Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877

conflict of interet and fraudulant editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask the panel here to take administrative action against editor Formerly 98 .

I first encountered him in the article Herbert L. Ley, Jr. (Head of FDA 1969) he removed very biting criticism againts big pharma, on the reason of copy editing.ok. so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later. But he also inserted a bogus sentence not in a citation in order to white wash criticism: "Dr. Ley stated that companies had not pressured him regarding decisions about specific products during his tenure". [11] It is just the opposite of Leys position.

He deleted another post about Ley in Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, this time with a bogus reason of not being relevent anymore. A clear criticism from a previous head of the fda not relevent! Lol.

I have looked at the editor's contributions; he is clearly on a crusade to delete criticism of big pharma all over wikipedia. This is when i decided to open this ANI. I think it is very evident, his motivations and actions on wikipedia.Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry and all that entails. There is little you can do about it on this noticeboard. The best thing you can do is do the research on Wikipedia's bias and have your findings published in the media. Don't bother with a medical journal because they are in bed with big pharma as well. Because this is the accepted "house bias", it is seen as acceptable. Therefore, I move to close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If biased POV can be established then I would support a topic ban on chemistry related topics on Formerly 98. This may present a loss for Wikipedia in some ways as this editor presents himself as a scientist. More specifically he says, "This user is a chemist. He gets cranky sometimes. If this happens, please try to ignore his bad behavior until he recovers his senses". As simple response to that, no! Please address your behaviour and, if you think that you may be in a cranky mood, don't edit. Stay away. Wikipedia is here to present non-biased content according to the standards presented at WP:NPOV. No other standard can do. User:Bigbaby23, who knows more about the situation may also know of reasons why this editor should be watched or why an admin, preferably with an interest in chemistry, may beneficially act as a point of reference if further issues of dispute may be raised. GregKaye 10:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific criticism here other than content disputes? Are there policies that have been violated? Edit warring? What exactly is the concern here other than disagreements about content?

• The editor who lodged this complaint restored hundreds of words of WP:COPYVIO that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable".
• I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably WP:COATRACKED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes.

I fail to see when looking at the edits how Formerly 98 has violated any Wikipedia policy. In fact, claims of "conflict of interest", "fraudulant editing", being "in bed with big pharma", and "Wikipedia and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry" show instead the clear bias of the complainants here. Deli nk (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Close and consider boomerang per WP:NPA. Primarily a local content dispute. Larger issues - OP is a newish editor who mostly edits martial arts articles, but has occassionally edited health-related articles with a strong bias against the medical mainstream and has, in good newbie-with-an-ax-to-grind fashion has liberally made personal attacks - charges of COI and bias - against editors who work to maintain NPOV content that gives weight to mainstream views - the very inappropriate title of this thread is an example, ditto this edit note: "revert formaly98 for conflict of interest, and blatant criticism removal." For examples of Bigbaby23's fringe-supporting edits on content related to health, see here for a rant about mainstream v homeopathy and "systemic bias" in WP; and here for a discussion about his/her edits to Water fluoridation controversy). And the present content dispute, where Bigbaby23 restored content that was COPYVIO in his quest to rip on mainstream medicine. Bigbaby23 will eventually learn to edit appropriately or will get angry and leave the topic or the project altogether, or will get topic or site banned. Seen this tons of times on articles related to health. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog that this seems to be a boomerang. I initially felt Bigbaby23 was probably mostly wrong but since it appeared to be a content dispute, it wasn't worth mentioning here. However upon looking more closely, I noticed that Bigbaby23 called "reason of copy editing", was actually copyvio as several people have noticed. (I haven't looked in to the details to confirm it is a copyvio, I don't see much point when there's no one explicitly disputing it, since Bigbaby23 doesn't even seem to understand what's wrong.) The fact that Bigbaby23 would readd a copyvio for any reason, is quite concerning. Bigbaby23 may still be relatively new, but they really need to quickly learn what a copyvio is and why they shouldn't be reverting for any reason other than it being clearly established by someone who understands what they're doing that it isn't a copyvio, if they want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been proven right, not to engage with Formaly69 directly, and bringing it here; see how he is totaly dishonest and doing his best to manipulate the system: Quote:

• The editor who lodged this complaint restored hundreds of words of WP:COPYVIO that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable".

He is linking to my revert on the fda criticism article, that has no copyvio issues, to which i did call "inexplicably ". He gave a bogus argument there, because it looks bad if head of fda said these things. Quote:

• I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably WP:COATRACKED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes.

Complete bullshit. Ref 8 is not "now" behind a paywall. It's in NY times archive. It has been behind paywall for years. He's been caught red handed, so desperatly he's trying to feed you something to keep you off track.Bigbaby23 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So there may be some confusion on the issues here. Bigbaby, part of the material you restored is shown below and in this diff:

"Another major event in October 1969, was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Dr. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) ingredients, was criticized for the delay.That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Dr. Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals. Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food.

The source language is

"One major event was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of safe ingredients, was criticized for the delay. That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals.Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food."

Do you see the problem here? This is not allowed and creates liability for the Foundation. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try side tracking the issue. Indeed i said the copyvio, should be rewritten. What raised alarm about Formally98, is that he specifically went after the hard criticism, trying to use different tactics to remove them. Here's a nice one: Formaly98 blanketed this paragraph, with the remark "Paragraph does not accurately describe the material in the source" :

Employees of the FDA recognized the agency had problems. in July 1969, the FDA released the “Kinslow report”[7] commissioned by FDA commissioner Dr. Ley, the study concluded, “the American public’s principal consumer protection is provided by the food and drug administration, and we are currently not equipped to cope with the challenge”. In total, the panel submitted 45 recommendations to the commissioner. Dr. Ley did not have time to implement any suggestions.[8] The New York Times in January 1970 reported in an article that "the HEW has done little to implement the report's suggestions, except to oust the man who set up the panel in the first place, Dr. Ley, Jr., and two of his top aides".[9]

There is nothing complex about this paragraph, and there is no ambiguity in the sources. But this looks bad for formally98 Coin PovBigbaby23 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It does not belong here. That being said, the material in the article did not capture what is in the source. The article quotes the Kinslow Report in Wikipedia's voice. But the source says that the Kinslow Report was bunk and was repudiated by Kinslow himself.

"Regrettably, as the Chairman of the committee and the author of the final draft, the report became known as the Kinslow Report. I can assure you that the last thing I wanted was to have my name associated with that report. But regrettably that's what occurred. I find it almost beyond belief that, over thirteen years later, there are people who still dredge up that report." (page 45-46)

So this is the substance of your evidence that I'm here as some sort of industry shill? Did you read the source before you reverted? Or did the fact that the source says that the quoted report was bunk seem like an irrelevant issue to you?" Formerly 98 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

you are deliberetly clouding the citations. The text describing the Report in the paragraph are 2 secondary RS sources. And are represented accurately. You are quoting a primary source.

you are only very strict to wikipedia guidelines when you wikilawyer.

Again, we are discussing a report that was repudiated by its own chairperson. And you felt that rather than going to the Talk page to discuss the content dispute, the best approach was to revert and then to come here and attack my character and accuse me of being a shill. This is not how we do things here. If you are going to be an editor long term, you need to read the rules. I'd suggest starting with WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, that you restored COPYVIO content which is a serious violation of policy. That is a "period, end of story" kind of thing - it doesn't matter what you intended to do later. And I don't see you discussing the content dispute with regard to WP:PAG (e.g. WP:UNDUE, BLP, etc), which is what we do here, per WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS. What I am seeing is an inexperienced editor with an ax to grind, creating dramah and personalizing a content dispute in violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPG. That you continue to make unsupported allegations of COI, even here, is even more of a sign that you are WP:NOTHERE. I am getting close to proposing a short term block. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur entirely. Or to put it a different way, if you agree it's a copyvio, why on earth did you add it back to the article, and then come here and complain about it? And why did you say in your reply just before that "that has no copyvio issues"? The fact that you did suggests there's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but it's on your part Bigbaby23, not on the part of Formerly 98. The reason this discussions is getting "sidetracked" is nothing to do with Formerly 98 but instead because you yourself Bigbaby23 have basically demonstrated serious problems with your behaviour here on wikipedia, but are igoring the plenty of people telling you it is a serious problem. And until you can give a good explaination as to why you did so (but I don't think there is a good explaination), or at least show an understanding of why it was wrong and undertake never to do so again, I don't think anyone is going to really care about whatever other problems you claim to have. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see I was slightly confused here. The section Bigbaby23 linked to above, does appear to have no copyvio issues and does seem to have been linked, I guess mistakenly, by Formerly 98 as an example where Bigbaby23 readded copyvio. I apologise for confusion due to my above statement. But the point Bigbaby23 seems to have missed is that even if Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section, since Bigbaby23 did restore copyvios, it would be fine for Bigbaby23 to point out Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section. But thy have no evidence of dishonesty instead a simple mistake. Particularly since Bigbaby23 seems to acknowledge clearly below they were aware they did restore copyvios, so they must know they did restore copyvios. (As I said below, Bigbaby23's repeatedly downplaying and ignoring of the copyvio issue, instead bringing up irrelevant stuff doesn't give confidence that they understand the seriousness of the issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Close and suggest a boomerang. I don't see anything provided the violates policy or is otherwise problematic with Formerly 98, and this posting appears retaliatory. Editors that edit in articles where companies are involved shouldn't have to deal WP:ASPERSIONS about being in bed with companies, shilling, etc. whenever a change is made that someone appearing to have a stereotypical "big bad corporate company" POV doesn't like by calling it whitewashing, etc. It's too common of an attitude that pop ups, especially with new editors, and shouldn't be entertained here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang For violations of WP:GF, for restoring content that violates WP:COPYVIO and for edit warring. Bigbaby continues to make unilateral edits to the article while this discussion proceeds.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

that is another lie that you are fabricating. Anyone can see the time stamp, and that i reverted you on that article prior to me opening thid ANIBigbaby23 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block of User:Formerly 98. When you come to ANI you need to have decent evidence. None is provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

OK, that's it. Propose two week block on Bigbaby23 for violating COPYVIO and NPA Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per reasons previously listed in section above. Doesn't seem like it's getting across that this behavior is problematic or is going to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So an editor (formaly98) that his whole contribution history on wikipedia is only deleting criticism of big pharma under a plethora of wikilayering, even if copyvio, his intentions are against wikipedia's rules intentions. I have demonstrayed that he fabricated a sentence contrary to citation. But nobody seemed to comment on this serious offense so far. This ANI is supposed to replace all the potential tedious editing and arguments in all the articles he "sanitizes"Bigbaby23 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me say this one last time. It doesn't matter why Formerly 98 removed a copyvio. If Formerly 98 says they are removing it for copyvio reasons, it's unacceptable to add it back for any reason, except there being good evidence it's not a copyvio. Adding back a copyvio is far more serious than anything you are claiming Formerly 98 has done. So even if your claims are true, it's completely normal and unsurprising people are largely ignoring your claims, when you are ignoring the people telling you your behaviour there was quite unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Formaly98 cart blanch deletions in one revert in the Ley article, because it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony . his reasons for deletion there were a mix of reasons, and after he reverted me back warning me about the copyvio, i did nothing more in that article (so only my initial general revert). I am not ignoring anything in this ANI; In my first paragraph here, i state "so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later". No fighting on this on my part. Copyvio is clear and next time I'll be more careful . Now on the other hand, editor jytdog has done nice work to try to delegitimise me from the very onset of this ANI. its a tactic ive seen in the past to try to make others not take seriously a newer editor complaints - especially valid ones. but im happy to see that new contributers on this ANI, are focusing back on the ANI subject itself. Bigbaby23 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know I said that would be my last comment, but it sounds like we may be finally moving forward even if only slightly. First let me repeat again, no one really cares why Formerly 98 removed the content if it was copyvio. If it was copyvio there is zero justification to add it back unless you have good reason to think it isn't copyvio. Even if it was only part copyvio and way more content was removed than needed to be, it still wouldn't be okay to add it back except perhaps if you very quickly then removed the actual copyvios. Heck even if Formerly 98 was a highly problematic sockpuppet who kept violating their ban, it wouldn't be okay to readd content remove for copyvio; except that it's possible in that case sometimes you can safely assume it isn't a copyvio without further investigating. And it doesn't matter that much what you plan on doing with those paragraphs in the future, provided you aren't planning to re-add copyvios. What is much more important is that you understand you should never have reverted a copyvio removal, no matter why you believe it was removed, unless as I said, you had good reason to think it wasn't copyvio. This is the first time you seem to have properly acknowledged you shouldn't have done so, but unfortunately it's still not enough for me since you still seem to be insisting on talking about why Formerly 98 removed it, which as I've said is largely irrelevant if it were copyvio. P.S. I don't think blaming other editors for your own mistakes is helping your case. The reality is you continually failed to acknowledge the copyvio problem. If you had accepted that you made a major mistake in re-adding the copyvio and were able to sufficiently allay concerns that you would do it again, perhaps at least me and others would have been more willing to look in to other aspects of your complaint, even if to be honest, there were a lot of other things suggesting it was without merit. But this didn't happen, and you only have yourself to blame. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The copyvio judgement mistake i made was in GF and due to my inexperience, and certainly i will not repeat it in the future. I did not say anything before about it, because i was sure it was evident that this is my position. Now that this is clear beyond doubt. It's time to deal with a malicious error done by Formely98: falsifying text. 99% of his contributions on wikipedia non other than coin pov pushing. His wikilawyering and abuse of the system is in practice on this very ANI as i presented above, and how he is reacting to another editor below. Make him the perfect candidat for a topic ban at the bare minimum.Bigbaby23 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So per your reasoning, its completely acceptable for you to re-add anti-corporate material that has been pointed out to be a misstatement of the content of a cited source, but if I make a bad edit that is tilted in the other direction, it is prima facie evidence of being a shill, of "whitewashing", of "malicious editing", and "coin POV pushing".

You're still not understanding the issues here. Outside the provisions of WP:GF, Wikipedia becomes a circus in which we all fight out every difference of opinion by attacking each other's character and motivations. I could equally well suggest that your re-addition of the Kinslow report material was a deliberate effort to mislead readers in support of your political viewpoints. But in the final analysis, that sort of personal attack does not help us move the articles forward. There needs to be a laser like focus on content, and not speculation about others' motives. This is a big problem and you need to change it. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's good that you've finally said that. However by now I have no interest in looking in to any more of your allegations. Beyond the fact they don't seem to be well supported, your attitude here suggests to me it would be a waste of time. Plenty of people pointed out the copyvio problem here. You persistently ignored them despite the fact people kept saying it was a problem, and instead kept bringing up irrelevant stuff like the reasons Formerly 98 may have removed the copyvio content. Remember that Formerly 98 made it clear the first time around they were removing it for copyvio reasons. Now even when you've finally acknowledged the problem, you claim it should have been always clear, despite the earlier outlined facts (i.e. you persistently ignoring the concerns repeatedly expressed and bringing up irrelevant stuff). Not to mention the problems Formerly 98 outlined above. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I'm going to disagree with your remarks that Bigbaby's more recent comments are a step forward. He continues with his unsupported bad faith editing accusations which I see as equally problematic with the COPYVIO restorations. To quote

"it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony "

Even here at ANI, we move forward and make decisions based on proven violations of policy and guidelines, NOT on the basis of assumptions that anyone making edits that we disagree with is editing in bad faith. What Bigbaby is admitting to here and doing so without any sign that he realizes its a problem, is that he saw edits he disagreed with and immediately assumed bad faith. Neither I nor any other editor should be subjected to these unsupported personal attacks just because we had the temerity to make an edit that was out of accord with some other editor's anti-corporate viewpoints. It needs to be made clear that accusations of bad faith editing as an argument of first resort are simply unacceptable.

I made a bad edit here and I still can't figure out how it happened. But that does not justify the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions that BigBaby feels free to spout as if they were proven allegations. Its really inappropriate. [User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I would disagree with you on that. I'm not saying Bigbaby23's behaviour doesn't show problems because it does. But it's not as serious as the copyvio issue. Ultimately the harm that editors showing the behaviour you outlined is rarely as serious as editors who add copyvio material. Editors who do so can easily waste many, many hours of time, tracking down their contributions, making sure none of them are copyvio, and deleting those which are copyvio, remembers that it isn't unheard of that months or even years have passed since the material was added and it's been worked on by many different editors, efforts which will all go to waste because the material has to be deleted. While editors showing the behaviour you outlined do often waste time, it's often not as serious, in particular because it's unlikely to be something people will only notice years later, and even if it is, it usually just means some of the articles they worked on may be unbalanced. In terms of making other editors feel uncomfortable or reluctant to edit, I agree it's a serious problem, and one which has to be dealt with, but the question is how. It isn't always the case this should be a straight indef block, sometimes there may be an attempt to work with the editor and see if they can change while offering support to those who feel their are being unfairly maligned. (I'm not saying this is the case here, simply it can be.) By comparison, if an editor does seem able to understand what a copyright violation is, or that they shouldn't be re/adding them, I don't see there's much choice but an indef block to prevent harm to wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support I and others have really tried to explain the rules here about WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS but he is simply defiant. Not generally a big fan of sanctions, but sometimes they are an important learning tool. Personal attacks and unsupported allegations are not acceptable as an argument of first resort, and knowingly restoring WP:COPYVIO material is not acceptable under any circumstances. BigBaby has not communicated that he will refrain from either behavior in the future, and has in fact given every indication that he plans to continue in the same vein. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support based on Jytdog's reasoning. Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support frankly I'd be willing to support an indef (which remember is not a permanent) block since they've not only given zero indication they understand why reverting a copyvio is unacceptable, they've also given zero indication they even are trying to understand despite multiple people telling them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Support 2 week block. Now that after so many attempts, Bigbaby23 has finally properly accepted that they should never re-add copyvios, no matter what they feel is they were removed (when they may genuinely be copyvios), I no longer see the need for an indef. But I do agree their behaviour as shown here is highly problematic. Even to get them to come around to the copyvio issue, it not only took way too long, but when they did their claim is they were always saying that. Despite the fact it's easy to see that several people brought it up, and they largely ignored it, instead keep talking about how Formerly 98 allegedly removed the copyvio for bad reasons. And continued even after I repeatedly point out this was irrelevant if the content was indeed copyvio. A short block will at least stop further such problems for now. Hopefully it will also make them realise they need to learn to collobrate better. (A long through their talk page history is also instructive. They've repeatedy removed people discussing problems with them which is their right, but have done so with uncivil edit summaries suggesting there is no problm, not exactly a sign of someone who is interested in collobrating and learning from their mistakes.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• BigBaby is an inexperienced and new user on Wikipedia which should be taken into context when looking at this situation. However, this isn't the first time that Formerly98 has antagonized a new users on Wikipedia. Issues have been raised about him about half a dozen times in the past year and they are generally calling out the same thing. They suggest he is 'whitewashing' negative comments about the pharmaceutical industry. It is easy to point fingers at a new user when they are unfamiliar with the customs of Wikipedia but Formerly98 needs to be called out for this as well. I have yet to see him constructively approach editors with whom he disagrees to try to reach a compromise and a real consensus. Many times he brashly reverts edits without adjustments which in and of itself is against Wikipedia policy. The organization Rxisk has even covered his editing patterns independently. http://wp.rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-wikipedia-falls/ I have personally asked him if he is a paid editor - a fair question since this is not an activity that is prohibited by Wikipedia - and he simply refused to answer and got aggressive with me. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Doors22 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Lots of issues with this users work. May need longer block if issues continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm just going to point out that Doors22 is a WP:SPA editor who has engaged in a campaign of retaliatory editing since my removal of material not supported by WP:MEDRS compliant sources from the Finasteride article last year, and his comments here should be interpreted in that light. The current edit appears to be in retaliation for my comments on his proposed article on the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Research Foundation, which consists of 3 part time employees investigating a proposed syndrome for which there are no WP:MEDRS compliant sources for the existence of.

