. N^oformation ^Talk 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock the editors and lock the article. Toddst1's actions were well-intentioned, but it was the wrong approach to block productive editors while leaving a sock untouched. Article protection is the best way to deal with these sorts of multiparty conflicts. I'm also troubled by Toddst1's hostile reaction to criticism of his actions. Gamaliel (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

People tend not to react well to criticism when they feel attacked (rightly or wrongly), and especially when they were just doing their job, or so to speak. This is why it's important to attempt to maintain a civil and collegial atmosphere. N^oformation ^Talk 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's important that editors who disagree with this matter criticize Toddst1's actions and not Toddst1 himself. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Bad block-Unblock - It's very bad precedent to block long time editors who have not violated 3RR when they are undoing SPA edits by banned Sock puppets. Not to jump on Todd's reasoning too much, but if the other editors should have noted in their edit summaries the user was a banned sock, perhaps you should have investigated a bit more before blocking too. I mean, if you expect more from editors, should you not expect at least as much from yourself? Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Bad block and fails WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong with block, but I'll expect unblock to be wise MrX was kind enough to express his partial understanding of edit-warring just a few days ago, and it was clarified to him quite clearly that he needs to read the entire policy before acting. As such, he know what is edit warring, and has therefore been appropriately warned. However, I believe that MrX is quite aware now that we're serious about that policy, and that the policy must be interpreted in toto - he's typically a good content creator, even if he misunderstands policies - misunderstanding is not an permanent offense, I hope. Indeed, I hope MrX in the long term realizes that a lot of people do try to help him to correct his misunderstandings ES&L 09:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You were right, I was wrong

I didn't realize MrX was "one of us" and wasn't subject to the rules we impose on those outsiders. Maybe one of you righteous admins should unblock him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hum....I disagree with MrX about 90 percent of the time but concur with the majority above and feel the block was a poor call. You admin people need to do page protections...blocks stay on a record forever on this website...they can't be expunged.--MONGO 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always difficult to be criticized, but you are not handling this well. You should probably take a break from this matter while your temper cools. If you live in the Americas, let it rest until the morning, otherwise just walk away for now. Gamaliel (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think it's a little too late to unblock MrX... :/ Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Toddst1, you're indeed wrong in that MrX is not "one of us" anymore, assuming his retirement isn't temporary. Maybe you shouldn't be one of us anymore either, or at least not one of the admins given that you've just "improved" Wikipedia by trading a long-term editor for a SPA who is also a probable sock. Your argument above that Perusteltu stopped after being warned is a little silly given that MrX warned him. Who warned MrX though? Nobody, it seems... And MrX definitely didn't edit war after he gave the warning to Perusteltu. So you basically blocked MrX for... not warning himself before stopping?! Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

MrX had no block history and nearly 40k edits. semi-protection would have stopped any disruptive edit war if one existed. He was blocked for 2RR over 2 days? I found it even hard to find his reverts because of the amount of edits he made between reverts. It was a poor decision to block, especially without warning and after he tried to get the SPA/sock to stop, and your response to feedback has been worse. --DHeyward (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've seen this administrator drive away an editor. See User talk:Carobu#January 2014 - after Carobu made good faith edits ([126] [127] [128]) to update the numbers of an infobox based on the information within the article, Toddst1 proceeded to warn the user on their talk page using template messages which suggested Carobu could/should be blocked for their edits, as if they were some kind of malicious or bad-faith edits. He made no effort to apologize or even talk to the user. I'm noticing a theme with this administrator's hasty actions and unwillingness to discuss anything before they take such actions. Gloss • talk 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Toddst1, you were wrong on several levels. Your block was inappropriate and unskilful. You should have then had the nous to recognise you acted inappropriately, the courage to undo your bad block, and the decency to apologize to the injured party. Administrators should not be jerking content builders around like this (but they do on Wikipedia, don't they). --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No they don't. No admin will admit they're wrong on here, despite the overwhelming evidence stacking up against this Todd character. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked MrX following the consensus here. I don't see a consensus yet for unblocking Sportfan5000, so I haven't changed anything there. Fram (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Simultaneously and independently, I just full protected the article for 3 days. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I have filed the needful SPI. The duck test is not clearly obvious to me, though there is similar behavior. However, a number of individuals are above presuming it is him, and acting like they'd be inclined to block based on similarity; in this case an SPI is necessary to disambiguate innocent persons with similar beliefs from possible additional socks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The test came back negative, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there more to this than a bad block? It appears MrX and Toddst1 have recently clashed (see #Holdek-5 above and User talk:Toddst1#Edit warring accusation), and there is obviously a problem with how Toddst1 handles criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the SPI, I agree it's needed. The block of MrX was pretty clearly a bad block and may have cost us a good editor. If there had been a previous clash then this looks even worse. The section heading Toddst1 has added is inexcusable and I support Johnuniq's comment about Toddst1's difficulties in handling criticism. We Admins need to set a higher standard of behavior. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