• Over 90% of of Doors22 edits are on the subject of finasterside, Merck (its manufacturer), or baldness experts who have endorsed finasteride
• Over half of the remaining 10% are retaliatory edits, in which he reverts my edits or jumps in on the other side of a debate from me on an article he has never shown interest in before
• Diffs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rapid fire reversions and votes on the other side of the issue from me on Electronic cigarette, which occurred shortly after I removed some improperly sourced material from Finasteride. Diff1 is a quickly written rebuttal to a comment by me in a discussion on the talk page. , Diff2 is a reversion of my edit, and in Diff3 he takes the opposite side from me in an RFC. Note that he had never before edited the article, and this came immediately after the dispute on the Finasteride page.
• Ditto 2 weeks later, in which I become involved in a dispute on Pharmaceutical Industry. In Diff1, Doors, who has nearly zero history of editing any non-Finasteride related article, jumps in to rebut my comments in a Talk page discussion here as well. In diff2, he jumps in in a bizarre way to muddle the discussion after I have asked for clarification of a point from another editor. Again, in Diff3, more of the same. Again, once the controversy dies down, he shows no interest in the article or making any edits. Once there is no longer a controversy that he can join sides against me in, he loses interest. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Problematic editing/begaviour in evidence. A cooling off period may help. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - given Formerly98's slow but steady whitewashing described at Talk:Pharmaceutical industry#Questionable deletions, I don't think it is appropriate to sanction anyone pointing out similar patterns of behavior arising from the same editor. EllenCT (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT that is irrelevant. This proposal is about BigBaby's behavior, upon which you didn't comment. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

BigBaby is reacting to Formerly 98's behavior, so it is relevant. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no excuse for violating COPYVIO, ever, and there are ways to address concerns about behavior without resorting to personal attacks. You are not dealing with Bigbaby's actual behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 1 week block for Doors22 for retaliatory editing

Per the comments immediately above, I propose a 1 week block for Doors22 for engaging in retaliatory editing. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not retaliating for your recent edits. I saw an incident was raised about you on the noticeboard and since I have a lot of experience with your editing behavior I decided to contribute. I hope you appreciate the irony in that you are trying to get me banned for retaliatory editing, simply because I contributed my opinion about your editing history. Many others have complained about you in the past year and some have even filed formal complaints. Speaking of editing history, 90%+ of your edits are for removing or toning down side effect profiles of a variety of drugs or removing criticisms of multinational corporations. This editing history is suggestive of somebody who is a paid editor. Are you in any way receiving money directly or indirectly for your edits on Wikipedia? This is not a strictly prohibited practice per Wiki policy but you would certainly be required to fully disclose this. Doors22 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Because this is ANI and not an article Talk page, I am going to say this once (and only once). I do not have any COIs with respect to the content of any pharmaceutical product or company, and have never performed paid editing. You've made these accusations repeatedly on article Talk pages, in violation of multiple guidelines, and without any supportive documentation other than that you disagreed with the particular edits. The issue here is not COI on my part, but your retaliatory editing and non-stop violations of WP:TALK and WP:GF. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Striking - I over reacted. I do work a lot on articles related to drugs, pharma, the FDA, etc. A lot of these articles have what I find to be an anti-pharma POV and I have done a lot of work over the past year to bring more NPOV (as that is defined here) to these articles as well as adding content that makes these articles more complete (well-sourced content on their uses, their impact, and controversies (yes, I add negative information too). Along the way I have come under attack by lots of anti-pharma advocates, or as in the case of Doors, editors who lock in on their perceptions of side effects of drugs and give them UNDUE weight here (you would be surprised... or maybe not when you think about it) how much of that is. And many of them are quick to fling charges of COI. And sometimes the accusations of bad faith get under my skin. I lost my cool there, sorry. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

These comments specifically relate to your most recent ANI and even earlier ones since this issue keeps coming up. If you want me to extend the "supportive documentation" I am happy to do so. I can easily locate 50+ incidents of you removing, diminishing, or countering statements of litigation, criticisms, or controversies of various pharmaceutical companies or products. In fact this represents the large majority of your work. The remainder is more of the same for other companies like Coca Cola, Mallinckrodt, Dow Chemical among others. I will go ahead and begin to compile this list if other editors would find this helpful. At the very least, please review WP:BITE because you should be assisting new editors rather than driving them away and trying to penalize them. Doors22 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you struck your comments as soon as I offer to compile a list of supportive documentation, which would be so long it would take hours if done exhaustively. I honestly have yet to see you offer "negative information" and your editing history at the very least has a very strong POV and possibly suggests you are an editor with undisclosed conflict of interests. You also answered you do not have a WP:COIN with respect to the "content of any pharmaceutical product or company" but I noticed this does not fully answer the question if you have any COIs to disclose relating to any of your edits. Again, this is not a problem so long as the WP:COIN is disclosed to give other editors context. I ask other editors involved in this ANI if it would be helpful for me to begin to compile this list of supportive evidence. Again, this is not an unreasonable discussion and I will be willing to find multiple other recent instances where it was believed Formerly98 had a POV or COI related to his editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide your list of supportive documentation. Honestly, Doors, lets have the discussion here on the ANI page where it belongs. It is time to put an end to unsupported allegations on the Talk pages. But simply striking poorly sourced negative information is not evidence of COI, anymore than your singleminded focus on criticizing finasteride, Merck, and baldness gurus who have endorsed finasteride is evidence that you work for tort lawyers engaged in litigation against Merck. If you have credible evidence that I have accepted money in exchange for editing services, or that I work for any of the companies whose pages I have edited, that woiuld be appropriate to include in your list. Otherwise you are just speculating in violation of WP:GF Formerly 98 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doors, that is yet more assuming bad faith. Editors who react emotionally and then strike shouldn't get punished for acknowledging a mistake and your connecting the strike, to what you wrote, is yet more bad-faith sloppy conspiracy thinking. Likewise, your continued charge of COI against Formerly is without foundation and if you continue to make that charge, I will take action against you for WP:NPA. COI is a very serious issue in WP and I work a lot on it; but ax-griding editors like you, and like BigBaby, reach for that irresponsibly and use it as a weapon in arguments about content. You ~may~ have a case to bring related to WP:ADVOCACY but without actual evidence of COI (and you have none), you must stop making clams of COI.. I am dead serious about that and I will move to bring action against you if you continue. You are warned. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And Doors, you have a bad history of making personal attacks on the Finasteride article - this is just some of it:

• Back in 2011, when Jfdwolff, an admin, was working on that article with you, you called him a Nazi and accused him of editing in bad faith and claimed he had a a "very strong bias" among other bad behavior. He warned you even then that your account was a [{WP:SPA]] and that if you kept being uncivil, you risked a longterm block.
• In Oct 2014 Jfdwolff noted noted: "I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Didn't we agree that we needed to be very selective about sources in this highly disputed area? Doors22 isn't anything if not persistent." and later told you "my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Wikipedia to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied." Doc James was involved in those discussions as well.
• In Oct 2014 you turned another content dispute in the article into a personal attack, now against Formerly, where you wrote: "I added another meta analysis draws the opposite conclusion. They both look at a similar number of studies, but one journal is of a higher quality than the other. Formerly 98, are you getting paid to edit Wikipedia? It seems to be a full time endeavor for you since you are editing at all hours of the day. The majority of your edits involve reversions about side effects or information that is not favorable to pharmaceutical companies" and later you pushed it harder, writing " I also noticed you live in San Diego, where a lot of pharmaceutical/biotech companies are located and you have referred to yourself as an "industry guy". For all I know, you could simply own Merck stock and nothing more. Do you have any conflicts of interest that would affect your edits on this article? "
• You followed up on that, with a post on Formerly's page, again accusing him of COI.
• I warned you then to back off the personal attacks and irresponsible accusations of COI.

So really Doors, you are WP:SPA (per your contribs), dedicated to emphasizing the sexual side of effects of Finasteride in WP. You make personal attacks all the time to further your agenda and seem to believe that editors who uphold Wikipedia's NPOV policy and MEDRS guideline must be on the take from Big Pharma. As I did before, I suggest you stop making personal attacks to further your agenda here. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

These examples are taken out of context and are very dated, going back to 2011. Some of your comments are factually inaccurate too. I do not see how anything I have posted in this incident is a personal attack, visit WP:NPA and please tell me how my behavior fits any of those categories. I have stuck strictly to Formerly98's editing behavior. I am not a complete newbie in Wikipedia but I am also far from a seasoned editor. Will you please provide some guidance on what kind of "proof" is required to demonstrate a COI? I am not as familiar with whatever standard is generally accepted and this can be somewhat arbitrary. What you are suggesting to me seems like it is literally impossible to show evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest if he/she chooses not to disclose any but showing POV or advocacy (which would result from paid editing or some other COI) should be no problem. Doors22 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

COI and edits by Formerly 98

I specifically request that @Doors22: presents the list of evidence that he feels proves that I have a WP:COI for evaluation as part of this ANI review. I further request that the list be evaluated by the other editors here, and that he be asked to stop making these accusations on article Talk pages in the event that the evidence is not found to be supportive. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly oblige you but it may take me some time to get to this. I will be away beginning tomorrow evening and may not be able to respond fully until sometime next week. 04:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs)

User:Formerly98 has received attention off Wikipedia regarding alleged COI / POV editing. The website www.rxisk.org features an article specifically about User:Formerly98 [1] It shows a previous version of user page, discusses his deletion nomination of an article on Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction, and inquires: “Do we expect Wikipedia posts to be more conservative than the label produced by the pharmaceutical company?” which is apparently referring to Formerly98’s work in “toning down” the side effects on the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly explicitly says there, that he has no COI. More bad-faith editors crying COI - and you have now joined the ranks - doesn't any more real. BoboMeowCat, that if you continue making unsubstantiated charges of COI I will seek action against you. You are warned. COI is not something to throw around in a content dispute. And you, like Doors, have POV-pushed on side effects of drugs. (in your case, asthma as an effect of acetaminophen. You are another editor who has tried to violate NPOV and MEDRS and made personal attacks as you pushed your POV. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I request that we just play this out without threats of disciplinary action and have these arguments evaluated by the communityFormerly 98 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What is going on here is a witch-hunt by a newbie angry editor (OP), and two well-known POV-pushers. I don't think going down the "throw down" path is good for anybody or WP, but as you will. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We have 3 editors here making the same accusation in nearly every interaction I have with them, and several others who have not yet posted on this thread. I suggest we ask the community to evaluate, and then we will have a consensus one way or the other. At some point we need a clearly voiced community decision, either that I am allowed to edit in peace and without constant aspersions, or that the overall community believes that I need to change my editing practices. I don't see that as a "throw down". What I don't want is to be back here next month. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Put that way, this makes a lot of sense. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience here, it doesn't seem like warnings get the point across that this behavior in inappropriate to editors that do this (often with an ax to grind). I wouldn't see interaction bans for certain users completely unwarranted depending on how the conversation goes. I'm not seeing anything right now that shows a legitimate COI or even POV concern on your part Formerly, so it's still looking like these accusations against you are aspersions at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bob. The Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Article was nominated by me for deletion, but was deleted by community consensus, so that may not be the best example. But here are the Diffs for Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin before and after I rewrote both, removing about about half of the total content of each and adding new material. I'd request the community to examine these for POV, as I am overwhelmingly responsible for the current state of these articles, though some of the work was performed as an IP editor and some under a previous username.

Ciprofloxacin Diff

Levofloxacin

It really isn't very helpful for you to provide your own examples of how you are a balanced editor. Others would have to independently look through the history of your edits to verify for themselves. They will see the overwhelming majority of your posts involve toning down side effect profiles and criticisms of large corporations.Doors22 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Those weren't my choices they were BobMeowCat's. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Basically we follow WP:MEDRS for medical content. While he and I may occasionally disagree, User:Formerly 98 uses high quality sources nearly all the time and thus I have not significant concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that he uses what is deemed to be high quality sources for what he adds but this alone does not make a NPOV editor. Removing material that you don't want on an article does not require you provide any sources at all. There is the famous quote, 'there is no such thing as truth, only the presentation of facts'. One can easily finds one reason or another that fits some kind of policy to remove unwanted material and create a desired perspective. All the while avoiding providing any sources if one wishes.Doors22 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢: basing a COI argument relative to a manufacturer's Rx info (the label) is a a bit asinine, as these vary by country due to regulatory/approval processes for the document. E.g., a Therapeutic Goods Administration approved label by Aspen pharmaceuticals lists suicidality, aggression, and homicidal tendencies as potential adverse effects of amphetamine in spite of the fact that it acknowledges elsewhere in the document that these are just isolated aftermarket reports w/ no comparison to placebo (these events could in fact occur less frequently vs people on a placebo).[2] The current USFDA-approved label by Amedra pharmaceuticals is thankfully much less hand-wavy and doesn't list suicidality or homicidal tendencies as "potential adverse effects" and further notes that there is no systematic evidence of any relationship between stimulants and aggressive behaviors (this is a comparison between arbitrary conjecture [TGA label] and evidence-based medicine [FDA label]).[3]
So, with all that said, it raises the question: which label are we comparing the WP article to, an evidence-based label or one which would better serve as toilet paper than a wikipedia citation? The way we at WP:MED resolve issues like this is to apply WP:MEDRS, which is something I know Formerly does based upon my interactions with him in every article we've both worked on.

TLDR: arguing that Formerly has a COI simply by comparing his edits to the adverse effects on an arbitrary label is completely retarded. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Formerly98 diff and Jytdog diff joined in to remove referenced COI statements on the Glaxo Smith Kline article. Formerly98 and removed the claim from the Johnson and Johnson page diff AlbinoFerret 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please Formerly 98 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It is late so I don't have time to pull up specific diffs but Formerly98 was very active on the e-cigarette page until it was temporarily frozen. I initially thought it was so strange that he was more or less exclusively involved in making pro-drug statements while being anti-e-cigarettes. But then I did some very quick research and saw the pharmaceutical industry was strongly lobbying against e-cigarettes because it threatens their existing products (ie Nicorette). In the example above, Formerly98 removed this mention from the GSK article because it lacked 'notability' which is a very common page from his playbook. At the very least, it is suspicious and certainly indicates a strong point of view.Doors22 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please. thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff Here is one example from Mallinckrodt where you reverted another user's edit that discussed the company's history of illegal waste dumping and justified this by saying the company had a "complex series of takeovers and spinouts" so that historical actions are no longer associated with the current company.

Thank you, I assume then that you disagree with this edit. How does it establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff2 In another example, you deleted 2 sentences on sleep talking caused by Ambien because you arbitrarily deemed them to be too rare.

I reduced the number of sentences from 6 to 4. I understand that you disagree. What is the basis of your belief that 6 is the correct number? How does this establish COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff3 Here you edit David Healy's article (who is the doctor who independently brought attention to your edits off wikipedia) and you felt the need to replace a neutral tone with a more aggressive tone.

I see that I attibuted a statement made by Healy to Healy instead of stating his conclusionhs in Wikipedia's voice. I understand you disagree. How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff4 Another example of a separate editor believing you to have a bias and POV which you correctly decided to strike. Notably this is on the e-cigarette page.

This appears to be a Talk page discussion, so maybe off-topic. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff5 Here you completely erase discussion of regulatory capture on the pharmaceutical industry page, despite it being a widely accepted topic of controversy that generates substantial discussion in the outside world and academic circles.

I'm not seeing "completely erase", what I see is a reduction from 4 sentences to 2. I assume you believe that 4 was the correct number of sentences? How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff6 This one is quite telling. You deleted well sourced but negative facts about Merck that discussed unethical actions they took during past controversies. You wrote the article should "tell the story and let the readers decide", but really you just erased the negative evidence which was really descriptive and not judgmental.

This was probably not my best edit, but it is one of many that I made to the article, including restoring a section describing the company's products, which one editor had deleted as "unimportant". How does this establish COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff7 Here you completely remove a section from the pharmaceutical industry about "me-too" drugs which is another very commonly discussed issue that obviously belongs on this page in some fashion.

True, but the section was actually pretty balanced and not all that critical of the industry, and as the edit summary notes, it was based on out of date refs. How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just a very small sample of what look like POV/advocacy editing to me and there are hundreds of more examples. I strongly suggest other users take a look through his contribution history because his contribution history looks like it was written by a PR professional (at least to me). Doors22 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I second this recommendation. I described what I saw in their editing, specifically with the Depression and Astro Zeneca articles circa May 31 and early June 2014, here. Seeing just a few day's worth of this person's edits (spindoctoring on steroids) was the final straw for me before throwing up my hands and ending my editing here at WP. petrarchan47tc 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[Later edit] It was the Anti-depressant article that first alerted me to this activity. Here is a talk page section to help navigate, but I am unwilling to spend time digging for diffs. If one were to peruse F98's contribs in early June 2014, they would see what I saw. It doesn't take a sleuth in this case, it's extremely obvious pro-Pharma, SPA editing. petrarchan47tc 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So your position is that you are recommending sanctions but "are not willing to put in the time to generate the diffs"? Hmm. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, could you please provide actual article diffs? Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think merely providing diff's is the best way to go about this because other users who don't have history discussing matters with Formerly98 will completely miss out from seeing the whole context of his edits which is very important. Do any more experienced editors have any suggestions for how to best proceed with this COI/advocacy issue? I mentioned I will be away for the next few days starting tomorrow and would like to contribute to this conversation so please don't interpret my absence as though I am finished with the discussion.

I do think it is pretty telling that Formerly98's 'spin doctoring' drove away the editor above and when I have more time will be able to point out examples where he proactively drove other editors away. I also think it is telling that he tried to get me banned because I tried to contribute to this discussion and he attempted to backed down when he was concerned the issue might escalate to an investigation of his behavior.Doors22 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Doors, I think what you need to do here is to establish some criteria for "COI" and "POV editing" that don't measure POV by the distance between the viewpoint expressed and your own opinions.

I think your statement that I "backed down when he was concerned that the issue might escalate into an invesigation of his behavior" is hard to reconcile with the fact that I invited the exact discussion we are having now. And so far, all you have brought to the table are content disputes. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Taken as a whole; formely98 contribuion history is that of a duck, his edit/delete arguments are that of a duck, and his tactics even on this ANI are that of a duck. Formelly98 is a duck.

lets not forget, that his initial response here to the fraudulent statement he added to the Ley article "oh it was a different reference i cited, but now its behind a paywall" a.k.a we cant verify his claim now, i easly demonstrated was a total lie ; it was a NY Times archived article that has been behind a paywall for years. He felt comfortable because due to jytdog theatrics, they went after me and let him slide. But the moment i reached some kind of understanding with editor niel, and editor doors was also accusing him, formely98 felt the shift in the tide, paniced and changed his tune, first he erased his attack on doors and then also changed his story about the fraudulent statement he added "im sorry i don't know how that happened". He should be banned just for lying and manipulating the ANI panel.Bigbaby23 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with this for reasons cited above. Importantly, I never claimed that the source was in the paywalled article only that I thought it might be but could not check it for myself. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I am here because recent edits to an article flagged by my database queries showing heavy editing on economically sensitive topics compelled me to examine Formerly 98's contributions for the first time. I urge administrators and other interested parties to examine the issues raised at Talk:Pharmaceutical industry#Questionable deletions where Formerly 98 has over the past few years been slowly scrubbing the most uncomfortable criticism from that article. EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair Ellen, its not strictly true that you "felt compelled to examine Formerly 98's contributions for the first time" based on a database search. You and I have taken opposing stances on multiple issues over the last year, recently at Pharmaceutical industry, Hydraulic Fracturing, and Electronic cigarette. And your proposals at Pharmaceutical industry failed to gain consensus. Given the support I recieved from other editors there, who as group rejected your suggested changes, how can this be used as evidence of POV editing or COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. The group did not reject her edits by any means. They were discussed constructively and a compromise was reached. I have yet to see you engage in this kind of discussion. Any editor who takes the time to do the research on this investigation will see you are not telling the truth.Doors22 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In all of our previous interactions, I had not, nor did I feel it would be a worthwhile use of my time, to look through your specific contributions instead of just individual article histories. That changed when I saw you trying to obscure a pharmaceutical company's corporate inversion in the same manner that a new SPA who had been reverted six times for it had just done. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98's response to the comments above

I deliberately opened up this discussion in order to illustrate the level and type of personal attacks that I deal with on a daily basis as an editor here. Above we have over 2000 words of criticism from editors who accuse me of being a POV editor and having undisclosed COIs. Representative evidence includes:

• My removal of WP:COPYVIO from the article Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration (evidence of being a undisclosed paid editor)

his indescriminate removal of negative criticism some were copyvio and some were not, and that was in the Herbert Ley article and if he couldn't think of a reason or pduedo reason that would some how pass to remove material, he would add stuff to tone down the criticism, and when he even didn't have that, he simply fabricated a sentence and added it, to yet again, nalify criticism. In the FDA article he removed a previous head of FDA criticism against big pharma influence in the fda, giving balony reasons.Bigbaby23 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

you are further discrediting yourself with this ranting, Bigbaby. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have been criticized on the website of a virulently anti-industry activist and author. If fringe websites are criticizing my edits, I'm not sure that should be viewed as a problem, should it?
• One editor noted that I edited Electronic cigarette in a way that was perceived as negative, and noting that some pharmaceutical companies sell competing quit smoking products, concluded that this was evidence that my edits were driven by a desire to increase pharmaceutical company profits. This reasoning seems a little circular to me.
• Several authors present as examples of "POV pushing" changes that I made that were supported by consensus upon challenge. I'm not sure how I can win consensus so consistently if I am a fringe POV pusher.

• Pharmaceutical industry, in which my edits were challenged and supported by editor consensus
• Another example of my "POV/COI editing" is the deletion of the Post-SSRI Sexual Disorder article, which was not deleted by me by by community consensus after I nominated it
• Finally, we have the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles, which I rewrote and which by community consensus, remain in almost exactly the state I left them in when I finished editing them a year ago. How do extreme POV articles that get 1000 hits a day remain almost completely unedited for a year when they are so commonly accessed?

Some of the other remarks simply seem silly. One editor links to an exchange that occurred several months ago that "drove her to stop editing". But her editing history shows she is still active. Another claims to have discovered by POV editing by a database search, but s/he and I have a history of editing disagreements that far predates the reported date of the search that my name putatively appeared in.