H'mmm Toddst1 seems to have quietly left the field. Why's that? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

H'mmm Toddst1 sleeps and has a family. It's morning here in North America now and I'm back on line for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you guys had even read the most basic facts on this issue before leaping to your conclusions, you would have seen - as I pointed out above (twice in this thread!) that the "previous clash" as you so eloquently put it was that I warned MrX two days ago for tag-team edit warring with Holdek - and discussed it here on ANI - before blocking him yesterday for exactly that - tag-team edit warring. I'll take the criticism. I'd just like the people dishing it out to do their homework first as Mr. Weller and others have demonstrated that they didnt! Toddst1 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I get that MrX has been a good contributor and quite a few folks believe that a double standard should apply with him. (If you don't think that's true, then go back and re-read all the comments about "judgement" and "good editor") Fine. I also understand that edit warring has many interpretations and to than end, before this fiasco started on ANI, I posted on Talk:EW that this area (multi-party edit wars) needs to be more clearly called out because good editors like MrX get caught up in it.

I also get that my late-night post last night pointing out the double standard here was pretty snarky. Yes, I was and am frustrated.

Was my block of MrX bad? Well, as far as I can tell, it was within policy, but appears to be outside of culture. I've issued over ten thousand blocks and a few have been controversial. Most of those controversies are where policy and wikiculture collide.

However, it's time for me to take a break, which I shall now do. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be a bad block but technically within policy. I've run into situations where I could have blocked or protected an article and I'd prefer not to block normally good editors, especially someone with 40,000 edits and a clean block log. So I protect rather than block in those situations. I wasn't supporting Johnuniq's comment about a previous clash - that's the 'if' bit and the fact that I said that I supported his comment about your problems with criticism. I said 'if' because a quick look suggested that it was not unrelated to this and thus would be part of the same 'clash'. But I guess I wasn't clear enough and I apologise for that. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange business

Strange business going on at Postcentral gyrus

• DMacks reverting a stream of edits (including intermediate edits) on a presumption (unproved) of copyvio. May be true but should have proof presented either on user's talk page or article talk page (neither found for this incident).
• Reverted edits contains multiple edits, including grammar/punctuation from said user, and one from other users
• User Jwratner1 did indeed make one (out of the multiple edits) copyvio
• Having been reverted, a new account (Epiphanize101) inserts the same content.

Have happened upon this in my wikitravels. Am flagging for admin attention. --LT910001 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

...and as part of your wikitravels, you approached the editors first to discuss and/or resolve the issues? ES&L 09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Jwratner1 is indefinitely blocked for copyvio so discussion is futile. Epiphanize101 has edited only 4 articles, 3 of which are completely unrelated. All were also edited by Jwratner1. SPI raised. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Signature and incivil comments

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

---

Hi. User Beyond My Ken has a misleading signature per WP:SIGPROB "Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname or Nickname) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers)." I've asked him to change it, but I've been met with incivil comments. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In World War II, at the Battle of the Bulge, the 101st Airborne Division in Bastogne was surrounded by German troops, and when the German commander quite sensibly sent in a message suggesting that the surrounded American troops should surrender, his message was answered by the American commander with the simple reply "Nuts". (Which confused the German commander, and had to be translated.)
In this spirit, I say to Lugnuts, who really should have better things to do with his time, but often chooses instead to act as if WP:MOS is Holy Writ (especially if an edit changes an article that he's taken an WP:OWNership interest in): "Nerts". (That's "nuts" with a prototypical Brooklyn accent. Even though I'm not from Brooklyn, and don't live there now, I have great appreciation for the Brooklynite's outlook on life, and his suggestion that east is east and west is west, and if the train from Canarsie is late, I ain't never gonna get to work on time!)

Oh, well, sorry for the excess verbosity. Perhaps it is all better summed up in the words of the profit: "Take a hike!". Yours most humbly and sincerely, Don Alfredo Questo Ablegato Tanto Mucho; Talka to da don, he's a gonna make you a offer you cannota refuse, sure as as your uncle's a monkey 11:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)tbh it's a pretty fucking classic sig!!! Wow _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the username policy does not forbid that, and indeed, the information on changing your username actually suggests that. WP:SIG simply says it might be confusing to other editors. As long as his signature links to either his userpage or usertalkpage (without other problems), then it's wholly within policy. ES&L 11:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Da ting is, counselor, dat Lugnuts knows exactly who I am, we've been butting heads since I first started editing film articles maybe 8 years ago, so dis AN/I complaint is really kinda bogus, just the Lugger tryin' to get me into trouble, because, after a fair piece of time, he and I have been disagreein' again (becuz he's still a MOS-stickler while I remain a MOS-tickler).

    What I mean to say is that Lignuts filed this report with the explicit intention to get me into trouble, not because he was in any way actually confused by my sig. That seems to be to be pretty darn bogus reason for a report. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, BMK, the schtick is actually rather annoying :-) If you think Lugnuts is targeting you, trying to drive you off specific articles or the project, file your RFC/U or provide us with a wider swath of diff's right here for the WP:BOOMERANG effect for a one-way WP:IB. Yeah, this ANI filing is improper, non-policy-based, seems to be related to a personal dislike, and can be suitably closed unless you want to provide the above. ES&L 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One man's schtick is another man's ox being gored. I believe that when an editor files an "improper non-policy based" (your words) AN/I against another editor, there's a reasonable amount of leeway for the editor being targeted to bitch about it, especially if there's history between the editors (and this is Wikipedia, it's always likely that there's some kind of history somewhere). So, you can have your bitching bland and basic, like boiled potatoes buried beneath a brisket of beef, or you can have a little humor with it. Personally, I prefer a bit of levity, because, frankly, we all get much too serious about this project. I'm sorry if that's not to your taste, and assure you that if the Lugman doesn't press the issue, I don't plan to extend the schtick any farther. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is such a non-issue I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So Lugnuts has an issue with Beyond My Ken having a sig that displays 'BMK', but not with EatsShootsAndLeaves having a sig that displays 'ES&L'...? GiantSnowman 13:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that Lugnuts and ES&L haven't had a history of disagreements. You see, I go in and expand a film article - usually about an old film no one's really terribly interested in -- by 2, 5 or 10 times, and then Lugnuts or Clarityfiend or some other editor with little or no imagination take issue with some picayune formatting that I've done and edit war to remove it. They cite MOS, of course, never having understood that MOS is a guideline and not a policy and, as Arbcom has said several times, not worth edit warring over. So Lugnuts reports me here not because he's actually concerned about my signature, but because it's yet another way to hit back at me for not doing things his way.

I've learned to live with these things, with the help of psychotherapy and drugs, although it does, at times, make it unpleasant to edit here, and provokes me to avoid movie articles for a while to get away from them. Things like this are the secret, hidden truth about Wikipedia, and probably more significant in driving editors away that any other factor that's been proposed - editors such as Lugnuts and Clarityfiend are so totally dead certain that they're right, that they never consider the alternatives, and are never bothered when they drive editors away. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I am finally completely fed up with User:Orestes1984's attacks on me and others

See here.