I respectfully request closure with a warning to all that WP:GF will be more vigorously enforced in the future, and that I be guaranteed the ability to edit here in peace without being continuously the subject of speculative personal attacks by those who view disagreement with their position as proof positive of paid editing and COI.' As noted here by the Head of the Wikipedia Medicine Project and other medical editors, my editing has generally been well sourced and high quality. I deserve to be allowed to go about my business without being abused by those who believe personal attacks are the best argument of first resort. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think you get to be the one to determine when closure has been attained for an investigation about your behavior. It also shows you were not acting in good faith when you engaged in this discussion to prove a point. The problem generally is not with what information you add to articles but what you delete. Your justifications are very frequently off base and indicative you are trying to erase negative information. Let me ask you - why are you the only editor that seems to be getting a negative response from many others when you claim your edits are objective and high quality?Doors22 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is another diff that shows an edit I found particularly repugnant. You erased a reference that a pharmaceutical company produced Zyklon B, the poisonous gas that was used by the Nazis to murder millions of people. Your justification, again, was very weak and you tried to say that Bayer was responsible for manufacturing the poison, the the conglomerate. This makes no sense as it is on the Bayer article that you thought this was irrelevant, but this would certainly warrant more than a passing mention even on a parent level article. I don't always disagree with your edits or points but I almost always disagree with the tactics you use to bury negative information. I am not inviting you to respond to this message but I am including this for other editors to see, evaluate, and comment.Doors22 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That reason given was "Bayer <> IG Farben". That diff was a month ago, and there have been about 20 edits by other editors since then, and it has stuck. So hm. And, btw, way to pull the Nazi argument. Lovely. You have reached the Godwin's law stage of desperate argumentation. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions of the historical actions of actual nazis. EllenCT (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Godwin's law but after looking at the article it certainly does not apply to this discussion. I never compared him to the Nazis but drew attention to the fact he erased corporate ties to the Nazis on various articles. However, you are wrong that IG Farben <> Bayer as they were the same company during the years of the Holocaust - the company was split up after the war. Formerly98 has also removed instances of corporate link to the Nazis in other articles as well - Coca Cola is another one. This latest justification is also off-point and repugnant. 'It is OK and not notable because everybody had links to the Nazis.' Another two solid examples of his pattern of whitewashing corporate controversy. I request other editors contribute because JYTDog has a long history of collaborating with Formerly98 on many articles and is not being objective about this. When I get the time, I am going to retrieve instances where other editors have directly had similar problems with him but that may need to wait until next week.Doors22 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the point is that some are trying to make here, but when an appropriate argument was made, I personally restored to this article the fact that Bayer-IG Farben used slave labor during the same war after it had been removed by others. Not exactly the behavior expected of a good Nazi, is it?

So this provides yet another example of this same group of editors cherry picking data to make their point and accusing me of POV editing for changes that were approved by editor consensus. Once again I respectfully request closure and a warning to all participants in this thread that WP:GF will be rigorously enforced with sanctions moving forward. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

On the cotrary. This proves what a manipulative liar you are. You were vigorously against adding the nazi info to the Bayer article, with all sorts of your usual twisted arguments. You decided to re-insert that paragraph only when it was made clear to you, and you checked it yourself, that Bayer's own website history page, also tells this fact in their wwii history chronichalBigbaby23 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, do not pretend like I called you a Nazi because that is simply untrue and I have been completely civil during this discussion unlike yourself. After extensive discussion and pushback on the Talk:Bayer page you reluctantly added back a mention that the company used slave labor for a concentration camp to prevent more serious material from coming back. Hypothetically, if my agenda were to make Bayer look good I'd rather mention the use of labor than being accomplice to millions of murders. Moreover, you characterize this as being one instance of many companies that collaborated with the Nazis but completely fail to mention Bayer was the only company to create its own concentration camp, Monowitz, during the war. Request for closure declined until you actually get feedback from independent editors who review your history. Your easily anticipated defense that we are cherry picking data is why I have repeatedly requested editors look through your history holistically.Doors22 (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Your note states that I readded the slave camp material after "extensive pushback". Thats not true. Someone else had deleted it and I added it back as soon as I saw a persuasive Talk page post that convinced me it belonged there. Not only did I re-add it, I debated with the person who deleted it and wanted to remove it again, arguing that it should be left in place Formerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a little dizzy from all your spin. Other editors - check out the actual discussion to see how it evolved from start to finish. I actually think this discussion is not in the proper place which is why we have not seen feedback other than the few other users that had problems with Formerly98. I'll do some research to figure out proper protocol and reset discussion in the proper location when I get the chance. Doors22 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for block - IP disrupting a course with students, no rationale given

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91416

Hello. I have a group of students in a course. Some IP has said that our course promotes vandalism by posting on the course page and deleting our course page. They give no further explanation. This is a disruptive harassing stalker. Can these IPs please be blocked?

• User:72.68.239.80
• User:70.121.211.218

I am happy to talk with anyone but this disrupts a group of people and this user obviously knows enough to engage on Wikipedia, because they know how to disrupt many people at once. I did not notify this user on their userpage per WP:TROLL. I requested page protection at the protection board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The 70.121 IP has no edits, and the 72.68 IP has not been active since 27 February. I don't think a block is in order at this time. However, if the problem recurs, then protection (if not already done) or blocks can be undertaken. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that gets their own IP listed on the history page of the course? Known bug? Rettetast (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• The answer to that question is yes. I have that exact same issue - Bluerasberry, are you thus sure those aren't your own IPs? Very weird bug. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah. My own IP also shows up as well when I saw the page. Epic Genius (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Me too. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Me six. I philed a bug on Phabricator[4]. Keegan (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that the proper IP in question is 72.68.239.80 (talk · contribs), as found in the database by a developer at phabricator. Mamyles (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that the course pages cannot be protected. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User page used for canvassing

Hello,

Could an admin please take a look at this user page, being used to canvass editors inappropriately to a Commons deletion request, to judge whether it is appropriate and what action is appropriate if not. Note that the editor in question is a recent (and acknowledged) return of User:Ecemaml (see meta:User:Discasto), i.e. is not as new as his contribution list would make it appear. Thanks, Kahastok talk 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request closed as speedy keep. —Soap— 13:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I have canvassed anyone? The very same WP:CANVASS policy describes it very well when talking about notifications. Have I notified anyone? --Discasto (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) PS: as former commons administrator I do know what's the name for the spurious deletion attempt in commons (fortunately, Commons is not censored)

I believe that to be Wikilawyering. It was clearly campaigning to get people to support you in the deletion request. This isn't about the question of the deletion so I shan't comment on it.

But the user page remains, now accusing anyone who disagreed with Discasto in the DR of "politically motivated censorship", which would seem to be a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:POLEMIC. Do we feel that this is appropriate on Wikipedia? Kahastok talk 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Violation of Troubles Restrictions 1RR

The following IP Special:Contributions/86.188.201.211 has violated the 1RR that is imposed on articles and issues that are to do with or related to the Troubles Restrictions. In this instance their insistence on using Derry for the county when per WP:IMOS it is Londonderry, and their insistence of Ireland as the country over the actual country, which is Northern Ireland. The article of violation if Slaughtneill GAC, edits having taken place today.

I had informed the IP of this restriction only a few hours before they decided to do go ahead and revert again. Only two days ago after making a change at Kilrea GAC which was reverted by User:John of Reading who also left the IP a message notifying of the issue, the IP reverted within the space of half an hour. Whether this constitutes two violations of the 1RR (one which occurred after being notified of the Troubles Restrictions) or just one I leave up to admins.

All 21 or whatever of their edits across various GAA articles this month have all revolved around changing this information.

I also gave the IP a NPOV caution, to which User:Murry1975 has since given them a formal warning for disruptive editing.

The IP had been notified about WP:DERRY, WP:IMOS and WP:IRE-IRL by three different editors at his talk page prior to their 1RR violation so they know what manual of style must be used on this issue.

Mabuska ^(talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on NI politics (I prefer to just drive up the Antrim Coast Road and look out of the window) but I believe in the case of Slaughtneill GAC, the Gaelic Athletic Association uses different county names to the Northern Irish government, so "County Derry" can be considered correct. Therefore, I would strongly advise against anyone reverting with a summary of "rvv" and highly recommend using the talk page. As you've also breached 1RR ([5], [6]), so take care! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may. The other team articles use 'County Londonderry' in their content :) GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's highly likely (I won't go the SPI route) that the IP is a ban/block evading editor, as we've seen an IP:86.xxx around these Ireland/Northern Ireland related articles before. Anyways, there's an agreement that Derry is used for the city & County Londonderry is used for the county. BTW, both are within Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 there is an agreed WP:IMOS in regards to this situation. Also we are stating "County Londonderry, Northern Ireland" for the actual geopoliical location of the club and that is not dictated by the GAA. The second sentence of all these club articles does make reference to the clubs belonging "Derry GAA" which satisfies what the GAA call it. If we followed your suggestion then the whole Wikipedia Ireland project would be a mess with editors using "so and so use it so use that" as a reason for mass edits and resulting edit-wars. It is why we have the WP:IMOS and things like the Troubles Restrictions.

Also I have reverted an IP that is being disruptive and is now vandalising as they have been told of the IMOS so my reverts of them in my view do not constitute breaching 1RR. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Understand that, but sports (certainly Rugby union which is incredibly popular all over Ireland) originate from a time when the entire Island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and hence the nomenclature used is something of a grandfather clause (note how teams play for the province of Ulster, which includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic). If consensus is to use "County Londonderry" full stop, everywhere, no if no buts, that's okay (and indeed it's what I use), but it does mean I'm twitchy about it being "obvious vandalism". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism or not it violates the 1RR Troubles Restrictions. And yes the consensus is to use County Londonderry full stop regardless, just like consensus is to use Derry for the city full stop regardless. That is what WP:DERRY makes very clear. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just get the heebie-geebies about the word "vandalism".... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough but after being warned and notified of the manual of styles and 1RR Troubles Restriction it can easily be construed as vandalism. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If the IP is who I think it is, the IP will need to be blocked as it likely won't stop reinserting what it prefers. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A sanction for breaching 1RR will hardly deter them either down the line but it is protocol to report it. Whether they are the same editor or not will have to be seen down the line and dealt with when we get to that bridge. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP editor three days for the 1RR violation and alerted them about the discretionary sanctions under the WP:TROUBLES case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Ritchie333, consensus is to use Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city, if an editor is to was [[Derry GAA|County Derry]] when refering to the county GAA team that would be fine too. This "new" editor seems to be making a point. An unfortunate amount of time is spent on these reverts and there is a certain perception that making many such edits may be vandalism, my own view is it is POV and against consensus for the first few times, after that just purely disruptive. Thanks EdJohnston for the intervention, but it hasn't had the lasting effect Special:Contributions/80.4.175.165. Murry1975 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less the conclusion I've come to. I think the main difference is I would revert, block, ignore - wouldn't bother reverting without a block first; an obvious POV pusher (which this was) would just revert again and again and again. And calling it "vandalism" runs the risk of a long and tedious or abuse explanation of why it isn't. Anyway, IP blocked, article stabilised, I guess we're all done here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately User talk:Ritchie333 the article hadn't stabilised with the block and the issue done with. As User:Murry1975 pointed out, a new IP (geolocated to the same county) suddenly appeared since the block to do the exact same edit on that specific article. This is obviously now a case of sockpuppetry and thus block evasion. Though User:EdJohnston has since semi-protected the article thankfully to prevent IP edits which should now stabilise the article. Whether the IP will now play ball and adapt to Wikipedia policies is up to them. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

This article and a related controversy page have recently been brought to BLPN several times by Collect and myself.[7][8][9] In the most recent string I suggested it was more appropriate for ANI at this time.

There seems to be a lot of personal attacks, trolling, assumptions of bad faith, combative editing and WP:NOTBUREAU that have created a toxic and un-productive environment on the article. For example, @Hipocrite: and @Nomoskedasticity: have both been borderline trolling me, by sarcastically saying their edits are for auction, that they can be paid to leave any article alone, and in Hipocrite's case asking if I was paid to defame him.[10] Here the same two editors accuse me of spinning the article by intentionally omitting major controversies, but refuse to provide any sources regarding the alleged omissions and in other cases have accused me of being unethical, spinning the article and so on.

I don't feel this assumption of bad-faith is warranted, especially since I provided sources to verify beyond a doubt that the MBA controversy belongs on the page, pro-actively suggested adding COI concerns with her father and a debate about her tax inversion strategy. Additionally, they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits[11] or edits supported by consensus[12] (see @Jimbo:'s comments here), using very bureaucratic, technical rationales, like requiring consensus be established on the Talk page of the article, rather than noticeboards or Talk pages, or saying consensus is not clear enough.

Not doing the whole self-righteous charade of demanding blocks - just think it needs attention from editors experienced in handling this kind of drama.

Disclosure: Please note I have a disclosed COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see this ANI post for what it is: a paid editor is trying (at his client's behest) to make this BLP a more promotional piece and then complaining here when other editors don't agree that this is what should happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite and Nomoskedasticity have both been warned previously for this type of conduct by User:Jehochman. These are also the type of comments that when an editor seeks help on an ANI board to deal with issues, that cause them to lose faith on Wikipedia and eventually quit. The sniping, specifically the comments about others and having been paid by someone to defame another is nearing harassment. Also Corporate, can you link us to where the consensus was at BLPN? I see some discussions but not like a full on consensus of the content. Tutelary (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tutelary:Within this diff are links to the BLPN post, two user Talk pages and an IRC respondent (no link for that last one obviously, but that was @DragonflySixtyseven: who made the edit after picking up on the IRC chat) that all agreed the prior controversy section was UNDUE (it was pretty obvious). Though there wasn't explicit consensus for exactly how to handle it (trim and merge or summary style), but it's this kind of editing that concerns me; where the two editors edit boldly, but then require an impossibly high margin of iron-clad consensus for anyone else to make changes and often find trivial or unsubstantiated reasons to reject edits from others.

It's worth noting that @Jehochman:'s warning was given after these edits, however it appears as though this may be representative of their editing conduct in general or at least in other COI situations[13] and part of a long string of disputes between these two and Collect.[14] CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have very much seen this type of editing before and it's even being stated within this thread that Hipocrite likes to argue while sniping comments at people. The comments about how you're apparently being paid to cast aspersions against him are not convincing and are starting to inhibit the ability to discuss this matter at ANI--which is a frequent problem here I might add. Also particularly because this is a BLP, they are afforded much large protection via the larger WP:BLP policy, the bar might be higher for sourcing. But regarding their editing habits in general, if their comments on ANI are any representation of how they argue on the talk page (without even looking at it), then they need to be barred from this topic. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have stated that I edited boldly against consensus. Please show me where I did such on the page. Use diffs. I'll be sending Mylan a bill for my time, by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite is correct in that I referred to both of them collectively as if they were a single person, but some very specific comments may refer to just one or the other. CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So really you have no comment about me except that I don't like you whitewashing your clients? Which of what you wrote applies to me, specifically? This comment cost Mylan $50. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone is being paid to take me to ANI? No thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Still further "they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits?" Where have I done so? This paid aspersion casting needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, I thought you had better manners than that. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, you aren't convincing anybdoy with this sort of argument. Please stop. Companies, like it or not, have an interest in seeing that their articles and their related biographies are accurate. We can't just blow them off when our articles have an impact on their real lives of people who work at these businesses. Please be patient and listen to whatever concerns are presented, and don't be disrespectful or dismissive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Companies do NOT have an interest that their articles are "accurate". They have an interest that content about them shows them in a good light. Nobody gets a bonus or dividend payment because their Wikipedia article is "accurate". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• You know what, fuck it. I'll avoid all Mylan related topics from here-on-out. Enjoy Pepsipedia, brought to you by IBM. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never attempted to position her government lobbying as director of government relations as a philanthropic effort. On the contrary, I have provided excerpts from the source material[15] to assist in making it more clear how the legislation benefits Mylan. I did mention on @Drmies: Talk page that editing patterns suggest the two editors may be colluding offline, but immediately struck-out the comment as unsubstantiated. Mylan does not know there is a discussion at ANI or that these two editors are giving me a hard time; my edits are my own.

I have not actually requested a ban, but suggested diplomatic intervention was needed. Someone would have to do a deeper dive into their editing to see if a BAN was needed, but off-the-cuff an IBAN with all disclosed COIs paid editors (the behavioral problems seems to be exclusive to paid editing[16][17][18] at least for Hipocrite) seems worth considering. Again, someone would have to investigate their behavior in a broader sense than just this one article for that kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As much as I dislike agreeing with a corporate anything, let alone a minion, I see no need to censure (or bitch at) CorpM here, who I believe has been going about this the proper way. The current version of the article isn't bad--I suppose this material, added by Nomoskedasticity is fine, but I don't rightly see why this material had to be removed. Either way, that's fussing over content, but getting all Pepsipedia over it is exaggerated and shows a tremendous lack of good faith. I mean, I suppose such lack of good faith with a COI editor is understandable, maybe, but it doesn't help us and our article. If Hipocrite stays away from this, that would be a good thing, if only to bring the temperature down. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh... I'd hoped this would slide past unnoticed, but now that you're standing on the mine, you're going to have to defuse it. I strongly sympathize with Hipocrite's position, in that I think CorporateM's proposed text, understandably enough, was meant to go just deep enough to make his client look good without really putting a full understanding of the circumstances as a priority - as I explained there, I think it tended to make activities sound altruistic that, though quite possibly of substantial benefit, ultimately served commercial ends. Unfortunately, I also have to recognize CorporateM's complaint about edits for auction. Taken in full, I think any reasonable person can see that Hipocrite is speaking rhetorically in the middle when he says "I think that all goes out the window when you could literally burn $100,000 with no life impact. You should rename this Cokeapedia, brought to you by Apple. So, no, it's not ethical for a billion dollar corporation to do anything more than say "please look at this article" once. Of course, if they were paying me, I'd think differently. I'll leave this topic area for $1,000, and argue whatever the subject wants for $5,000. Contact me via email this user for Bitcoin details! Wait, is that ethical? I'm so confused where the line is drawn. " Yet in cases like with Bill Cosby's alleged daughter, we've seen claims of "extortion" in the U.S. taken to ridiculous extremes, even against people who simply promised to tell the truth to the press. So I think that ANI may be obligated to think this one over very carefully, even put it to wider community/WMF consultation and write up a policy, in order to determine the best way to deal with an offer to be paid not to edit, and possibly take a hard line here that may involve topic-banning him from the article, despite his positive contributions. I don't desire anything bad to happen to Hipocrite, but the point is, now that process has been invoked, Wikipedia has to convince the public at large that there is no possible way that anyone can really threaten to slant your Wikipedia article against you unless he's paid off and get away with it; otherwise I fear that people in his position might actually be in some kind of legal risk, which would be much worse. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your concerns in a reasonable way @Wnt:. As stated before though, I never intended to imply that her government lobbying as director of government relations was philanthropic. You'll see here that I basically agreed that this would be good information/context to add and provided sources for adding it. I'm not sure why it keeps being said that I'm POV pushing for making it sound purely philanthropic - I don't believe I've ever advocated for any such thing. There's no conspiracy here to subtly imply one thing or another - just a minor editorial thing in a first draft that could be easily fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoplophobia article: Recurrent IP vandalism of valid references

User 72.56.9.232/208.54.38.247 repeatedly vandalizes a legitimate reference to a valid archive of "Jeff Cooper's Diaries." Claims the reference is "link spam," which it certainly is not. This may be a legitimate understanding or it may be a ruse for POV pushing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The two IPs that the original poster (99.242.102.111) is referring to are 172.56.9.232 and 208.54.38.247. This is an example of one of 172.56.9.232's edits, which does considerably more than remove a reference. It introduces/restores a considerably POV commentary. However, 99.242.102.111, you are engaged in an editwar to restore the references. The place to discuss the appropriateness of this reference (and from Talk:Hoplophobia#Gunsite Gossip source, it may not be appropriate) is at the article's talk page. Incidentally, the article is now being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia (2nd nomination). Voceditenore (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Never heard that term until today. It's nice to know that NRA types are editing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Because such people cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia. Pax 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we're all Nazis. Dick. --NE2 20:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand: the purpose of that link was to remind the trolls that not everyone interested in owning weaponry is a southern redneck or a gung-ho jarhead (i.e., the stereotyped NRA member, by snide implication to only persons desiring to keep that article). Pax 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And simultaneously to remind the trolls (I'm reclaiming this term) that some of them may be Nazis who want to kill Jews without them fighting back. --NE2 21:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, are gun owners evil, or not? Or is it those who don't like guns who are evil? I'm getting confused now. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're a 'roided LA SWAT unit enforcing CA gun-control at Glock-point, you're OK. Otherwise, you're ebil. Pax 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

NOW I understand! Thank you! Guns in the hands of government agents is good. Guns in the hands of private citizens is bad. No "What if?" questions allowed, right? It is a good thing that all governments are good, kind respectful entities that always desire the best for their citizens. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fuck the police and the wannabes posting above. --NE2 01:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Denver rail articles

Hi. 174.16.208.234, who has also edited as 147.153.168.23, (they geolocate as home and university respectively) has repeatedly inserted material into articles relating to FasTracks that the Northwest Rail Line, a component of this plan, has been cancelled ([19], [20], [21] [22]). If you look at the sources they cited ([23], [24], [25]), this is untrue: the line has simply been put on the back burner compared to a rapid bus service in the same corridor. They also reverted my edits with under the guise of reverting vandalism ([26], [27], [28]), which is patently false even if I'm wrong on the content aspect, then kindly gave me a warning ([29])—I don't think I've ever got one before. Conifer (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting an occasional warning from an IP or brand new editor is usually just a sign that you're doing interesting things, I wouldn't worry about it. Since they titled the section on your page 'accidental vandalism' (which isn't a thing,) it's a pretty good sign that instead of intending any malice they just think their representation is more accurate and don't realize that a content dispute isn't vandalism. Nothing really sanction-worthy that I can see, I'll drop a note on their home IP address (since many uni IPs are shared and notes to them are often read by unintended parties without ever reaching the right party. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean it in a bad way. No matter the context, it's still amusing to be on the other end of a UW notice, since I've given out so many. Thanks for the semi-protection; hopefully we can work this out on the talkpage. Conifer (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Always makes me laugh too, I just figured I'd make sure :). One of my funnier on-wiki moments was a rather interesting user getting annoyed I AfD'ed their article opening an SPI on me, heh. Feel free to poke me if the problem persists and I don't notice it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Account sharing and block evasion by confirmed troll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

See here. User:Icemerang claims to be a shared account, one of those accounts (User:Ronaldlheureux) being a blocked refdesk troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violation, edit warring and sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• IllyrianDodona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps insisting on false, unreferenced information at BLPs Mirnes Pepić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff 2), and earlier on Marko Baša (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff). I have asked him for sources, given none, and warned him after his editwarring. He in turn gave me a customized warning (here); Interestingly, Bato Lumbardhaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who signs as "Bato the Illyrian" also gave me a customized warning (here) from nowhere. I believe these accounts are used by one person. Zoupan 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have reverted them for the BLP violation and will warn. I can't judge the possibly socking right now; perhaps starting an SPI is the way to go. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent admin oversight needed over an IP account

See the revision history at Ottoman empire. The IP's have been personally attacking users with very insulting remarks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Fut.Perf.. Stickee (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sticker Although I genuinely appreciate Future Perfect at Sunrise's good faith effort, I think semi-protection solves only part of the problem. The IP accounts called other users cockroaches and many other unspeakable personal insults. Do these IP account not merit a block? Or else, were at risk of getting insulted elsewhere. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, they certainly "merit" blocks, but since they are IP-hopping anyway, a block would have no concrete effect at all (unless it was a very large rangeblock). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll just gently throw into the mix that some of the other comments have not been particularly civil either, so it looks like the IP has just responded in kind. Dr.K. should not be calling other editors bigots, IP or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

When they express clearly bigoted views, that's hardly unwarranted. The IP was not "just responding" to unprovoked uncivil comments. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying the IP wasn't at fault, and I think semi-protecting the article was the right call ... but when faced with these sort of abusive comments, the best thing to do is keep a cool head and not retaliate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Different meaning of "just", Paul. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? How? Just about the only justifiable meaning of 'just' I can derive from Ritchie333's statement is 'merely', which is how I used it. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Just" as in "just now". Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Stupid personal attack" is possibly unnecessary but mild in comparison to the IP's language (I'm about to remove one edit summary); Dr.K., thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is very important, so make sure when you answer you can provide evidence: has there been any change at all to any instances of "ottoman empire" or "turkish empire"? Ping me when you reply please, and I'll check any evidence you have for a comparison. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusation of forum-shopping

John Carter (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly[30][31][32] accusing me of forum-shopping a DRN thread onto ANI. THE DRN thread in question had nothing to do with me and I didn't even know about it until he brought it up. (Though the user whose conduct I was complaining about was involved, though.) I initially assumed a good-faith mistake and explained (first angrily, then politely with an apology for my earlier snark) that he was mistaken. His recent activity indicates he was well-read in the DRN thread, and almost certainly knew I had nothing to do with it.

I asked for a retraction several times and he just repeated the accusation, and even after the ANI thread closed and I again asked for a retraction he posted this on my talk page.

Could someone tell him it is inappropriate to repeatedly make incorrect forum-shopping accusations against other editors after being corrected? If not, could I get an IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll admit that what John posted on your talk page wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment, but...don't you remember when I said that you can't make someone retract their comments just because you disagree with them? And it was clear in that very long thread (btw, it was ironic that you brought up WP:TLDR at one point but then you made longer and longer comments yourself) that John wasn't the only person who thought you—and the user you reported—were forum-shopping; in fact, I brought that up first, not John. I have no opinion on an IBAN, although I do agree with him that you need to drop the stick. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Erpert: You posted your own opinion that there was forum-shopping (based on Catflap08's behaviour more than mine) on the article talk page. You later speculated that my ANI thread on Catflap08 was also forum-shopping. This was your interpretation of the facts that before you. The facts that were before you. You never lied and claimed the specific topic Catflap08 snd I were conflicting over was the subject of an open DRN thread. John Carter did this, without making any reference to you. You and I had a "disagreement", and I never asked you to retract your posts because you were neither posting based on a gross misunderstanding nor lying. I initially assumed that once I clarified for John Carter that his understanding of events was wrong he would be so embarrassed by the mistake that he would retract all his comments and apologize. Then I realized that what he had done was not make a mistake but deliberately lie about my activities. What John Carter and I have is not a "disagreement": he is lying about me and I want him to stop. As for WP:STICK: If I was still actively requesting a TBAN or block for Catflap08, maybe that would apply, but I withdrew that request two days ago. Now I'm asking for someone to tell a different user to quit his persistent and unjustified attacks against me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

John's completely inexcusable insinuation is a clear violation of NPA and can be seen as a continuation of efforts to insult and degrade individuals. I make no secret of the fact that I have been involved in the Soka Gakkai material for some time now. Also, if you bothered to actually look, you will note that the topics merit being covered, see how much material can be found on them, and then try to determine weight. Honestly, that is to my eyes probably the most reasonable way to proceed.

Please make some sort of visible attempt to act in accord with conduct guidelines in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoltAsResearch (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:JoltAsResearch: was this meant for John Carter's talk page? Your use of the second person implies you are talking to me, but I don't think I've ever interacted with you. Apart from the fact that JC randomly brought up Soka Gakkai in an unrelated ANI thread, and the above post randomly brought up Soka Gakkai in an unrelated ANI thread, I don't see how any of the above is related in any way to my complaint of false accusations or anything Erpert said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (edited 10:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC) )

Yes, what is all that about? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• JoltAsResearch is now blocked by User:HJ Mitchell for being an "obvious bad hand account". Thanks Harry--but you only just beat me to it, and to the $10 check from the WMF. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

First I think it worth noting that Jolt shows the same simplistic understanding and virtual obsession with NPA in the above comment that Tgeairn has rather regularly demonstrated, and that on that basis the comment provides additional support for the conclusion that this is, in fact, a sockpuppet of Tgeairn.

Regarding Hijiri's statements, it seems to me that even in his response to Erpert above there seems to be a rather obvious insistence that Hijiri can, basically, do no wrong. And, frankly, considering that Hijiri himself has demonstrated a remarkable tendency to using obvious, frankly obnoxious, and completely unsupportable personal attacks such as "jackass" and "jerk," I find his sudden aversion to anyone questioning his sometimes dubiously rational and wildly emotional responses amusing. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose it's possible that Tgeairn has a sock drawer, but only in the sense that it's possibly for anyone to have it. I doubt it very much. Hijiri, one cannot make an editor retract something; the best thing you can do is say "dude you're wrong", remove it from your talk page, and consider banning him from your talk page. I agree with Erpert that "what John posted on your talk page wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment", and I could phrase that a bit more strongly, but it's not really actionable. If, however, the action you're looking for is an admin saying "John don't do that anymore", I can give you that much: John, please don't do that anymore. I can't and won't block for such a comment, but it's really unhelpful. At the same time, though, Hijiri, ANI may not be the best place for such a request. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I specifically asked for an IBAN. This user showed up randomly on an ANI thread and posted lies about me in order to derail a discussion of his friend Catflap08's indisputably bad behaviour. He accused me of doing the exact same thing Catflap08 had done, and he was completely silent on it when his friend did it. If Catflap08 comes back and continues the same disruptive behaviour, I need to be sure he can't count on his friend John Carter to always bail him out no matter what happens. Entirely aside from that, it bothers me when people post lies about me. I'm pretty sure ANI is the place to ask for an IBAN with a user who has been harassing me like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; I missed the last words of your opening statement. I am not in favor of iBans, and I wagged my finger, so I'm out. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I rather think the odds of his having a sockpuppet are rather better than you do, obviously. The sometimes superficial nature of many of the comments and, possibly, thinking seen in both is to my eyes indicative of a linkage. And, frankly, I am unaware of any policies or guidelines which indicate that one cannot or should not question the actions of others if they believe those actions are in violation of policies or guidelines. There does seem to my eyes to be some basis in thinking that the hypersensitivity that I have regularly seen, and sometimes comment on, in Tgeairn, as well as the apparent view that policies and guidelines seem to only apply to individuals other than themselves, may not be limited to him. And, FWIW, considering I have been working to finish the content from one source relevant to the Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies as a primary action for the past several days, I acknowledge having given a cursory overview of my own talk page and just today saw Hijiri's comments there. I actually am not used to getting many messages there on the same day, and, in this case, I acknowledge I didn't check the page entirely. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Remind me again, what part of forum shopping it here was a good idea? Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or the sockpuppet? If me, it's because ANI is the best place (as far as I know) to ask for sanctions against a user who has been lying about me in order to deliberately derail legitimate discussion of his friend's inappropriate conduct. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:John Carter

John, including the above you have directly and indirectly accused me of sock puppetry at least six times in the past 24 hours.[33][34][35][36][37][38] Additionally, you have made all manner of statements about my ability to edit, read, follow policy, etc. You are a former admin here and you know damned well exactly how to report sockpuppets, POV issues, behavioural issues, etc. It is not by going to multiple talk pages and slinging mud.

I request an immediate block for John Carter for these personal attacks and unfounded accusations, as well as his behaviour in general with editors that he disagrees with. He has been warned repeatedly and in many venues, and has not slowed even a bit. At his request[39], I am not notifying John of this thread. I am pinging him though. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I thank you for explicitly stating your obvious contempt for policies and guidelines by having the gall to state that you have pointedly refused to abide by the standards at the top of the page. Also, it would be worth noting that, so far as I can tell, being a former administrator does not necessarily mean that one knows "exactly" every variant rule, and that very few people knowing much about the rules would even think to say such a thing. An SPI case has in fact been filed regarding the above editor, and I personally think that the timing of this might well have been to prevent such in what may well be a desperate attempt to avoid the possible sockpuppetry being investigated. It is also worth noting that, unlike some others, I have been active on other sites today, including wikisource, and it was only in the last few minutes, actually, since I started the SPI page, that I got the ping regarding this message. It is also worth noting, as has been done before, including the recent AE regarding him, that the above editor has a seemingly deeply flawed and obsessive regard for what he mistakenly calls "personal attacks" as per NPA. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused; why is this block request a subsection of an ANI thread that someone else started? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that every time I post something on ANI the thread almost immediately gets hijacked by someone with a bone to pick that has nothing whatsoever to do with the concern I raised and who apparently didn't even read my OP.

Move to close (the whole discussion, including mine) with no result. This thread too became a fustercluck that's unlikely to have any positive outcome. To the best of my knowledge the only time John Carter and I have ever interacted other than indirectly (I'm pretty sure JC might have also commented on that historicity of Jesus fustercluck a few months back) was earlier this week over the Catflap08 debacle. I asked for an IBAN because that would have prevented John Carter from again rushing to post bullshit about me in order to defend his friend Catflap08, but that's not really necessary anymore. Enough users have figured out that the latter's constant misrepresentation of sources is either severe incompetence or maliciousness that he'll get a TBAN or block soon enough, and I don't need to worry about JC getting in the way of that.

As an aside, in the future I'll try to be more careful when posting ANI threads about users to do thorough background checks on them first, to make sure that no one can wrongly accuse me of being involved in a DRN discussion with them at the time, and that no obvious sockpuppets are harassing the subject and will likely hijack my ANI thread with even more bullshit.

And yes, User:Erpert, I am aware of the irony of saying the thread has become TLDR in the middle of my own TLDR comment. My point was never to accuse specific other users of posting comments that were too long: I meant that posting bullshit off-topic comments, no matter how short each one is, can build up and make the thread unreadable. My own individually TLDR comments have all been posted in threads that were already irredeemably TLDR, so one more long comment couldn't hurt. As an aside, why, when I posted apologies to you, JC, and Doncrum earlier, did only Doncrum accept, while you and JC responded like I had just attacked you? I got the very distinct impression that you hadn't actually read the comment.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple promotion attempts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While new page patrolling, I came across Raihanul shezan, a page created by Raihanul shezan a future (talk · contribs). A review of the user's contributions and talk page shows multiple attempts of probable self-promotion since the beginning of the year. Raihanul shezan a future was deleted once and Raihanul shezan was deleted thrice. Raihanul shezan a future also contributed an Articles for Creation draft at Draft:Raihanul Shezan and uploaded an image of the same person. It is evident that the editor is only here to promote this person and has ignored several requests to stop. MJ94 (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uherský Brod shooting

Hello,

I have recently added "background section" to article on Uherský Brod shooting. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com felt that it is speculation and synthesis and deleted much of the added content, without even first contacting me or bringing it to the talk page.

In my opinion, particularly the following was deleted for not good reason:

In the Czech Republic, pentagenarian and sextagenarian men are the group with the highest suicide rate, as well as the one that commits the largest murderous acts. Many of these men became economically unsuccessful after the Velvet revolution: both murderers in Frenštát and Brod were long-term unemployed, blamed society for their failures and had frequent conflicts with their neighbors.

Media further pointed out that in the atheist Czech society, pubs and restaurants play a very important societal function. Targeting a restaurant in the Czech Republic thus has the same symbolism as does targeting a church in other countries.

Both information are relevant to the article (most mass murders in US are committed by teenagers, in Western Europe by 30-40 yo males), they also point to the motive (without expressly speculating about it), the symbolism is also clear. No speculation in either. In addition, all information was taken from the linked source - a weekly that deals with the shooting in articles taking over 8 pages - no synthesis was made by me.

I have some understanding for deletion of the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen mention, even though those were also directly taken from the linked source.

I would appreciate Administrator's intervention before this disrespectful edit of User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com turns into edit war.

Thank you, regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

References

• This looks like a content dispute to me, and admins can't rule on those. I'd say what you need to do is discuss it on the article talk page and seek consensus, and don't re-add your desired content until you have a consensus for it. And to prevent an edit war, just don't edit war. Squinge (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I am willing to discuss it on the talk page and hopefully arrive at a consensus with Cimmerian praetor. Quis separabit? 13:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeated violations of BLP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM at Hector Camacho

There have been half a dozen or more almost identical edits such as the one deleted here adding that a private person was the fiancee of the deceased. The editors all appear to be the same person. They have all been invited to provide documentation and participate in talk. They have all been warned that they are violating the supposed fiancee's BLP and Notavictim rights on their talk pages, as well as in the article's discussion page. I suggest Deerborn be blocked indefinitely, and the IP's be blocked per discretion of the admins here. Thanks.

Last revereted delete of edits by Deerborn

of edits by IP1

Warning to IP1 (User talk:2602:306:BC7F:A5A0:E086:A266:76CB:F7EC) Note, there are several other IP editors in the same range doing the same thing.

of edits by IP2

warning to IP2 (User talk:50.253.237.158)

See also reversions by other editors such as Epicgenius who has removed the offending material, and

User talk:2602:306:BC7F:A5A0:406:E12:1FFC:7BCA who added it and was also warned on his talk page.

μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article, as this is a pretty slow-moving but insidious revert war; the person behind it (it clearly looks like one person) is using a variety of random accounts and hard-to-block IPs. semi-protection seems the only viable option for now. I'll leave the blocking/banning discussion to happen by others. But this should stop the problem. A single block would do little good in stopping this, as the person seems to be fine with jumping around. --Jayron32 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you can safely indef Deerborn, Jayron32 or others, since he has two whole edits, both to add information to this article, and was warned explicitly early yesterday before he decided to restore the problematic information now. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Commenting here per a notice from Medeis. I'd only reverted their edits since that was a violation of BLP, but as AVOIDVICTIM can also be applied here, I endorse a block of indefinite duration. Epic Genius (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

69G3O

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please block 69G3O (talk · contribs) asap? There's a report at AIV, but it's getting old reverting their edits in the meantime. APK whisper in my ear 14:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done by JodyB. APK whisper in my ear 14:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Something Awful

I am concerned about the recent addition of a section on Aatrek to the Something Awful article.[40] I thought about putting this on the BLP noticeboard, but I'm not sure if it quite qualifies.

Background: He joined SomethingAwful.com back in the mid-00s. He was made a moderator of the TV forum some time after that. Well, a year or so ago, it came to light that he had been convicted in 2007 of child molestation from the 1990s. When that came out, he was demodded and banned. Now, someone is trying to add a passage to this effect on the article for Something Awful.

I rejected it on three grounds.

1. Inadequate sourcing: there is a source saying he was a forum mod, and there is a source saying he was a sex offender, but there is no source from a third party indicating any notability to this outside of the SA community. So as it is, it comes across as forum drama. The other incidents on the page - the murderers and Slenderman - have their relationship with SA explicitly sourced.
2. BLP Coatracking: there seems to be no reason to add this to the article other than to widen knowledge of Aatrek and/or to smear SA.
3. The person who introduced it is named User:NotAAtrek, which stinks of WP:NOTHERE. But since then it's been defended by at least one other editor.

I suspect sockpuppetry, I've hit my three revert limit, and I've already received off-wiki harassment for this, so I yield and offer it to the wider community. I might be wrong, but I'd like to have more eyes on this please. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Golbez, I am sorry you have received "harassment" over this. However, your bias is obvious. You have admitted that you are a member of the Something Awful website. In addition, there are many issues with the article and points that you have raised can be applied to other sections. As you admitted on the Talk page, there are other issues which could be removed. However, you only choose to act on sections that you feel "smear" the club that you paid money to join. You refuse to act in helping clean up the citations, and instead delete the work of others while admitting obvious bias and refusing to step back. I think that is very unprofessional and goes against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Please hold yourself to higher standards, you're an administrator and should be above this. Editted this comment as I made it (and the edit to the Something Awful Page removing the uncited information with Sean Smith) with my logged in username. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was I supposed to keep reading after you put harassment in quotes? Interesting, you had so many words after that too. --Golbez (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Inadequately sourced, certainly. And of almost zero relevance to the subject of the article, as indicated by the complete lack of WP:RS actually discussing the conviction in relation to the forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked NotAAtrek for clearly being not here, and any unblock would be contingent on both a username change and an agreement not to edit anything related to Something Awful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also a BLP concern here, which is laid out by WP:NPF. We should not be including that information on an individual that is not notable from our perspective. That the supposed incident(s) had little to no impact on the website itself is of course the other problem. It should be kept out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I didn't know it was there. That helps. --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

James "J.J." Evans, Jr. has been blocked for BLP violations and assumptions of bad faith relating to the SA article, but he insists that he did nothing to warrant the block. However, the case is getting stranger in that an IP, 46.208.117.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is claiming to be the "little sister" of the aforementioned editor and made the edits under Evans's account.[41] Time to revoke talk page access and semi-protect the talk page along with it? —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio - removal of tags by Spearmind

• Patrick Awuah, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rocky Dawuni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spearmind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

67.131.235.220 has placed speedy delete notices on Patrick Awuah, Jr. and Rocky Dawuni (which should have been copyvio notices) which have been getting edit-warred off. MyNameIsVlad followed by placing a copyvio notice on the Rocky article in this dif, which Spearmind (ouch) reverted.

Efforts by the IP and Vlad to resolve with Spear on Spear's Talk page were met with aggression (that made no sense) - see discussion here.

I have restored the tags and logged the copyvio reports, but I doubt they will stick.

In general, as you can see from his contribs Spear is a newish editor and is editing very aggressively and on bad grounds.

Please restore copyvio tags and protect articles and give Spearmind a block for COPYVIO and edit warring.