And here.

And another.

Oh, and here he blamed me for Australia not winning its bid to host the World Cup, while also insulting all Australian Football fans with "you cannot teach AFL supporters class".

Here he attacked another Wikipedia article that he doesn't like, and in doing so obviously condemned my references to it.

And here we have "a minority of POV pushers"

There are many, many more examples. This editor has on dozens of occasions attacked me and others for defending the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia to call the round ball game just that, "soccer", in internal Australian articles. The standard form of attack is that I am "pushing a POV agenda", but there have been many others.

This editor persistently fails to use Edit summaries, despite having been here for eight years.

Becasue of the way discussions are allowed to so easily go off track, and because complaints about me have been incorrectly brought here so many times, I am always very hesitant to bring problems about other editors here. But I really am getting sick of the constant abuse from Orestes1984.

This discussion must not turn into one on what the game should be called. That belongs elsewhere. Consistent consensus on it has been repeatedly achieved several times already. User:Orestes1984 disagrees with that consensus, and won't give up the fight.

This thread is about the persistent unpleasant personal attacks on editors doing exactly what they should. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you'll actually link to a personal attack (see WP:WIAPA). I see some possibly uncivil harsh words, but not a single personal attack ES&L 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Half the links you posted here are comments from people other than Orestes1984. Some are from yourself actually. only (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And remember to duck from stray boomerangs... what if you did repeatedly railroad other editors, etc? Just a thought... On edit: Sorry HiLo, just realised who the fuck you are. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, in what way is your edited comment necessary or appropriate here? I don't see anything you're adding to the discussion. only (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Have to go with ES&L and Only here. Did you mess up the diffs or something? Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang: Hilo alleges he/she is the victim using diffs that do not actually verify the allegations. Meanwhile, a quick review of the Talk page shows comments from Hilo like "You have yet again gone down the bullshit path... piss off" and "Are you really trying hard to act so dumb?" and "You are either completely incompetent, or you have chosen to deliberately ignore". Another one from Talk archives is "BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!! That claim is simply incorrect." It appears to be a heated content dispute where Hilo is frustrated because a prior article-move discussion was closed in support of the status quo (his preferred version), but editors continue to discuss it in a manner that may put the ruling at risk. Other editors have also been tense, but not to this extent. I would support a 30-day block for Hilo as a cooling off period, followed by a short leash for future civility problems. Since there was recently a "ruling" on the content dispute, any RfC-type discussion should wait until he returns. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have simply tried to present a view that has been filibustered into the ground with pointless BRDs and other issues, there have been clear cases of meat puppetry going on here Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#Orestes_has_taken_the_battle_elsewhere the topic of that discussion alone should be picked up upon, as it says, you cannot use talk pages in order to garner support for your position. There is incivility flying around everywhere, but the talk page for soccer in Australia has been the consistent location. Unfortunately it's a challenge to be around an editor that has a history of incivility, and not just towards myself as an editor. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter, because I don't like to be drawn into AN/I as nothing good ever comes from AN/I... I do not want to cause trouble here, I could not state that any more clearly, but it seems HiLo48 cannot interact with other users who are trying to edit in good faith on soccer related articles in Australia. Perhaps Hilo48 should be topic banned from editing on soccer related articles on Wikipedia so as we can all have some peace? --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

*blink* Um, you've read your own very inflammatory and inappropriately uncivil comments, right? ES&L 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have, there is no grounds for that around other users, however user HiLo48 as well as other users are impossibly uncivil on a consistent basis towards any editors that even attempt to present a view that does not support their agenda. There is a clear boomerang going on here, and HiLo48 perhaps should have thought a bit more seriously before bringing this up at AN/I. I do not want to be on AN/I but unfortunately HiLo48 has taken it to this, I would not be the first user that HiLo48 has been uncivil towards however and I probably won't be the last. It really is difficult to go about editing in articles that HiLo48 monitors without running into his incivility. Unfortunately, while I know it's wrong I have a propensity to return it towards those who are uncivil. I don't actually mind if I end up getting called up for this myself, it's probably deserved, I'm just trying to put forward a position so as editors of soccer related articles can edit in peace in a matter that HiLo48 is making more controversial than it needs to be. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Anonoumous user keeps adding unsourced information

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

---

I have now deleted unsourced information added by anonoumous users 3 times within the past four hours. The unsourced content is this section, Tractor_Sazi_F.C.#Affiliated_clubs. I would like for an editor to remove it and lock the page.

Please note that I asked for sources all three times and also asked the user(s) not to engage in an edit war. Borek 9 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have left the user a polite note on their talk page, they might not know how to see the article history. Also please notify any users that you talk about here. -- œ^™ 13:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

They are different IP's, but I suspect one, single user behind this since the same information is added. He/she knows how to use the history.... Anyway, will the page be locked or not? The user(s) are User:151.247.125.119, User:151.247.125.156 and User:151.247.125.58. Borek 9 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken personally attacking Lugnuts

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

---

There is a rather heated disagreement at the talk page of No Other Woman (1933 film) between Beyond My Ken and Clarityfiend. Clarityfiend put in a request for intervention at the WikiProject Film talk page, which Lugnuts saw and responded to. Lugnuts, who did nothing but request that BMK change his signature per WP:SIGPROB, is met with BMK saying "[sic] so I think you should go ... well, let's see, how do I put this in a way that's socially acceptable, yet won't be be misunderstood by folks, who are, you know, like yourself? ... Yes, I have it -- Go peel a banana!!" Very blatantly an insult and a personal attack on Lugnuts. This gets worse when BMK adds a subsection over Lugnuts's comments, which reads "Another cuntry heard from". Calling someone a "cuntry" is undeniable a personal attack as well. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I realized a little late that this issue has been addressed above, but it pre-dates BMK's addition of the subsection title. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You've duplicated a similar, closed discussion - with a minor addition. So, he mis-spelled "country". What's the issue? ES&L 14:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Go peel a banana" is neither an insult nor a personal attack, it's a cutesy way of saying "go fuck yourself”. While this is rude and not conducive to a collegial environment, it is certainly not a personal attack. As far as “cuntry” goes, we can speculate as to BYK intentions all day, or we can move on and assume that it was an accident, or that it was on purpose and he will surely never do that again. To sum up: Petty squabbling. -- John Reaves 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw this from an unbiased, third-person perspective and it seemed like it needed to be addressed. I didn't notice the closed discussion when I created this one, so I apologize for that. And John Reaves, you're right, that I was speculating. But I have to ask, WP:NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." I'm not trying to argue or be snarky, but based on that sentence, if telling someone to go fuck themselves isn't a personal attack, how do we define one? I've never really dealt with this kind of issue before, so I'm fairly ignorant to it. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your requirement when you see an issue is to approach the party and try and resolve it prior to reporting to an admin board. If you find the answer unfulfilling, then weigh the possible alternatives, and report if needed. I don't see that you tried at all to personally resolve it ES&L 15:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Noted for the future. Thank you for bearing with me. I'll get the hang of it eventually. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well whatever the right or wrong of the edits, signature etc (which I won't comment on) this is a pretty terrible edit log and User:Beyond My Ken has just earned themselves a 24 hour block from me for breaking the 3 revert rule. Dpmuk (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, nothing to see here

• Given that BMK has already been blocked by Dpmuk for editwarring, I think it would be wise for an uninvolved admin to close this thread before it spirals wildly out of control. The incivility is nasty, but it's not necessarily actionable. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Gaming of the system by Ryulong