• (note - just this morning I had a bad experience with Spearmind at Conspiracy theory that led to that article getting protected)
• (note - Spearmind opened a thread on (what he thinks is incorrect) efforts to tag the articles in AN, here - whoever acts on this should close that)Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Small correction: I originally converted the speedy deletion request on Rocky Dawuni to a copyvio notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Dawuni&diff=prev&oldid=650070007). 67.131.235.220 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Jytdog, and thanks EdJohnston for protecting the one. Both are now deleted as blatant copyright violations. If anyone wants to deny that, or has denied that and edit warred over it, perhaps they should have the rest of their contributions investigated for NOTTHEREness. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Peace Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) probably would also fall into this group, Spearmind seems to have reverted the copyvio there too. MyNameIsVlad ^{💬 | 📧} 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As said Im astonished how fast articles become deleted if just a part is copied from somewhere else. It does not mean everything is copied most is real editors work. It should be fixed in an more appropriate manner giving time to have the lines in question removed not the whole article. All these people were notable.Spearmind (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I reviewed the Patrick Awuah, Jr. history, and it should be noted that it doesn't look at all like the OP makes it out. Spearmind was the THIRD person to remove the speedy deletion notice, one of whom was an admin who declined the speedy deletion request. This doesn't look like someone acting in bad faith; any editor (except an article creator of a recently created article) is allowed to remove a speedy deletion notice and attempt to fix an article instead in good faith. If there were some copyvio issues, we can excise those without deleting the article, and I'm more worried that this is being characterized as Spearmind acting unilaterally; as I note he wasn't the first to remove the speedy notice, he was the third, and an admin declined the speedy, before someone came by immediately undoing this admin action and re-tagging the article. THAT'S more disruptive than someone who is making a good-faith request for temperance. Lay off the speedy requests for a while. --Jayron32 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this voice I couldnt just believe what is going on here. Thanks for reviewing. Jytdog asked for the second time within 2 days or so to block me he is absolutely not constructive in such matters. Please restore the articles! Ummm yes I came in peace.Spearmind (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not going to undo the actions of other admins here, but what we need is a rational discussion of what happened, how to best fix it, and how to move forward amicably. What we don't need is people shouting at each other and demanding blocks. I'll ping the admins involved in the deletions, decline, protections, and other issues with these articles to get some more input. @Ged UK: @Drmies: @EdJohnston:. Lets try to find a way to talk this out and arrive at a solution that is best for the Encyclopedia, and try to get out of the revenge & punishment mindset here. We all want what is best, we just need to look at the material objectively, and figure out how to make this work. It may be this stuff needs to stay deleted, it may need to be restored, it may need to be started over from scratch. I don't know. But I do know that the way this is headed isn't good for anyone, and we need a new way to look at this problem. Let's look at it as a thorny content issue we need to work together with each other to make Wikipedia better, rather than a conflict where we need to punish people. --Jayron32 02:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP user was told by the admin who declined his original speedy deletion request to resubmit it since the decline was due to not being able to access the original content. So his new request was simply following the directions of the admin by resubmitting and including a web archive of the page in case it goes down again. Granted, he did not wait "a day or two" but still, he was definitely acting in good faith by reapplying the tag with more information. I do agree that we should move forward from this, though. Big portions of several of those pages dinged on the copyvio report, so at the very least, that content should be removed. Since the copyright violations seem pretty extensive, we may also want to run samples of the rest of the text through Google to see if bits and bobs were not copied from other places. MyNameIsVlad ^/ 03:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Let's do that. Let's do anything except demand blocks. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably erred in declining the speedy when I couldn't access the page, I should have left it for someone else as it may have been an issue on my end accessing it, for some reason. FWIW, the guy is clearly notable, and it seems he needs an article writing. There was enough in the original version to construct something that doesn't copyvio. GedUK  09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron, I don't see the thorns: it was copied to begin with. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It should not be that easy shooting articles that way. Someone might play lottery with the admin in charge getting rid of articles he doesnt like. There must be strong barriers. When copyright content is challenged there is a procedure of fixing it needed. Im sure there were many good articles lost unjustified.Spearmind (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a procedure in place, though. Both of the notices have instructions on what to do if you disagree/have further information, in the case of the speedy deletion, it's to discuss it on the article's talk page (with a big button that takes you there and has some prefilled text), and in the case of a copyvio, it's in the actual request's page (which is linked from the notice as well). The notices involved only serve as that, a notice of a requested action. It's ultimately up to the admin to look at the content and people's responses, and then make a decision. MyNameIsVlad ^/ 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks Drmies Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32, I acknowledge that I didn't take as much time as I should have to provide all the diffs. I did check that there was copyvio (there was), and I trusted that any admin acting here would do the same. Drmies said she did. So.. done. And Spear was way out of line in removing the tags, in my view. No blocking action there again... so be it! Spear will learn to not edit so aggressively eventually, one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Spearmind should not have been removing {{copyviocore}} notices. There is a procedure for addressing these, which he did not follow. A copyvio notice is not a speedy deletion tag. The violation was already entered in the right place, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 5#Rocky Dawuni. The actual violation looked fixable to me. But if Spearmind wants to make a habit of removing the copyvio tags without making any attempt at a fix, it's not likely to end well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely made the mistake of using the speedy deletion banner when not 100% of the current article was copied. My analysis was that the articles started with copyrighted content and therefore it would just be better to restart with a clean slate. I won't make this assumption in the future. Spearmind saw me concentrate on Ghana articles (as said that's because I was reviewing article creations by Nkansahrexford who concentrates on Ghana) and assumed that I was on a mission to delete articles about Ghana. What I deplore is Spearmind's attitude on his talk page. I tried to establish a dialog and asked him to use the talk pages instead of just removing banners but he would not listen and became aggressively defensive.

Tonight I finished reviewing article creations by Nkansahrexford and applied one additional copyviocore banner to Thomas Mensah. A few other articles have copyvio issues but at a much smaller scale and I decided to let it go. There were also a few copyvio issues from the same user on Commons (see his talk page there).

Thanks to everybody who helped with this situation. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "in the case of the speedy deletion, it's to discuss it on the article's talk page " What I saw my removing of speedy deletion boxes was immediately followed by insertion of copyvio templates. Its that the way it should work? Giving no chance of discussing the matter. Seems to copyvio template is to get rid of Rocky Dawuni, Peace Hyde and Patrick Awuah and alikes which were notable people with lots of links in the outside world. Is it so hard to understand that copyright issues need a solution far away from deleting the whole article, which was not a complete copy at all but work of many editors. Yes and I see absolutely no need to discuss removing speedy delete boxes on personal talk pages. Thats just not the right place. It must be on articles talk page but all are gone now. I deleted one copyviocore because it was an immediate reaction to my removing of speedy delete boxes. And I noticed later it should only be removed by admins. Just exchanging the template to delete an whole article not just the violation. This procedure is absolutely wrong.Spearmind (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You have said here that you believe that the {{Copyviocore}} procedure is wrong, and in deleting speedy tags you have said (on a number of occasions) that you disapprove of the speedy deletion process. If you disapprove of procedures, please go to the relevant talk pages and suggest improvements rather than blindly ignoring those processes which have been developed by consensus. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The pages of 3 Ghanaian are gone. Its shocking in which speed notable character articles are removed here which only to some part identified as copy. It was a question of less than 1 hour to remove the 3 articles completely giving no chance for discussion. The current extensive use of copyvio templates is unfair to all the editors worked on it. I think the board here is a good way to address that.Spearmind (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See below. The copyvios are gone. If these persons merit articles at Wikipedia because they are notable, then just make new articles. No one will stop you. Just be sure that you don't make new copyvios when making the article. But if you want to start a new article properly, and write it in your own words without copying other text or "close paraphrasing" or anything else which is suspect, but start good articles on people who merit them, do that. No one here has yet told you that you cannot, and no one ever will. --Jayron32 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand what the initial complaint by user: Jytdog is. Why was it filed here if the complaint is about edit warring? — it should be filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring according to the instructions on top of the page. Why do we care that jytdog believes that user: Spearmind is aggressive? Those of us who are not wp:admins have no access to the material that has been deleted almost instantly after the notice appeared here, so there is not much point in discussing this, or is there? I would hate to think this is how decisions about blocking editors are carried out. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech The #1 issue, which was correctly identified by the admin Drmies, was COPYVIO on 2 articles linked at the top of this thread. Drmies deleted the articles, which is why the links above are now red. The #2 issue was the behavior of Spearmind (who was edit warring to keep the COPYVIO tags off (doubly bad)), which was given a pass. So.. all done. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You must understand only him would like to see me blocked for whatever reason. I removed Daniel Pipes working for the CIA and publishing in orbis magazin on behalf of a thinktank pronounces to serve national interests. as as his source for strange claims at the Conspiracy Theory article. Maybe he was kind of angry about that. (no offense) His behavior asking to block me actually became an issue. I dont understand the way he chooses noticeboards but you must ask that for him.Spearmind (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

that's not accurate, and boring.Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For you its boring, you started the subject here. Daniel Pipes as source for dubious claims on Conspiracy Theory article. Its not acceptable using terms like conspiracy theorist against real people, its a label no chance to argue. Then he kind of followed my activities. I was removing one copyvio tag when it came as immediate response to my removal of speedy deletion boxes. Later I did read that only admins SHOULD remove copyvio tags. I wanted to defend the articles at this point and let them go through discussion, but then immediately they were gone after less than an hour and while being busy here.Spearmind (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

even more inaccurate, and still boring. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

related issues at Thomas Mensah now

Currently there is edit warring going on over copyvio tags at the subject article, which the IP editor mentioned above. Spear is trying to keep the tag on (good on you this time, Spear) and the creator is blanking the page. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well another notable person which we lose because some amount of text was copied? Someone seems to copy this stuff from ghanaweb again and again.Spearmind (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem with restarting the deleted article from scratch, without any copyright violations. We lose nothing if you start the article properly. Indeed, where a person is notable, and where the article needs to be deleted because the first, and all subsequent, edits in the edit history contain copyvios, the proper procedure is to delete it and start from scratch. Just to put it bluntly, Spearmind, no one is telling you that you cannot create these articles again. When deleted for being copyvios, it's because we have to expunge the copyvio from the history. If you're so concerned with having the article at Wikipedia, if the person merits an article, go ahead and create it yourself! No one is trying to stop you! --Jayron32 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I can "play" this game too. So "the wikipedia" wants in every case a restart no re-editing. Can I assume that? I dont think the speedy deletion templates should exist here. Anyone can take them out.Spearmind (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not in every case. In cases where the article has existed essentially as mostly copyvios for their whole history, there's nothing worth preserving and they need to start from scratch. In cases where small copyvios have been added to otherwise fine articles, we clean those up. Each situation is judged individually on its own merits, and the best plan to move forward for each situation is decided based on the merits. There's no "every case". --Jayron32 01:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Hmarskiy II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Hmarskiy II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1. Malicious editing with a long past history of outright vandalism to the article of Bad Boys Blue - a musical group - the ongoing activity spanning several years now; 2. Most recently, the user copies and pastes my own editing/restoring remarks at the end of his persistent reverts, and continues to insert controversial and unsubstantiated information into the article, despite being advised not to on numerous occasions; 3. The user may be a paid member with a conflict of interests, as the his past edits attest to persistent inclusion of promotional material into the band's wiki page; 4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is a former anon user who created a userid with the sheer purpose to circumvent the protected status of the page in order to continue his disruptive editing. Please intervene. Lionscitygl (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: Please notify the user in question on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=User:Hmarskiy II}}. Thank you! -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That was attempted long ago. Intervention is requested. Lionscitygl (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Before I placed the notice on their talk page, the only other content of the talk page was a welcome. No deleted notices either. Nothing on the talk page of the article in question. As well, the accusation that the account was created for the purpose of circumventing the protection, just look at the earliest contributions of Hmarskiy II. They are from 2010, hardly a recent issue. And, after the protection was lowered, their edits to the article did not start until a few months later. I do not see any current attempt to contact the editor at all, except in edit summaries, which is not acceptable.

I just found this AIV report on Hmarskiy II. Please have patience, though, from my knowledge of AIV, it will be turned down quickly.

All and all, this just seems to be a content dispute mixed with ownership issues. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, thank you for looking into the this. Prior to alerting you of the matter, I've had an ample of opportunity to familiarize myself with the contributions from the said user. So, let's be clear on that. Also, please re-read what the word "recent" refers to in the context. With all the due respect, if you have multiple individuals/accounts trying to push absolutely the same controversial line of thrust both in style and presentation (which alludes to their "possible" association), are you honestly going to be expected to address every single one of them... anew? After all, one does not have to begin editing right away after a certain implementation took place on the page... especially if its "predecessor" was working in the exact same venue. And if I didn't follow certain wiki guidelines - no such oversight was intended on my part. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Look at your fix other people's edits (not just mine) without argument - an impression that you are a real vandal. 2. My information is confirmed by the source to which you deliberately do not pay attention. 3. All sources that you're not interested perceived as advertising. 4. Where argument that I am a former customer? Empty words and no more. Hmarskiy II (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm really expected to address the above... creativity, but I will do so this time as a matter of courtesy - something that I do not expect reciprocity on. 1. I think this isn't the first time I've been accused of being "a real vandal" for dealing with a member of that pack. Defense by means of aggression is not the newest invention these days... 2. That is exactly the point of it: "the source", as in conflict of interest. 3. No, not all, but it is heavy on advertising nevertheless. 4. It's a great day today. Sure. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we have some more opinions on this please? -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest formal warnings be issued, most likely for edit warring. Then, if offenses continue, blocks may be properly issued. Any other ideas here? -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, while you're waiting, looks like somebody does not waste their time on that page. Since he is back to his usual ploy, I'll revert it this time, but unless some measures are taken, this circus is likely to continue on. And that's exactly why I requested assistance - to intervene in this flaccid idiocy. Lionscitygl (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm I forgot to check the sources he cited in the changes.... They are completely unacceptable. I will add a long term vandalism warning to their talkpage, as this has been going on for awhile. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, Orduin. :) Glad you did check them, as that was the whole point. So, by all means, thanks. Lionscitygl (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: If you see further disruptive behavior from this editor (and please be sure the edits constitute as vandalism; this counts, this does not), notify someone through this thread, or report to WP:AIV. If you report to AIV, please be sure to note the final warning that was given. Thank you -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, thank you once again for all your input. I'll keep you posted if the issue persists. Btw, I hope you notice that he absolutely has no interest in participating in this discussion with you other than taking direct pot shots at me... all while still being hell bent at pushing his promotional "directives". Kind of ironic... yet expected. Lionscitygl (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: Idiocy is when one person writes incorrect information without sources, but he prevents other edit calling it vandalism. Lionscitygl, where your sources that confirm the disputed information? Why did you add information without sources and defend it? Hmarskiy II (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you just confirmed yet again that you a parrot by parroting after me, as you did with my previous post (e.g. idiocy) and as you were doing in your edit summaries of your reverts, and by parroting after your predecessors by using identically baseless distortions. Not only that, more importantly, you just admitted to having a conflict of interest in the article of topic. You see, you just reiterated verbatim the same accusations that were voiced by the members of the said cohort at the time the page went into protection, about 5 years ago or so. However, you intentionally fail to mention that most of my edits to the article were also among the removed material... and remain off of the article! Mine are off, not yours. Yet, evidently, it was not enough to the likes of you. Though I could, to this day I have not reinserted any of "my information" back in the article where it rightfully belongs, whereas someone like yourself is tirelessly trying to incrementally alter the page to a certain "correct" interpretation which is... nothing more than a mere promotion. Lionscitygl (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reoccuring disruptive behavior

I don`t know how to go about this..there is an editor who seems to be borderline disruptive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SaintAviator 66.177.244.25 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see an equal (and equally pointless, from both sides) argument over inconsequential things between yourself and that editor. Instead of "reporting" someone because they argued with you, you could, you know, walk away from the argument, find something else at Wikipedia to do, and do nothing about it. That'd work too. --Jayron32 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You`re probably right..however this person seems to be unable to not have the last word..I`ve about had enough of trying to express an opinion here or anywhere else on the internet for that matter..my guess is you havn`t heard the last of him. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is a admited sock of User:Lonepilgrim007 who has a long history of being warned on disrupting talk pages. He abdoned his account and started editing from an IP after he was given a last warning on both his talk page and on the Arthur Phelps talk page [42]. He continues to totally ignore all policy and attack others when they disagree with him. Nice little WP:BOOMERANG here. 72.188.95.203 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As a perfect example this editor is now approaching me on my talk page claiming they were told to discuss things further with me. You can see on the Lost colony talk page where this user despite being warned for years at this point simply continues to use talk pages as forums. Here he admits he is a sock of Lonepilgrim and admits he just wants to chat and not work on the article. [43] It's like an annoying gnat that wont stop flying into your face. 72.188.95.203 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a block of a user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I am requesting a permanent block of Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has consistently gone against consensus on Marvel Cinematic Universe related articles in adding information regarding the upcoming 2017 Spider-Man film. This user has been warned by many (see this most recent diff from their talk) and has completely failed to positively contribute to any discussion on this matter. Many users have approached them to contribute to discussions regarding this content (after a consensus against their view was formed), but that was just met with uncivilty (ie here and here) or blanking talk page content because the consensus does not suit their personal opinion (ie here and here). I'm not going to provide specific diffs regarding the actions of this user, because their contribution history can speak for itself. But if anyone would really like them, I'll gather some up. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm on the fence about a full-on block, but I would support a topic ban on Marvel Comics-related articles. There's just too much WP:IDHT going on from this user. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Zzaxx1 only has one current time edit displayed at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe and a few edits that were wiped in her/his blanking of content. Major issues here are the disregard to other editors in regard to this blanking of content and the obnoxious responses to apparently well intentioned edits.

I support the block request. GregKaye 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He isn't a bad editor, he just refuses to go by consensus so maybe just a topic ban until the issue is resolved.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban as well. Which I suspect for this user would effectively be a block, since it appears to be their primary topic of interest. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 14:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support the topic ban, but as Ebyabe pointed out, it is effectively a full block on them, as their primary editing topic is Marvel Comics and its related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Weak support as I was in the discussion and they don't seem contempt with much conversation on the talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: not quite sure what you mean there. Either way he was directed to the talk page and has also tried to blank the talk pages of the various articles involved of all topics that discussed the topic and linked back to the main discussion. Can you actually block someone from editting ceartain pages or is it a trust thing? If it is a trust thing then a full ban may be better suited.--19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

To whoever commented above, yes, users can be topic banned so they do not have the ability to edit those pages in that topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As a technical point, no. Users can be topic-banned. That does not mean that they do not have the ability to edit those pages. It means that they do not have the right to edit those pages. At the same time, it isn't only "a trust thing", because editors who violate a topic-ban will be blocked, and subsequent violations (after coming off block) will lead to longer blocks. So a block isn't the only way to deal with tendentious or disruptive editing; a topic-ban is the usual sanction for disruptive editing in a particular topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Would you mind examining this situation and providing an opinion and/or action against the user if you deem it necessary? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure about blocking, but support topic ban Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support non-infinite topic ban. Disruptive, user hasn't participated in the recent discussion or tried to contact other editors. If he would cite sources and be actively engaged, there would be good faith. But I don't think a topic ban should be forever, he may be young. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Either full Block or Topic ban, he is still edit warring as seen here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP using sexual images for vandalism on own talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [44]. I reverted his edit, please revoke talk page access (and extend block if necessary). --ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access. Nakon 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was any use, I wouldn't have let that character out after a mere three days. But never mind, they're probably already elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Yeah, it's a wireless IP, so all they'll have a new address in no time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Harassment by Bfpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I first addressed Bfpage about WP:Harassment at Bfpage's talk page. Bfpage then moved my additional comments to User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, and replied there each time I made a new reply at Bfpage's talk page. Eventually, I took the matter to Jytdog for advice, and Jytdog also saw WP:Harassment on Bfpage's part. Like I stated on Jytdog's talk page (User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior) regarding my concerns about Bfpage, particularly stalking: "To me, [Bfpage declaring to edit the same pages that I edit] was [Bfpage] making sure that there is potential for us to interact when [Bfpage knows] that I would rather that we do not interact. I can and do collaborate on Wikipedia, but [Bfpage and I] got off to a rocky start and it can take time before I am willing to work with an editor that I feel very irritated by and/or had significant disputes with. [...] I therefore wished to remove myself from [Bfpage's orbit]...other than occasionally editing the Sexism article. And [Bfpage] seemed to want to [be placed] directly in my orbit. I don't seek to work with editors that are causing me annoyance. And instead of occasionally interacting with [Bfpage], [Bfpage] pretty much declared that I would likely be interacting with [him or her] on a daily or weekly basis." After that, Bfpage seemed to back off, but, like I noted in a section on my talk page, Bfpage is still keeping tabs on me and awarded a barnstar to an editor (Lucentcalendar) who made ill-advised comments about me, ill-advised comments that caused NinjaRobotPirate, who is aware of the WP:Harassment I often receive, to attempt to see me in a better mood. A day after Bfpage's barnstar award, I warned Bfpage about stalking me again, on March 2. Bfpage's response was to "self-ban in good faith." I never asked for a self-ban; I asserted that the obvious stalking should stop. Bfpage continues to stalk me, and the excuse for that stalking now is to mark down "where not to edit." Any time an editor, such as this harassing IP, has something negative to state about me, Bfpage shows up to award that editor a barnstar; besides awarding Lucentcalendar a barnstar, Bfpage awarded the harassing IP a barnstar and DangerousJXD (one of my other harassers) a barnstar, seen here, after laughing at DangerousJXD's user page commentary about hating me.

Normally, I ignore my harassers unless I "have to" interact with them. And if DangerousJXD wants to state that he hates me on his user page, or any of the other things he's stated about me on his user page, then I don't think he should be forced to remove it. But seeing users obsess over me, as these users do, is often where I draw the line, as I did in a different notable WP:Hounding case focusing on me. I ask that one or more WP:Administrators advise Bfpage to stop tracking my edits, or to at least stop publicly tracking my edits, to perhaps un-watch my user page/talk page, and to stop speaking of me and/or ambiguously referring to me on Wikipedia unless necessary. If DangerousJXD keeps obsessing over me, I will start a WP:ANI thread in that case as well. Other than their obsessions with me, and any poor editing that they may engage in, I am not interested in these editors. Their obsessions regarding me, and any poor editing that they may engage in, is the only reason that I have their user pages/talk pages on my WP:Watchlist. I have enough issues to worry about at this site, and in my personal life, than constant badgering and/or belittlement from these editors. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. –DangerousJXD (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

DangerousJXD, that goes the other way around, which is the exact reason for this thread. Should I point out all of your silly edits regarding me, the way that I pointed to them near the end of this section? If not, then do stop obsessing over me. And do stop acting like I am the one who has been bothering you. Never do I mention you, except for when it is to point out your obsession with me. I barely even think of you, yet your user page is laced with edits showing just how much you think of me. Get a clue: I am not interested in you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just stop. I never did anything to you. I was done with you with my closing notes note. Leave me alone. I have left you alone, can you please do the same? I put you in the past yet you keep coming back. Can you please just be happy or something? Come to an agreement? (That last part sounded stupid) —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the truth about who "keeps coming back," and who keeps referring to the other, as far you and I are concerned can look at the diff-link I provided in my "04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. They can also look at this Editor Interaction Analyzer tool (and I'm not counting my WP:STiki edits on that matter). And while you removing mention of me from your user page is a start, what I seek is that you completely stop focusing on me, including awarding anyone a barnstar because you like how they supposedly told me off. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Playing the victim does not suit you in light of evidence to the contrary. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not playing the victim. I am not observing you. I'm not obsessed with you. I'm not focusing on you. I stopped focusing (your words) on you with my closing note note. That Barnstar is old. Stop destroying my time on Wikipedia, please. Just be nice. I am not playing the victim, I am asking you to leave me alone. I was never planning on contacting you again until thing BTW. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recently, there's been some talk about how to retain female editors. If I took all the abuse and harassment that Flyer22 does, I'd probably have left a long time ago. I occasionally edit feminist, gender, and sexuality articles, and nobody has ever – not even once – called me an activist, a crusader, or identified me as part of some feminist cabal. And yet Flyer22, who has been vocal about not self-identifying as a feminist, receives constant abuse directed toward her. I don't know. I think this is exactly the situation that admins should be focusing on if they want to retain female editors. Maybe if I called myself NinjaFairyPrincess people would start "I hate NinjaFairyPrincess" threads, follow me around, fix my edits, and rewrite my articles to be more neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This kind of behaviour from Dangerous and Bfpage is not only bizarre, it's downright scary and that's not a personal attack. I mean that reading these diffs, I find the content of their posts actually scary and I also think that they are clear evidence of stalking. Flyer22 is indeed very tough (and apparently very very patient and kind to a fault, no offence) for having put up with all this, as like NRP said, I also would have left this project in disgust a long time ago rather than having to put up with this kind of treatment and apparent application of double standards (as evidences by all the labels that have been stuck to her). A woman should be able to edit Wikipedia freely without being subjected to this sort of harassment, belittlement, and disrespect. Were I Flyer in this situation, I'd ask for a lot more than a simple interaction ban with caveats, I would want them banned all-together, but I think she's being very kind here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 05:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm done. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What in the world were you thinking when you wrote that you hated another user on your own user page? That kind of behavior is totally unacceptable. I think you should be blocked for several months just to give you time to think about what you've done. Maybe you aren't old enough to edit Wikipedia; maybe your parents raised you to hate other people. I don't know what the answer is but I do know it is NOTHERE. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Bfpage: - stop. Your behavior is inappropriate. If you continue to act in the same way towards Flyer, don't count on being able to edit Wikipedia in the future. For that matter, if you act in the same way towards different people in the future it'll probably threaten your ability to edit too. Dangerous: it would be wise for you to stick to your statement that you won't be engaging with Flyer in the future, and it would be wise for you to include actively avoiding any sort of intentional interaction with Flyer that is likely to be perceived as even the very slighest bit antagonistic. The behavior of both of you - even within the last days, this isn't ancient stuff that you've stopped doing - is grotesquely inappropriate for Wikipedia or any WMF project. If Flyer hadn't only asked for an iban, I would be supporting (or implementing..) much stronger sanctions against both of you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting a block of TheRedPenOfDoom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting a permanent block of TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been making several disruptive edits on the Philip Benedict page, deleting whole sections on several occasions (example 1, example 2) for specious reasons. He has deleted without adding tags, and in several cases without even going to the talk page. This section is sourced from prize winning university press history books, independent university websites, and an article.RefHistory (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree — no dog in this fight as I've never heard of this professor before or participated in his article/discussion. However, those two edits of TheRedPenOfDoom's edits seem fine to me and in fact, correct! The section removed about how people go to Europe every summer just to get a chance to attend the university's seminars was puffery plain and simply. It would be puffery on the article about that university; it's just plain out of place on the biography of a semi-retired professor. FYI "prize winning university press history books" are the definition of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES when writing about a university or academic! These do not count as academic research; they are written by public relations and marketing for the express point of advertising their own university; ie Stanford and ASU were bragging about the exchange programs they offer and universities they do exchanges with. The article is rightly flagged with the Primary Sources template. Additionally: 1) I've never heard of the "you need consensus to remove sections that have been here a long time" rule — where did you read this? 2) Simply because you are having an edit conflict with someone is not a valid reason to propose that user be banned. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mispelling in robots.txt

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt[45] - probably one of the most important robots.txts in the whole world.

But it has a mispelling in a comment!

The correct spelling of "machine" is not "maschine"".

Please fix this at once. 217.43.5.204 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't fix it yourself, it's your own fault. Wikipedia only exists because people who care make it better. Since you care, it is your responsibility (and no one elses) to make it better. --Jayron32 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Site config's editable by ips now? News to me. —Cryptic 01:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't editable on the en.wiki project, it'll need to be added at Phabricator. Nakon 01:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a comment, so who cares, but it was a great way to bring out kneejerk SOFIXIT comments. --NE2 01:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Thought it was an article he was complaining about. I've been rightfully admonished. --Jayron32 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair to Jayron32, the IP is the one who linked to robots.txt in the section title [46]. They did link to the correct location in their comments, and their comments also sort of imply they were talking about a real robots.txt rather than an article on it, but it's fairly confusing to link to 2 differnet things. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Being sorted, see gerrit:195097 Mdann52 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Closed merge discussion

After one month, and 1,887 page views in the past 30 days, I closed the proposed merger discussion on Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago User:Veggies and I disagree on whether or not my closing the discussion was proper. I based my decision on Wikipedia:Merge, which states that discussion can be closed after a week. I gave it a month. The result of the discussion was a "draw", with only two !votes. Please advise me on whether or not I followed policy, and please let User:Veggies know what your determination is. Thanks!Juneau Mike (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur in the closing of this discussion. Ideally, User:Michaelh2001 should have posted to AN or ANI to request an uninvolved closure of the debate. However, as there was only one dissenting opinion over the course of a month, and I find a lack of consensus in the debate, it is determined that there is no consensus to perform the merge. Nakon 05:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Veggies' View: Well, first, Feb 9 - March 7 is not 30 days (February is a short month, remember?). Second, Michaelh2001 didn't count the pro-merge vote from FL v Zimmerman. My main objection, however, is that so few people have participated, that I wanted to broaden the discussion to more than three interested party members. This situation is not helped by the confusing WP:MERGE guidelines that encourage boldness while distinguishing controversial matters as necessitating a good, long discussion. My original intent was to give editors who watched the relevant talk pages 30 days to make their cases and then open the discussion up to the rest of the Wiki community (through the board for "Awaiting Consensus" at WP:PM). Please remember that the guidelines state that: "If the discussion is contentious, however, you can post it at WP:Proposed mergers to get some help." The discussion is clearly contentious. However, if the objection is: I left the discussion open too long before bringing it to WP:PM, then, okay, apparently I did. Should we not get more than three people participating in a debate like this before we close it? That's my view, anyway. -- Veggies (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

During the (roughly) one month since you reopened this discussion, 1,887 people have visited the main page according to the page count app. Only you and I have commented on your merge proposal among said visitors. The original AfD/Merge proposal was much more contentious, and the article survived. The page is more stable today. I know you disagree that this is about Barack Obama, I get that. But I personally believe that consensus is against you on this. I've seen other edits you have made, and I know you edit in good faith. I believe you should build your user page, but that is a very minor concern. I am glad you edit Wikipedia. But I also firmly believe that this article contributes in a very positive way to "Wikiproject:Barack Obama", which I have long contributed to. I would be happy to collaborate with you on articles in the future. I mean that sincerely. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

support and speedy close. The previous debate was closed as no consensus, no new views were mentioned in this, nor enough participation, therefore going with the status quo (the previous result) is entirely allowed. @Juneau Mike: please read WP:INVOLVED, and don't get in a situation like this again - WP:ANRFC is your friend in situation like this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Mdann52. This has been a learning experience for me. Thank you for your input, and for your participation in my request for help here. @Mdann52: By the way, my signature appears as Juneau Mike, but my actual account is "Michaelh2001". I didn't get the ping, but I saw your message. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeated inappropriate removal of user-talk-page post

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have attempted to communicate with User:Atsme on his talk page. A third editor, A1candidate (talk · contribs), is trying to inhibit this, first by twice removing my post there [47] & [48], then by hatting it, [49], and then removing it a 3rd time [50]. To top it off, a 3RR warning on my talk page, [51]. I fail to see why another editor should be interfering in my attempt to communicate with someone else, and I feel the situation merits a block for A1candidate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The way you phrased your comment was highly inflammatory, unlikely to resolve the conflict and certainly viewed by the other party as a form of harassment. You're of course free to communicate with Astme, but you should do so in a civil manner. -A1candidate 19:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the comments that Nomoskedasticity left on Atsme's talk page. While you may view the comment as unhelpful, that is not justification for removing it. —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. -A1candidate 19:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The comments are hardly derogatory. Confrontational, maybe, but they are definitely not derogatory. —Farix (t | c) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They are neither uncivil nor derogatory, in fact that sort of user talk post is fairly routine. The removals are in no way supported by policy. How about an apology for an honest misunderstanding of policy, and we can get on with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that A1candidate must restore the post... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, A1candidate is in violation of this by removing others' comments without just cause. It's also somewhat worse that they decide to attempt to WP:GAME you into being blocked for WP:3RR when they shouldn't have even removed said comments in the first place. Tutelary (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate is not in violation for removing Nomo's post on my TP. It is quite the opposite. This isn't the first time Nomoskedasticity has posted unhelpful comments on my TP. [52] I have asked him before to please stop his disruptive behavior and to stay off my TP. I respectfully request that this issue be dismissed. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused. Atsme☯^Consult 19:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That diff does not contain a request that I not post on your talk page... I don't recall that you have requested this. If it's true, then a simple reminder from you would suffice. We still can't have third editors removing posts from talk pages not their own. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, now you know, as since A1candidate apparently knew, it's time to let it go. Besides, it's pointless to edit war on another user's talk page because with the orange bar it's not like they won't know someone posted. NE Ent 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nomoskedasticity, don't post to User talk:Atsme. A1, let Atsme remove the posts themselves. Are we done now? — Ched :  ?  20:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ched. Atsme☯^Consult 21:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kannada123 not heeding warnings

Please see User talk:Kannada123. This user seems to have a longstanding pattern of problematic edits (as evidenced by roughly 50 warnings on their User talk page), seldom provides edit summaries, seldom participates in Talk page discussions, and never responds to warnings posted on their Talk page. I think perhaps something should be done to get their attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there have been problems with my 'edits' with most being "Disambiguation link notification", non-addition of "Non-free rationales" for album covers, posters etc. just like anybody else who has been contributing for over a period of 1.5 years. But, every single issue has been rectified by me. I provide edit summaries whenever it's required. — Kannada123 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note Kannada123, I hope you can make things work here on Wikipedia. Your edits seem to all be made in good faith, at least the ones I have seen. A few words of advice: 1) Always provide an edit summary, even if very brief. 2) Respond to warnings and the like on your Talk Page so editors don't think you are ignoring them. Be willing to take advice, and constructive criticism. 3) Slow down. Work on your prose, and make sure your edits are encyclopedic. I believe you have a future here on Wikipedia. I speak here only as an editor, NOT an admin. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

50 warnings seems like a lot to me. I doubt that very many people would get 50 warnings in 1.5 years. Yes, some of them are just disambiguation link notices or bracket mismatch notices, but many seem to indicate, e.g., that copyright concerns are not being taken very seriously (and so does the tone of the response above – dismissing copyright concerns as equivalent to accidental dab links). I also suggest that the user should try to be more communicative – using edit summaries and engaging in Talk page discussions. I am pleased to see that the user posted a response here. Some others might have just ignored this complaint along with all the others. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

comment I see the edits are really contributing and with good intention, would suggest Kannada123 to take time to sharpen once tools and learn how things work and why issues like copywright are important, would suggest a admin/expert adoption to things better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 09:59, 9 March 2015‎ (UTC)

User:Haffy881 and copyright issues

Haffy881 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(Retitled to "User:Haffy881 and copyright issues" from non-neutral "Haffy881 and massive amounts of copyright infringements" per wp:TALKNEW. --doncram 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

I stumbled on this editor adding massive amounts of text to articles. A quick google search found they they are cutting and pasting text from other websites into wikipedia. I reverted them with links to the original sources (Examples: one, two, and three) but this goes way back before today. This is copied from last month. Every time I revert an edit and give them a warning, they wait a few hours and do it again. Helpsome (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I hold no brief for this editor, Haffy881, who seems not to read his own talk page, but I believe the Edit summary should be written in plain English, which these three examples are not. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the policy and provided the source URL where the content was taken from. I can't exactly type a paragraph in there. Helpsome (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through Haffy881's contribs and cleaned up one other article. I have placed a final warning on the user's talk page and will monitor their contributions. Any further copyright violations will result in an indef block. Thank you for reporting this problem, Helpsome. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Further copyright violations = block" on his/her talk page by user:Diannaa. Two days later, copyvio added to Sind krait (see my revert with link to source article). I've not checked any other recent edits by the user. 62.107.221.236 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 13:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Viktorengström's SPA campaign on Stalinism?

Viktorengström (talk · contribs) did his first edit on 3 January 2015 to remove a category that Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia were show trials. Curiously his next edits were to an American historian to has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin, which relates to the issue at hand which is very narrow editing area related to Stalinism, communism and a bit to Nazism as well.

He removed category Holodomor perpetrators from Vyacheslav Molotov despite that the article has sources that he was personally related to the origins of the famine. He removed a notorious Nazi judge from the "See also" section of Czech communist judges [53] [54], only to add the very same judge to a present-day US Republican prosecutor [55] and Joseph McCarthy [56] articles! He likes to remove all mentions of "repression" in the Soviet Union and "Stalinism": [57], [58], [59], [60] [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. A part of this campaign included renaming the category Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland in articles despite the fact that his category did not exist, for which Poeticbent notified the user. While "Stalinism" shouldn't be used as an epithet, clearly the user has a problem with it even when it simply refers to Stalin's regime.

Apparently he went even as far to POV-push that the Great Purge didn't include show trials.[66]. Lastly, he removed propaganda category from East German state political journalist [67] but added it to two anti-communist advocacy groups [68], [69]. Classic.

You can go through all of the users edits, there's not much. They just consist of that kind of small POV tweaks and categories, never using talk pages or edit summaries. Is this WP:SPA or just business as usual? --Pudeo' 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, in looking, on the first edit, "Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia" he did remove "show trials" with a note explaining that there wasn't any references to back up that claim, and he's right about that.

I saw no discussion on the talk pages about that particular revert, but did see talk about "show trials" with one user claiming "common knowledge" as a reason to add it in, which , even if it is, doesn't square with Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources, so I'd say that revert is correct. The other removals of "show trials" was pretty much the same thing, with the judges, yeah, it was a dumb move to move a judge into a spot that says he's a current judge, that fails reliability, so while his reverts aren't all vandalistic, some are definitely wrong , but not all are, some are helpful. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true. But what makes it impossible for me to assume good faith are cases of that kind of dualistic "retaliatory" POV-pushing: so there's this notorious Nazi judge in "See also" of communist regime judges, better remove it and moments later add it to articles about right-wing judges in the US.--Pudeo' 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I quickly checked a few their edits. Some are definitely POV and hardly supported by RS. Others amount to vandalism. For example, this edit links an article to a category that does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Got my attention. Here we go. (1) Arch Getty is an ultra-serious, big boy full professor of history at UCLA specializing in the history of the Soviet 1930s LINK. It is absolutely tendentious bullshit to try and pigeonhole him as a historian who "has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin." The OP has already lost me. (2) There is no easy definition of "show trial." Individual mileage may vary. (3) "Holodomor" (Good translation = "Hunger terror") is a pejorative term which has great favor among Ukrainian nationalists who assert that the 1932-33 famine catastrophe was a conscious act of anti-Ukrainian genocide. This thesis is dubious at best unless a million deaths in Kazakhstan and Russia were also conscious acts of anti-Ukrainian genocide (not to mention the abject lack of archival support of the notion to emerge after the fall of the USSR). The use of the tendentious phrase "Holomodor perpetrator" is a good measure of where the OP is coming from. Get the boomerang out... Carrite (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Category:Holodomor perpetrators is an existing category and I don't have anything to do with it. The European Parliament, UN General Assembly and OECD among others by the way recognize Holodomor as a genocide. Perhaps it's just your orthodox pro-Soviet communist POV that reeks here. --Pudeo' 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that's a nasty thing to call a Social Democrat, oh Fair-And-Balanced one... Carrite (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Upon further review, the fact that you can't tell my politics after 55,000 edits, many on Communist-related topics, I am gonna take as a compliment... I know YOUR politics though...) Carrite (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if any action would be necessary, but just would like to notice the following. (1) Arch Getty is indeed s a revisionist (may be even a Stalinist) historian. Giving link (above) to his own web site does not prove anything. Getty is mostly known for claiming that Stalin did not plan Great Terror. See here, for example: "One of Getty’s more significant contributions to revisionism was the shifting of blame for the bloody purges from Stalin to Nikolai Yezhov". He sees "Great Terror as the consequence of the USSR’s newfound social mobility and concludes that in such chaotic political flux inadvertent atrocities were bound to be committed.". (2) There is no any controversy what Soviet "show trial" means. (3) "Holodomor" in Russian and Ukrainian is not a pejorative term. "Death by Hunger" is merely a translation, nothing more. There is a scholarly opinion (e.g. by Robert Conquest) that a million of deaths in Kazakhstan were also an act of genocide; this does not disprove anything about Holodomor. My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you remove your libelous insinuation, for that is exactly what it is. And I know your politics, too. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Addenda): The irony of you lauding the poet Robert Conquest as a historian and covering your User Page with poetry is not lost on me. Conquest was a Cold War era polemicist and the "revisionist" movement of the 1970s and 1980s (Stephen Cohen, Roberta Manning, Lynne Viola, Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, ad infinitim) is the mainstream academic history of today, for those of you at home trying to follow the game without a scorecard. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Stephen F. Cohen who has been described as "most prominent intellectual apologist for Putin" [70]? My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• WHOA, was looking at another ANI and saw this! J Arch Getty is a Stalinist and pro-Stalin? LOL! That paragraph from World Affairs is laughable - if I say that Yezhov was a diabolical, manipulative little bastard in his own right who thought he was doing the right thing by committing the horrible atrocities of the Great Purge, does that make the execution-order signing Stalin somehow less responsible? Does that make me a "pro-Stalin Stalinist"? Apparently it does to the right-wingers at World Affairs.

As for Viktorengström, his edits to J Arch Getty were hardly controversial and more anecdotal, including correcting the broken external link to his personal page at UCLA (undone by My very best wishes, thanks!, which btw was corrected by me, coincidentally, the next day! I'm guilty of not reading this article thoroughly as My very best wishes's edits done while claiming Getty is a "well-known revisionist" are WP:UNDUE and will soon by pwned). I think it's extreme of the nominator in this ANI to say Viktorengström "went even as far to POV-push" by removing "show trials" from one sentence about Max Eastman, which to me is not necessarily incorrect, yes, they had the three Moscow Trials, rightly in the Soviet Show Trials category. But the millions of other Great Purge victims never got a trial. (Going back to Getty: By 1937, Yezhov said, "Yo Stalin, let's increase this number and kill a whole bunch of people. It's way more efficient if we don't have to deal with trials." (as seen in and concured with in this review of Getty's book on Yezhov, which Simon Sebag Montefiore calls a "fascinating and essential biography, which tells us more about the Kremlin and Soviet Russia than most history books"—I guess Montefiore failed to pick up that it was revisionist propaganda like the tinfoil-hat wearers at World Affairs). I don't know enough about Eastman to know if his change of view specifically was the Moscow Trials or the Purge in general.