It has come to my attention that user Ryulong has been causing Disruption in Anime and manga related articles.this is noticeable in this talk page. If you take a look at the history you notice that every single comment someone else makes he Immediately Retortes and is making no attempt to Reach consensus. however beats down the opposition until everyone agrees with him if this isn't a prime example of stonewalling I don't know what is.I would like to stress that I'm uninvolved in this despute and am stating this feed because I care about the integrity of this wiki.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having an active discussion with two editors. How the hell is that gaming the system?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No offence however It looks to me that a clear consensus has been reached however you are pushing your side of the argument. This is a clear example of stonewalling and it is gaming the system.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "clear consensus". There's two people with opposing view points and a third opinion leaning towards one of the view points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(To both: continued discussion about whether there is consensus should happen at the project's talk page. Sancho 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC))

How would you prefer Ryulong behave? Should Ryulong wait a certain amount of time before expressing disagreement? It's only been a day since that conversation started, and it seems like the participants are finding common ground. Their disagreement hasn't been resolved yet, but it's an ongoing discussion, as far as I can tell. Sancho 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And so what does WP:DR say to do next? ES&L 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanchom The issue isn't that policies have been broken the issue is that Ryulong has his own system to sneek around the policies if you talk a closer look at Ryulongs behavior you see how patterns are developing which show a long term abuse of the system.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to sneak around policies nor am I a long term abuser of the system. I'm having an argument on article content in which I disagree with another editor. What the hell is your problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stay calm; it helps :) Sancho 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not apparent that anything is going wrong in this instance, though. There are active conversations, with a small number of participants. I'm guessing one of the other participants may be leaning to asking for a third opinion, but hasn't yet. What do you suggest be done? The steps at WP:DR are fully open to the participants of the discussion if they feel they are not getting anywhere. Sancho 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a rather ill-informed ANI filing, there is no wrongdoing or untowards behavior in that linked discussion in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ you have a long term pattern of abuse.

• In this article Ryulong is in a dispute with an Ip notice how Ryulong Did 3 reverts on the 17th then waited till the 19th to revert more stuff that he disagreed with. This History clearly shows Ryulong Strategy for getting past the 3 revert rule.
• In this article Ryulong is in another dispute However right after his 3 reverts are up on the 14th he waits around 50 hours and then on the 16th he continues to revert what other people write.This is Clearly Gaming the 3rr.

Ryulong is guilty of trying to Refract talk page comment.

• here his is trying to remove a block notice.
• Removed an notice for an 3rr noticeboard discussion.
• Removed Notices of his wrong doings.
• And most recently here\

Ryulong has also have done mass reverts to a single editor

• Here.
• and here.

With all this evidence I don't know what to say you are abusing the system.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations

Dear Administrators,
I find myself here practically forced to report a user that (despite various warnings) refuses to stop casting serious aspersions towards me.
The user in question, User:Astynax has been continuously casting aspersions of academic dishonesty, specifically accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content", against my editing account.

• Please see: [129][130][131].

Astynax defends his behavior by claiming that, based on the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBARG, the arguments brought up in the "evidence phase" of the case are valid to be attributed to the Arbitration Committee's voice & final decision.
Nonetheless, this perspective has been disputed both by arbitrator Salvio (see [132]) & administrator ES&L (see [133][134][135]). In fact, both ended up recommending that I take any further aspersion casting to AN/I:

• Salvio ([136]): "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
• ES&L ([137]): "Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error."

Moreover, not only have I tried to resolve this issue with Astynax, requesting him quite clearly to stop his aggressions ([138][139]), but ES&L also tried to reason with him ([140][141]). Yet, Astynax declined to stop his abusive comments & literally told ES&L to stop posting on his talk page ([142]): "Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity." Basically, Astynax refuses to drop the stick.
Due to this situation, I am reporting User:Astynax at AN/I for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND breaches.
Since the accusations made by Astynax are defamations, and he outright refuses to listen and get the point, I believe an indefinite block is in order until the user agrees to stop casting aspersions (per the same principle mentioned by the Arbitration Committee) towards me and other editors involved in the arbitration case.
However, please consider my recommendation as nothing more than a suggestion.
Thanks in advance! Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)