HOWEVER, as far as the non-existent category change... his change from "Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland" to "Category:Functionaries of the People's Republic of Poland" is WAY better! I don't understand why "Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland" first is named in this narrow way from an encyclopedic point of view, while there is no corresponding article for the Polish People's Republic. Really? There were no functionaries in the People's Republic of Poland? (note there are NO other categories or subcategories referring to "The Stalinist regime of Poland" in "Category:Polish People's Republic" and Stalinism in Poland redirects to a section in the country's history article.) I agree Viktorengström doesn't seem to be your average neutral editor as his articles here are all related to the same topics, and adding the "See also" link to the Nazi prosecutor on Jeanine Pirro's page is, while hilarious, definitely inappropriate, overall I don't think this escalates to the level of an ANI or that he is a WP:SPA with a "campaign on Stalinism" but this ANI is helpful as it does shed some light on the non-NPOV of other editors. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What was a reason for all this excitement? The thread is about a barely active user Viktorengström. I do believe that my edits on this page were reasonable. Beyond reverting an edit by a suspicious red-linked account debated on the ANI (I have a reason to believe this is someone's secondary account), I only made this edit. As one can see, the assertion about Arch Getty in my edit was supported not only by the article from World Affairs, but also by a number of books. I did not check these books, but I trust other editors who used them earlier. If you disagree with my edit(s), please discuss them on article talk page (why you did not do it so far?), prior to bringing them on the ANI in a thread about unrelated user with whom I never interacted.My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In brief, another RS, which was there before my edit (diff above), tells about the paradox that Getty's work is rehabilitating Stalin's reputation just when Soviet historians were exposing the details of Stalin's crimes against the Soviet people. That does qualify Arch Getty as a revisionist if not outright Stalinist historian.My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit Getty's page first since I had already started writing my response here, and after that I was busy dealing with my rug burns from ROTFL that J Arch Getty is a pro-Stalin Stalinist Revisionist™ 😄😄😄 He's a very well-respected academic and historian. I don't see how World Affairs is reputable enough to refer to a historian as a revisionist in WP:BLP (even World Affairs own article here admits is right-wing, and their rationale about Getty and Yezhov was laughable). That section of Getty's bio is fully WP:UNDUE— look how the creator of this ANI took one look at Getty's article and deduced that he was a Stalin rehabilitator!!! As I said I didn't even read the Getty article the other day, I was just adding his VIAF and noticed his URL was wrong. The rationale for the other "sources" calling him this and what criteria they used is unclear — one of the authors of that book is a right-winger and the others (a paper from Norway in 1985? an article from what I think is a CIA journal "Intelligence & National Security" from 1987?) are extremely, suspiciously obscure references. I'm guessing are probably taken directly from the footnotes of the first book cited (violating WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT) as a way to pad that viewpoint. BTW the reason why I say "right wing" here as not credible is not because I think it means their opinions don't count, but because I suspect they have their own personal agenda. I haven't read everything Getty has ever written, but as I said he's well-respected. From what I can surmise, some people subscribe to the black-and-white Cold War dogma that Stalin was so wholly omnipotent that it means nobody else was just as evil as him or possibly even doing evil things behind his back; therefore, introducing other ideas is not acceptable and makes one a "revisionist." —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

All your words above are your personal opinion, nothing more. After quickly looking at sources, including writings by Getty himself, it does appear that he supports the idea that the Great Purge was planned and commanded not by Stalin, but by Yezhov and other Stalin's subordinates, as clarified in this edit. This is per multiple RS, as one can see in the diff, rather that the single source you do not like. But here is the bottom line. If you do not like an edit, please go to the article talk page. If you do not like a source, please go to WP:RSNB; do not tell your personal opinion about content and editors unrelated to the thread here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I have read pretty much every word written by Arch Getty and I'm saying this: My very best wishes is pushing a tendentious, right wing point of view and is engaging in libel against a respected academic. Dust off your quotations from the right wing blogosphere, that's all you've got to back up your absurd political line against him. It is clear that this editor should have nothing whatsoever to do with writing a word about the history of the Soviet 1930s, being very clearly a POV-pusher. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it was not me who just removed perfectly sourced text from this article [71] without any discussion on this article talk page [72]. And no, contrary to your statement here, none of the multiple sources was a "blog". Simplest Google search shows a lot of scholarly books (e.g. by Oxford University Press) that describe Getty as a revisionist historian (e.g. here). My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you even understand what "revisionism" in history is? You are conflating a scholarly revolution in the 1970s and 1980s (which "won" and became the mainstream by the 2000s and 2010s) with holocaust denialism... Carrite (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Answer me this: whose estimated death toll for the Ezhovshchina was more correct now that we know the archival numbers, Solzhenitsyn/Conquest or Hough/Getty? I'll help you out: the latter. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What the hell you are talking about me? This is thread about Viktorengström. It only matters what sources tells. And as long as multiple scholarly books (e.g. by Oxford University Press here) describe Getty as a revisionist historian he should be mentioned as such. And this very source explains what "historical revisionism" means in this particular case. It tells (on page 116): "This approach [by Getty and others] is similar in many ways to the line taken by the revisionist school in Germany, with its opposition to moral condemnation of Nazism, its call to "historicize" Nazism, and its objection to such crude terms as "heroes" and "villains"". My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:WaldirBot is removing all subsection headings from Portal:Current events

User:WaldirBot is removing all subsection headings from Portal:Current events

example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2001_January_1&diff=650100129&oldid=639019324

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2002_October_23&diff=650105285&oldid=639149010

has this been agreed to??? looks more like a vandal bot run amuck to me--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize having these edits performed by bot may raise concerns. The run isn't fully automated, however. I'm reviewing every edit manually, and the section heading removals are only performed if I consider them (in good faith and to the best of my judgment) unnecessary overhead — for example, if each section has a single entry.

I'm happy to stop doing that simplification if there's consensus that such changes are not welcome. Btw, thanks for warning me on my talk page. --Waldir ^talk 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the section headers in those should stay. --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain why? As I said above, having section headers for a single entry seems excessive and adding more overhead than usefulness. --Waldir ^talk 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. There seems to be at least two of use here that believe that the sub-section heads are worthwhile, even for a single entry. They certainly shouldn't be removed from the archives without a much wider discussion and consensus for such a move. --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I dont understand about this guy's action - he just suddenly takes it upon himself to run his little bot and change 4,000 entries because he "deems it his own consensus" even thou for years a 1,000 other editors read the thing eace day and had no problem with it - i can find no where a discusssion in advance where he talked it over with anyone but his own "deemed consensus" in his head--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Add me to one who believes they're useful even for a single entry. It allows one to tell at a glance whether anything was included on a given topic, and removing them serves no useful purpose. I would very strongly suggest this bot be blocked and its actions mass-rollbacked. Mogism (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point, WaldirBot has been approved but only for " Article and other pages' assessment/standardization for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde. ". The Current event portal is not related. If WaldirBot can show an approval for that task, that's fine, otherwise, it needs to stop. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. I don't recall seeing consensus or instructions in favor of the headings in such cases (or in any cases for that matter, neither in Template:Current events header/doc nor in Portal:Current events/Edit instructions), but assuming the majority opinion in this thread represents a reasonable sample of the overall editing community consensus, I will refrain from removing the section headings anymore (that actually makes the task easier). Do note that I am not using the bot for performing fully automated edits, and I could just as well use my regular account for them, given the manually reviewed nature of the task. It's been something I've been working on for a while, mostly manually — see User:Waldir/DateMatrix. The only reason I'm using the bot is that, as an account with the bot flag, the edits don't pollute the recent changes and don't disproportionately inflate my regular account's contribution history and edit count. Cheers, --Waldir ^talk 15:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment, hounding and baiting by Viriditas at User talk:Collect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Collect (talk · contribs) is serving a week-long block and asked Viriditas (talk · contribs) to cease harassing him [73] yet Viriditas persists baiting Collect nevertheless [74]. This not a new pattern for Viriditas and its pretty ridiculous he should be misusing a blocked editor's talk page for harassing him.--MONGO 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate MONGO's concern, but there is no evidence of any harassment of any kind occurring, just lively and energized debate among many editors with different opinions. MONGO may have also misinterpreted Collect's colorful use of section headers which were added after the discussion, which likely contributed to MONGO's confusion about this so-called "harassment". I'm happy to stay away from Collect's talk page for the moment, if that will alleviate MONGO's misplaced, but well-meaning concern about Collect's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How about just leaving him alone? Your input clearly isn't helping. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I instruct Viriditas to stay off Collect's talkpage unless there is a specific need for him to be there. (I was actually tempted to address this situation by reviewing and potentially commuting Collect's block, but I see it will soon expire by time anyway.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for me to be there, so I won't be participating on his talk page. I am curious as to 1) why he thinks I'm harassing him 2) why he thinks my satirical analogy between his question (Is the US a totalitarian society?) and my question ("Is Florida a "fringe" state?") is a form of outing and attacking using personal information that does not apply to him in any way, and 3) why he thinks I'm trying to drive him off of Wikipedia? I'm not looking for an answer here, but if anyone wants to leave me a message on my talk page addressing just exactly what he's talking about, I would appreciate it. I feel like I've accidentally walked into an alternative reality. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect has now asked you a second time to stop harrassing him though this has happened since your last "contribution" there so this should make it less confusing for you.--MONGO 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused why you wrote this when 1) it didn't address my comment you were replying to, and 2) I haven't commented on Collect's talk page since 06:42, 9 March. It seems like you are trying to confuse people by implying I've been commenting on this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You were harassing him. He then asked you to cease. You then proceeeded to harass him anyway. I posted the notice here about your harassment. He then posted a second time to not harass him. That's the timeline and it doesn't need precise timestamp diffs. I'm not impressed with either the tone of your commentary there or your inability to see that taunting a blocked editor is unacceptable.--MONGO 14:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you and I don't agree with your assessment. I was not harassing nor taunting anyone, and there is no evidence of harassment from me on his talk page. There is evidence that a discussion was not going his way and he sought to end the thread. That's all. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment. Making a joke about Florida is not harassment. Further, he not only falsely claimed I was harassing him, he also claimed I was outing him and trying to drive him away from Wikipedia, which is just ridiculous. None of that matters, of course, because I have said I would not comment on his page out of respect, but I will not agree with your assessment, which appears intended to confuse the issue and give the false impression that the "harassment" is continuing. I will repeat, I have not commented on his page since 06:42, 9 March, no matter how much you try and spin it otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It really is quite simple. A blocked editor felt you were harassing them at their talk page so they asked you to stop. You persisted in harassing him. I then posted here. Collect then asked you a second time to stop harassing him...and here we are. I'm thinking that this is a pattern for you, sort of like kicking a man when he is down. Userspace may be on loan from the pedia but if an editor asks you to stop harassing them, especially if they are serving a block, then stop posting on their loaned page! Like duh! Don't play games with us Viriditas.--MONGO 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the timeline most certainly did not occur in that order as I already explained, given the subheadings added after the fact, the end of a separate thread, the beginning of a new thread, the filing of this report, and then another claim of harassment. You're trying to spin this to make it seem like the alleged harassment continued when 1) it never occurred in the first place, and 2) I haven't touched his talk page since 06:42, 9 March, nor do I have any intention of returning there anytime soon. Collect didn't like the result of a discussion so he made a series of strange edits pointing me to WP:HARASS, which makes no sense in the context of that discussion. At the same time, a news story about Florida appeared online, and I posted a link to it as a joke, creating a satirical analogy with his previous claim. At no time was there any harassment, only a disagreement and a humorous link to a news item and friendly banter. Please stop trying to spin this otherwise as it simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you continue it here? Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Viriditas: posting messages to the talk page of blocked users that are trying to keep [them] occupied during [their] "vacation" [06:41 9 March] are not appropriate, regardless of who the editor is. That you posted it 6 hours after you were explicitly told to "knock it off" because Collect felt you were harrassing him [75] [00:40 9 March] makes this even less acceptable. I haven't got time to look into the history any further than this to see whether a block and/or IBAN is warranted (yet), but consider yourself formally warned that any further edits that Collect may reasonably perceive as harassing him (regardless of the intention) will lead to sanctions in addition to your current ban from Collect's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Collect told Viriditas to stay off his talkpage. Viriditas agreed to stay off Collect's talkpage, and has done so. So the problem is solved. The continuance of this thread is therefore incredibly pointless and counterproductive even by the standards of AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failure to engage in discussion at Buddha Bar

User:JesseRafe removed a large amount of material from the article, Buddha Bar. I restored the material per WP:BRD and initiated a discussion about it at Talk:Buddha Bar#WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information. JesseRafe has not participated in that discussion but continues to remove the material. Obviously opinions can differ, but I believe that a change of this magnitude should be discussed and, if there is consensus to move this material to a separate article (which I do not oppose), such a change should be done in an orderly fashion, not just be deleting the existing material from the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As this huge amount of tangentially-at-best related data was just unceremoniously dumped on a page about a bar, I was confused and thought it might have been an accident or untended material. It does not belong, especially sans introduction, and is beyond undue significance given the amount of material about the bar (which is notable) is less than 5Kb, including multiple sections and sources, and this endless list of non-notable albums is almost 27Kb, I fail to see how it's even objectionable that this should be removed. JesseRafe (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, the other editor who replied at Talk:Buddha Bar#WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information. supports Jesse's position ... both editors should use talk page more and edit summaries and WP:ANI less. NE Ent 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that if one editor makes a major change, and another editor reverts that change and initiates a discussion, the first editor should discuss the matter before making the major change over again? Also, where is this separate article that User:JesseRafe is supposed to have spun off? bd2412 T 19:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't not. If two editors disagree, the smarter, more mature and more wiki-savvy one starts the talk page discussion and (except in cases of BLP violation / hoax type stuff) lets the other "have their way" transiently while consensus forms. NE Ent 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Did that happen once? How quaint. In the real world, junk content is a plague on Wikipedia and contentious material subject to challenge should remain out of the article until there is consensus as to its inclusion. Anything else is a very obvious POV-pusher's charter, to say nothing of the Randy from Boise issue. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it is incorrect of JesseRafe to claim that the information on the compilation albums "was just unceremoniously dumped on a page about a bar"; that information was assembled by at least a dozen different editors. Sources have existed in the article for quite a long time indicating: 1) that Buddha Bar, in addition to opening restaurants, bars, and other venues, also produces and sells compilation albums of the music that it plays in those venues in order to establish its atmosphere; and 2) that these compilation albums are reviewed in reliable sources like Billboard Magazine, with these reviewers noting the connection between the albums and the venues. This is not junk content; the album series is reliably sourced and clearly meets criteria 1 of the notability guideline for albums, having been published in multiple, non-trivial, works independent from the people who have published the albums. bd2412 T 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:KTMUSIC1 and article Kimberly Thompson

User might be trying to improve the article, but editing is very destructive. Suggest that someone try to discern editor's intent and apply a non-punitive block of 3 hours while intent is determined and changes to editor behavior is attempted. I am not able to pursue myself at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ceyockey has falsified 90% of the content. Is harassing me and acting as ME manipulating the system and flooding lies and fabricated personal information. I do not know who :Ceyockey is but I am definitely able and willing to take legal action to clear my name against this destructive person. This is illegal and I will be appointing my lawyer to oversee this charade of defiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTMUSIC1 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw your legal threat, as it violates the no legal threats policy. In addition, Wikipedia does not allow autobiographies, especially if they remove sourced content from articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, it appears that Kimberly Thompson has been blanked by User:KTMUSIC1. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have warned User:KTMUSIC1 about legal threats. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: User:KTMUSIC1 continues to blank Kimberly Thompson despite warnings about removal of content on talkpage. They have done it after a final warning as well. Given the legal threat here as well, I would support a block. It's one thing to be unhappy with content on Wiki, it's not acceptable to delete/replace it without a consensus to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's my take on it. Kimberly Thompson only appears barely well sourced in the article, including citations to Facebook and Soundcloud which are totally unacceptable. If she wants the article deleted, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE she can. Don't be a dolt, people and remember the articles we edit are read by a far wider demographic than we think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Support this suggestion. However, if deleted, this article should not be recreated as an autobiography by User:KTMUSIC1, which seemed to be the original intention of the user. Also, I don't know how to delete as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose this outcome. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE only applies to non-public figures. I think the article simply need to be improved. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 14:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The easiest option is to put the article up for AfD, which I've done here. That should sort things out one way or another. This is far from the first time that a borderline notable figure has been upset about a biography. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose suggestion that article be deleted based on any discussion here. That is an issue for WP:AFD (and personally, I think it would fail given her career and its coverage at Drummer World). The issue here is whether a user who claims to be this subject, who has refused to accept instruction in how to proceed from other users, should be blocked (if only temporarily) for disruptive behavior, and I think the answer to that is clearly "yes". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 24 h for repeated blanking the page after multiple warnings and advised them to participate in the deletion discussion after the block has expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of excitement over this article occurred while I was dreaming away last night. At any rate, before KTMUSIC1's involvement, the article looked like this, and I'm not exactly sure why well-sourced information was removed (for example, her birth year was backed up by a reliable source, and the city she was raised in was backed up by five reliable sources). And while I understand that YouTube sources are often not acceptable per WP:YOUTUBE, linking to her official YouTube page does seem to be acceptable (but not the comment section or anything). Finally, as WikiDan61 pointed out in the AfD, how do we know that this user actually is Miss Thompson? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just confirming OTRS are now aware of and involved with this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc disruption to Aam Aadmi Party article

Bolterc (talk · contribs) has been nothing but a problem where the Aam Aadmi Party article is concerned. They have previously been reported here, have been blocked twice, have had a discretionary sanctions notification and numerous other warnings, and have tried and failed to push their POV via an AfD. Even now, they are resorting to comments such as this edit summary, they are still messing about with redirect/dabs despite an obvious inability to understand how we operate, and they have just unilaterally moved the AAP article to Aam Aadmi Party (India). The most recent discussion thread of any length is here and even during that they were edit warring to get their dodgy version of various things into the article.

Please will someone deal with this mess once and for all, perhaps via a topic ban. The article move should be reverted also, pending consensus. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved page and made edits based on RFC discussion on talk page. Please stop personal attacks and make meaningful contributions. Please add your views to the RFC section. More Neutral Views are requested. Bolterc (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is open and you have pre-empted its closure. The thing doesn't even directly relate to a page move. You have been nothing but an incompetent and tendentiously disruptive pov-pusher regarding this subject and time should be called. (I've just indented your response, btw: something else that you have been told about before but still do not understand). WP:CIR anyone? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've reverted the move and the recreation of the disamb page. Also locked everything for 3 months.--regentspark (comment) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This response to the DS warning does not exactly inspire confidence that the Bolterc meets the CIR requirement... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I believe there are competency issues here, combined with issues of partisanship that make User:Bolterc see anti-AAP political conspiracies where none exist, eg, see this this malformed RFC. Would help if some experienced user, not involved in India-related articles (and, thus less likely to be seen as part of the conspiracy), tried mentoring the user; barring that I don't see them remaining unblocked for long. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bolterc never added anything important to any of these articles, he is only disrupting these articles and wasting the time of other people by repeating the same argument over and over. He had been blocked before for edit warring too. I don't think that he will agree on mentoring at all. Fundarise (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Fundarise could be sock puppet. Admins please have a check. Bolterc (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A sock of whom? - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as a sensible preventative measure. Bolterc is clearly passionately partisan and - having claimed to have designed one logo for the AAP[76] - may even have a conflict of interest. A ban could even be to the benefit of the party they espouse, as they have done so much to damage any possibility of achieving their avowed aims here that I could easily think them some sort of anti-AAP saboteur. That ban might be lifted if they eventually demonstrate that they are here to build an encyclopedia and can work collegiately. NebY (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking deletion of a Warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I received a warning when attempting to edit a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_rape Here is the warning:

Campus rape[edit] I have reverted your addition there because it is based on a page from crisisconnectioninc.org, which is too unreliable and too local for representing those data as general statistics on wikipedia. Please argue your case on the article talk page instead of reinstating the addition. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Campus rape. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring... Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC) _________________

I responded to MaterialScientist as follows: Materialscientist, I definitely don't want to appear as if I'm taking part in an Edit War! What happened was I cut and pasted my Edit multiple times simply because I was trying to figure the best place to place the Edit within the article. Also my iPad mini was giving me fits.

_________________

I have no problem with the material I added being removed. I am requesting that the Warning be removed from my Talk page. I have always tried my best when doing edits. The very evening that this occurred, I thought my iPad device was not "taking" the edits, or that there was a problem with my connection to Wikipedia, so I must have repeated the process two or three times in a matter of minutes. I had no idea that MaterialScientist was deleting my post as I was trying to re-post it. I respect the job the editors do. I feel this is an honest mistake on my part.

Could I get help on this?

Scott Scottlovessue (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You can delete the warning yourself, but I recommend not editing any more articles until you can get control of you iPad and understand how to use your watchlist to see when your edit has been reverted.- MrX 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twitter link ban?

There is a User, Ronz, who has been quite prolific in their removal of the Twitter (along with Instagram, IMDB, and similar sites) from seemingly any article that they come across[77]. Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter notwithstanding which states that Twitter is generally not acceptable as an External Link except "for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence." Is it now "open season" on Twitter links? The existence of the Twitter template {{twitter|"subject"|subject title}} seems almost bizarre if this is sufficient justification for the wholesale removal of links to Twitter site wide. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The existence of a template does not change Wikipedia's guideline, WP:ELNO, which is pretty clear on the matter. No Twitter links. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some exceptions that are allowed, especially the one listed in WP:Twitter. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so then which of these entries[78] did not meet the criteria for exceptions since most have "no other web presence". You deleted every single External Link from the page including those for IMDB which are allowed per WP:EL/P. Here too [79]. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, your inquiry leads one to believe you have not approached Ronz with your concerns before raising the issue here. I apologize if my impression is wrong. Tiderolls 20:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tide rolls, yep, wrong impression. Apology accepted, but not necessary, thanks. I try to have more respect for ANI than to run to it as a default. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, if you look on the articles' talk pages you'll see that I linked past ELN discussions (of which this is most relevant). You'll see there (and elsewhere in the relevant discussions) that ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply to individual entries in a list. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just my 2¢ - As far as I know - If the BLP has an official website - We remove per WP:ELNO, If they don't have an official website then we should list them. –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• That is my understanding also. We try to provide information. Even on a list. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Ronz here. No article, no links--Twitter or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, as for the article vs. list aspect, if that is the mitigating factor, sobeit, but DGG makes a good basic point. The subjects in the example above do not have official websites, so that is why their Twitter links were included, a stated exception. You're saying that because its a list article, it should not have Twitter (or any other social networking) External links at all? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but ANI is not the proper venue to try to change consensus regarding content. If you would simply read the relevant policies/guidelines/discussion, you would see that yes it is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I can understand wanting to resolve an issue, but shutting down a discussion doesn't help the situation. I've read WP:EL and specifically WP:ELNO as well as WP:Twitter, and I still fail to see the logic behind your wholesale deletion of all external links from a wide swath of articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was resolved long ago. You've demonstrated a need to misuse ANI while not being able to read/understand current policies/guidelines and the relevant noticeboard and talk page discussions. Do review WP:IDHT and WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, instead of using adjectives like "wholesale", can you provide a handful of examples where the Twitter link has been removed and you feel that our policies would have allowed it to be retained, along with an explanation as to why you feel those links actually met policy?—Kww(talk) 20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww, that's a fair question and I appreciate you asking. Either of these edits is a sufficient example [80][81]. Both happen to be list articles and involve the same subject matter. The rest of the Twitter deletions I've found are where an "official website" is listed, so it makes sense within Policy as I now understand it. If the distinction is Ext Links in a list article, OK, but it should be clearly laid out in Policy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:ELOFFICIAL - these links are not the official website of the subject of the page (like in this removal), they are the official website of a subject discussed on the page. We are not writing an internet directory or a version of the yellow pages, let alone that they are necessary for the understanding of the subject of the page. Those links are inappropriate on these pages, and should indeed be 'wholesale' removed. Especially since an earlier discussion resulted in the consensus that these links were not appropriate along with other links on those pages. That consensus should first change before these links were re-included on the pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Being impersonated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user account with a very similar name to mine has been created earlier today. The use of a similar name to mine, the user page claiming it to be an alternate account for fun and its activity being disruptive edits to an article [82][83] I have edited as well, give it a high risk of being mistaken as being me or might even be an attempt to discredit me. I'm genuinely concerned and would like to know how best to deal with this situation. Tvx1 22:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This could be a possible sock who likes messing with editors either that or an editor with a grudge against you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User is blocked as a vandalism only account plus the apparent impersonation.JodyB _talk 22:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Various allegations about a living person at the Misc Ref Desk possibly violating WP:BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AJona1992 has, in the course of asking for advice on the article Murder of Selena, made a laundry list of accusations against another person. The question seems in good faith, but as no references are provided and they are statements about a crime I am bringing this edit to attention as a possible BLP violation. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I never intentionally made those comments for bashing or accusing a living person, they were merely just a list so that others who are not familiar with the topic can make their decision on whether or not an article of that matter was appropriate. I take full responsibility of writing what I wrote and blindly did so without the notion of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Again my apologies, jona^(talk) 01:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I also removed the text as requested by Medeis. I was just searching for help to see if the topic warrant its own article so that the murder article wouldn't cause tags of being overly detailed or be too long to read, I went to WP:Discussion which suggested that I give WP:Questions a try. Best, jona^(talk) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jona, I appreciate it, and certainly no need for you to apologize. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV-pushing and advertising at Sweet Briar College‎

Administrators of Sweet Briar College‎ recently announced that the small college will close this summer. Editors have begun using the article to advertise an effort to save the college. More eyes and editors would be very welcome; semi-protection may be justified. ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Leonard Nimoy

Joseph Prasad, after repeated warnings about his conduct has continued to edit war, edit tendentiously, and edit disruptively at the Leonard Nimoy article for several hours today. I'm not looking for a block, I'm not looking for anything punitive, just something from an administrator or another editor who Joseph might listen to in order to help him understand this behavior at any article is not acceptable and cannot continue unchecked. Another editor and myself have attempted at the article's talk page (here: [84]) to discuss the content dispute that seems to have started his behavior in a downward spiral. This is not the first time this editor has had difficulties with understanding guidelines and policy and has reacted in the same sort of manner with edit warring, tendentious editing, and the like and has been blocked once not long ago for edit warring {here:[85]). More than once he's tried playing the WP:DIVA card and has "quit" Wikipedia when challenged in regard to his edits and behavior (one example here: [86]). I have nothing personal against this editor, but I am personally tired of his repeated choices to be tendentious and disruptive even after editors have reached out to him and asked him to stop (most recent example from ATinySliver here: [87]). After the previous was offered, the editor responded by adding an unnecessary and inappropriate "needs citations" tag at the Nimoy article on a section that is well referenced. After it was reverted out and being told adding it was an inaccurate representation of the section's referencing, he responded by starting to place cite needed tags in the article rather than looking for references and improving the article himself. The tendentious and disruptive nature of his tagging is obvious in this edit summary [88] -- with the edit summary showing that he was more interested in winning than building the encyclopedia and improving the article. I think this editor can be a real asset, but when he goes down this road (as he has done often), he starts looking like a net negative. Any help or advice in the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This report makes it seem like you never do anything wrong. And the citation needed tags highlight what editors need to reference. If I have the time and motivation, eventually I'll get to it myself. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of putting on multiple tags in your limited available time, fix one or two of them, that would be much more helpful to the encyclopedia. Tagging is simply making someone else do the work that you think needs to be done - they should be used sparingly. BMK (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur tagging is not helpful. If tags actually made someone do the work they might be useful; they don't, so we end up with articles with tags from 2007 lingering around. NE Ent 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I see my name here, for clarity's sake: I have asked both to stop. I have no more to add beyond the article's talk page and the user's talk page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, why don't you look for references instead of just adding the citation needed template? If you can't find references then remove the text from the article as being unreferenced. Unreferenced text means it cannot be verified.--5 albert square (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the material I tagged, which had to do with Nimoy's television appearences, the only sites I have found from the first page of a google search was IMDb, and Nimoy tribute site, and TV.com, which are all unreliable sources, I'm sure. I switch in between just removing the material and adding those tags, the tags tell editors to add refs to those areas, removing the unreferenced info would take out A LOT of material out of the article. And I have different times where I focus on specific sites, and do other sites on the side. The weekdays are my major days for Wikipedia a lot of the time, from 4-10 PM, the main things I do on Weekends is remove vandalism and unsourced information. I don't have the time or motivation to add sources at the moment. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a genuine question as to the accuracy of the information, I think you should leave this alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did have a question as to the accuracy, since I know Nimoy's acting career well, just not of his small television appearances. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you do what BMK suggested above and add one or two references? That would be helpful. Or, if you can only find unreliable sources then remove the information as unsourced.--5 albert square (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If, as NYB says, an editor has actual reason to believe it's possibly / likely untrue. NE Ent 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you let him consider and accept the good advice he's been given, as opposed to telling him what to say in order to reject it? You're not his lawyer, and this is not a court of law, it's a project to build an encyclopedia, something you seem to be totally unaware of. Stop kibbitzing, stop Wikilawyering on behalf of other people, and start editing to build the encycylopedia. Otherwise, get the fuck out of here, you're deadweight. BMK (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IMDB is not necessarily reliable for trivia, quotes, etc., but it is acceptably reliable for mundane info such as cast-and-crew lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that really depends... I think IMDb can be quasi-trusted for cast-and-crew lists in regards to long-ago completed projects. But I sure wouldn't trust it for cast-and-crew lists for any movies and TV shows that haven't premiered yet!... In general, I think user-maintained databases like IMDb should be viewed with abject suspicion, at best. --IJBall (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• As Baseball Bugs says, IMDB is an acceptable and reliable source for screen credits, cast lists, and some awards. It's just not reliable for trivia, biographical information (except birth dates/place), quotations, other works, etc. To tag multiple screen credits in a biographical article which are easily verifiable via IMDB is indeed disruptive editing. Either add the cites yourself if you want the verification to be visible, or leave them be -- that's what the External Link to IMDB is for; that's why actor's articles have IMDB links at the top of their External Links. If you sincerely want to improve an article, add citations rather than WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:TAGBOMBING. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Would any of the editors in this discussion care to find a ref for any one of the citation needed tags? P.S. I did one.[89] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Bob! {{Cite web}} and {{cite news}} are the most common; click on either of those to go to the template page to view the parameters and how to use them. For example, your edit linked above would look like this:

• <ref>{{cite news|last1=Guttenberg|first1=Steve|last2=Higgins|first2=Bill|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leonard-nimoy-remembered-by-three-779357|title=Leonard Nimoy Remembered by ''Three Men and a Baby'' Star Steve Guttenberg|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|date=March 5, 2015|accessdate=March 8, 2015}}</ref>

Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Same sort of behaviour at Seth MacFarlane now. Removing genres from the infobox because they were unreferenced. However, a simple Google search referenced all of them and I think that some may have been referenced in the article already.--5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an overflow of genres, you only use genres used prominently throughout their career, and you told me to take it on to the talk page, and barely typed anything. And there were multiple genres that were redundant, such as Jazz, Vocal, and Vocal Jazz. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Sadly, the editor in question didn't heed any of the advise given here and went on to violate 3RR repeatedly. He's now blocked for 48 hours. I suppose this can be closed out now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:James "J.J." Evans, Jr.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ive looked at the various edits and unblock requests this user has made and considering that in spite of admins looking at his requests various times and pointing out how hes blatantly breaching policy he comes back for more and still has talk page access. Therefore I propose that we ban this user indefinitely without access to their talk page and am looking for us to vote on my proposal so an admin can then implement this via technical measures. 87.114.135.71 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think a ban seems unnecessary at this point considering he's already indefinitely blocked, but I would support removal of talk page access due to his abuse of the {{unblock}} template. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As if that werent bad enough he's generally abusing his talk page for other purposes as well as you can see here. 87.114.135.71 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That can be solved by simply revoking talk page access.Epic Genius (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WOT Services

Please take a look at the activity over at WOT Services. The article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company. For a few years now user Weatherfug has been obstructing critical edits. When the article is edited for balance or when the unbalanced tag is applied, the user claims vandalism. Recently, the admin JZG has become involved. He uses his administrative powers to push his editorial agenda. Readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page. Instead they revert without discussion.

JZG has offered the explanation "Nobody cares" in his edit summary. I suggest that if the user does not care about article quality, that he refrain from editing it. Many users have voiced their dissatisfaction on the talk page. Many have tried to edit the article over the years, only to be discouraged by obstructionist reversions.

Weatherfug's last comments on the page are "The discussion is over" In lieu of discussing the issue the users posts on JZW's talk page. Previously Weatherfug had been posting on multiple notice boards in an attempt to exclude IPs from editing. Respondents at these noticeboards noted that "The IP editor has a point" and the NPOV board found that the article was unbalanced. During this time I did not attempt to edit the article due to the apparent futility of the process. I had been simply tagging the article as unbalanced.

After a 3rd opinion which established that the article was unbalanced, I found a source at The Nation which was previously unused in the article. After I had posted the source on the talk page, Weatherfug did decide to include it. However, his wording misconstrued the critical information provided by the source in an apologetic tone. As I was advised by a 3rd opinion editor that I must edit the article myself, I attempted to clarify what was written at The Nation. Unfortunately, the predictable pattern of obstruction has continued.

I do not expect that users will always agree 100% on article content. However the techniques used to exclude and discourage others at WOT Services seem contrary to Wikipedia's goals. Apologies in advance if this is not the right place to bring this issue.36.252.1.178 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I read the talk page going back to December. You seem to have been trying to add this material for a long time, this poorly verified and trite material verified only here in an FAQ, not an article written by a journalist and vetted by an editorial board, about an incredibly minor thing--minor in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that at the time it was a considerable nuisance to The Nation, though what time that was, no one knows, since the FAQ isn't even dated. I assume your NPOV tag is based on the exclusion of the Nation material, and is thus also invalid.

  What we have here is stonewalling, wikilawyering of the worst kind, in a passive-aggressive way that no doubt greatly irritates other editors. Whether JzG is involved in some article content or not is irrelevant: any admin who looks into this would have semi-protected it, and if the IP keeps this up then maybe the talk page ought to be protected as well. As far as I'm concerned, this IP should be topic-banned from this article. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The source was perfectly acceptable for Weatherfug & JZG when it was being misconstrued. Why is it suddenly unacceptable when it is clarified? The reason given in the edit summary was that it is a blog. If JZG had stated that it were unacceptable because it is a FAQ page, we would not be here. Is The Nation a blog? The other reason given was a section heading issue, which was addressed. I am no wikilawyer, if anything I am less familiar with how things work here than others. I have repeatedly asked other's opinions. In fact, I asked before inserting the passage, but no one had anything to say. Others who are concerned with the balance of the article have already been driven off.36.252.1.178 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For a period of at least two years, a series of IPs all, I am told, geolocating to Nepal (I haven't checked because it is pretty obviously all one person or a small group of people) have been relentlessly adding poorly sourced negative material to this article and tagging is as biased, any time the material is removed or toned down. The specific text being edit-warred in by the IP at the moment is a section headed Inaccurate ratings, based on the story of an apparent false positive affecting The Nation and supported only by an FAQ page on The Nation's own website. The only thing that can be said for this version is that it is better than Inaccurate and Biased Ratings which was the IP's original preferred title (and also edit-warred when someone tried to tone it down).

All the IP has ever had to do is to bring reliable independent secondary sources to substantiate the veracity and significance of these errors. I can't trace any attempt to do so, or any evidence of understanding of our sourcing guidelines. In short, then, this is almost certainly a single user with a bee in their bonnet. Only one thing surprises me: that the complaints concern a political magazine. The major source of claims of bias against WOT is the subculture of quacks and conspiracy kooks. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am tangentially involved in this dispute, having offered a 3O last December (after which I unwatched it). Looking at what has happened since, it seems to me that the case belongs on the Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. Since it is here, however, I would like to note a couple of things that disturb me:

1. WeatherFug has consistently addressed the IP with the patronizing "Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP". On JzG's talk page this has become "Troll with the ever changing Nepalese IP". This is uncivil and he should be asked to stop.
2. JzG, very much a party to the dispute, has protected the page twice, on 30 January and yesterday. This looks to me like an abuse of admin privileges.

I would be happy to offer an opinion on the content issue if it was raised in the proper forum. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a party to enforcing WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. That is pretty much the entirety of my involvement with that article. If people want to add properly sourced critique then they can go right ahead. Anonymous hatchet jobs? Not so much. I do think a review of Weatherfug's contributions is probably worth doing. I haven't looked precisely because I don't want to get drawn in. As I stated above, all the anon has to do to get his preferred content into the article is to bring some half-decent sources to the talk page. I am an occasional user of WOT, I have no connection to it and don't give a damn beyond what is said in Wikipedia's voice based on self-evidently inadequate sourcing. As an aside, the IP should register an account, that would make it much easier for the other editors of the article to interact with him.

If I thought WP:DR would help, I'd have sent them there. I don't think the IP is interested resolving the dispute and I don't suppose Weatherfug is either. The immediate question of whether we should include a section calling into question the reliability of a service based on a single incident documented only on the website of the other party to the dispute, answers itself. Poorly sourced negative material comes out until it has been discussed. The IP believes the opposite, hence I semi-protected the article. The parties can work it out on Talk, during which time we do not say, with Wikipedia's voice, that WOT is biased based on the say-so of a political website without the benefit of any independent review or coverage. Because, you know, this is kind of obvious.

Standard terms apply: any admin who thinks the action should be undone, is free to do so. I personally don't see any other way of controlling this relentless addition of poorly sourced material, but if someone else wants to take a shot then be my guest. I am off to spend the day singing Poulenc's mass in G and a requiem by Pizzetti so can't respond quickly in the mean time. If an IP address geolocating to Goring-on-Thames adds a section to the article on Francis Poulenc to the effect that he hated basses, sourced to a scan of the closing bars of the Gloria, you'll know who it was. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your motives, you were reverting the IP's and ScrapIronIV's edits – with tendentious edit summaries – and you were involved in discussion on the talk page. Therefore you were a party to the dispute. As an admin you know there is a page for requesting protection. You should have gone there if you wanted the page protected. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page and the edits I have made. Decide for yourself if JzG is presenting the issue fairly in his telling of the story. (and also edit-warred when someone tried to tone it down). I repeatedly tried to engage on the talk page. I did modify what I reinserted to respect the concerns of others. I am interested in resolving this dispute. I have asked for compromise. I do ask for good faith. Where I could have been more polite, I apologize and recognize that I can improve. The passage was being misconstrued in a way that implied the mistake was on the part of The Nation, when the source clearly stated that the user responsible for the negative rating admitted fault. Look at the contributions of others who have also spoken to the unbalanced nature of the write-up. Even the NPOV board said as much. Anonymous hatchet jobs Is it appropriate to pressure IPs into registering? all the anon has to do to get his preferred content into the article is to bring some half-decent sources to the talk page You removed it stating that it was a blog. I agreed that the word bias was not appropriate because I can not reference the disclaimer used by WOT, as that is primary sourcing. Because The Nation is not a blog I put the passage back, without the word bias. Before inserting this passage I asked for your comment. You say all I need to do is find an appropriate source, but when I do find a source, it is misconstrued. When I clarify, the source is no longer acceptable for you. This seems duplicitous to me. Naturally, I can continue to find more sources, but it seems a bit futile if I am going to be obstructed at every step. The name calling etc. is not important to me. We are all adults here, you may use whatever language you feel is most suitable. I am not here to complain about those things. However, I do expect a logically consistent discussion that focuses on the content of my actions, not my identity, where I reside, or how I connect to the Internet via dynamic IP addresses. I can only take responsibility for my actions. I am not responsible for the lack of competent ISPs in my area.36.252.1.189 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"For a period of at least two years, a series of IPs all, I am told, geolocating to Nepal (I haven't checked because it is pretty obviously all one person or a small group of people) have been relentlessly adding poorly sourced negative material" I had only tagged the article until after the 3rd opinion, when I was advised to edit the article. Check for yourself. Why does JzG seek to misrepresent this? 36.252.1.189 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A more pertinent question is, why are you so determined to insert poorly sourced negative material? I have no problem with properly sourced criticism in that article, the issue has always been that the content of the (usually tendentiously titled) WP:CRITICISM section has never had anything approaching proper sourcing. The solution is, just as it always has been for over two years, bring better sources. Or give up. Either works, in a way that constantly adding poorly sourced critical material does not. Per policy. WP:RS has strong support, WP:NPOV requires reliable sources for critical commentary, whereas WP:LETMEADDTHISPRIMARYSOURCEDCRITICISM ORTHEARTICLEISAWHITEWASH is not widely accepted. Your edits were disruptive. You can fix that by sourcing them properly or stopping. End of. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Weatherfug added the source after I posted it on the talk page. You reverted to Weatherfug's version of the passage when you were edit warring with ScrapIronIV. If the source is unacceptable, why did you not remove it at that time? The source was acceptable when it was being misconstrued. When it was clarified, you objected. The edit history and talk page covers it all. Readers should check there and decide for themselves.36.252.1.189 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire: YOu say tendentious edit summaries. The text I removed was:

Political magazine [[The Nation]] received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. The Nation inquired with the user responsible for the rating, who admitted that he had erroneously rated the domain. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating.<ref>{{cite web|title=FAQ: Web of Trust|url=http://www.thenation.com/web-trust|date=|accessdate=17 January 2015|publisher=[[The Nation]]}}</ref> On March 31, 2014 a WOT power user (who's ratings carry greater weight than others) had negatively rated the domain, accusing it of distributing [[malware]].

The statement that "nobody cares" is not tendentious. If anybody cared. there would, by now, be a reliable secondary source for this repeatedly added text. I do not care about the text (or indeed the article subject), I do care about the relentless addition of critical material of this nature based solely on the self-published content of an involved party. Excluding such content is not even remotely controversial. I have no idea where I first heard fo the article, most likely it was OTRS, all I know is that when I see junk content like that in an article, I remove it, as any Wikipedian should. If supported by reliable sources, I would have done nothing. It never has been. Over a looooooong time. Sooner or later, the obvious has to be done. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

self-published content of an involved party. Can you please explain how this is relevant to the discussion? Where did you remove self-published material from the article?36.252.1.189 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that JzG should not have used his admin priviledges to settle a content dispute in which he is a participant. Whether this constitutes an "abuse" of privileges is up for debate, although I note that JzG was recently warned not to invoke his admin status during a content dispute, so he should have been a little more careful in this aspect. As for his usage of tendentious language, I think there is a fine line between being direct and being abusive, but JzG has clearly crossed this line when he began to use words like "fucking ridiculous" and "I have been an admin since a long time before your first edit". As far as don't bite the newcomers is concerned, this recent attempt to invoke one's admin status during a content dispute is completely uncalled for. It is an inexcusable action because this administrator had already been warned not to do that. -A1candidate 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What you fail to recognise is that I am not part of the content dispute. All I did was to remove poorly sourced, contentious, negative material. We're supposed to do that. I have no opinion about the inclusion of material itself, should those determined to include it ever get round to finding a reliable source. That's my only "involvement" with the article: as janitor. This is not like the many disputes I have had with you (you were going to mention that, weren't you, in a spirit of transparency?). Sure, you think it's unforgivable. You think my mere existence is unforgivable, this is abundantly clear by now. Quackery supporters and long-time Wikipedians tend not to get on, that's just how it goes.

And now to get back t othe complaint at top.

• The IP complains that "Weatherfug has been obstructing critical edits". That is arguably true, but would need diffs where he has opposed properly sourced critical edits.
• The IP claims that "when the article is edited for balance or when the unbalanced tag is applied, the user claims vandalism". That is a serious misrepresentation. The IP claims that the article is unbalanced on the grounds that poorly sourced negative material is not included. The IP has only to produce reliable independent sources to substantiate the significance of the claims, and the problem goes away. That has not been done. The IP's version of the article being "edited for balance" is, as the article history plainly shows, to include poorly-sourced negative material. The solution is, and always has been, bring better sources to substantiate the relevance and signficance of the material. What the IP is actually doing is tendentious editing.
• The IP claims "admin JZG [...] uses his administrative powers to push his editorial agenda". I have no editorial agenda, other than the removal of poorly sourced negative material, something every Wikipedian is required to do.
• The IP states: "readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page". This is simply false. On the talk page right now is a section titled "recent reverts" where I explain exactly what people need to do to include this content.
• The IP states "the article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company", I see no proof. There is a clear implication that I am one of these. This is entirely false. I have no idea about Weatherfug and haven't looked, it is legitimate to wonder why the IP is so very determined to include this content and whether the IP perhaps has some undeclared external agenda, but my employer is not a secret and I have never had any connection whatsoever with WOT other than as an occasional user.

The problem for me here is the idea of "involvement creep". There aren't may admins given the numbers of articles and disputes. If every admin becomes "involved" the first time they take any action on an article, then all the POV pusher have to do is keep going until they run out of active admins. It won't take long.

I'm happy to leave someone else to police this article. The addition of poorly-sourced negative material is forbidden by policy, and whether or not the IP manages to drive away Weatherfug, me or both, the same will apply. That content cannot go into the article unless and until it is properly sourced. A three minute review of the content, its inclusion and the tendentious headings under which it has been included, is all you need to see that this is an obvious case where anybody would have done the same.

As I say, I have no idea what first drew me to the article, the edit summaries indicate it may have been this request by Scolaire at the NPOV board, which accurately summarises the problem needing intervention at that time. Whatever it was, it was not a desire to edit the article, it was a specific complaint about non-compliant content. I have not looked at the claims of conflicted editing, they may have merit, albeit that no specific evidence has been provided other than that the supposed conflicted editors oppose inclusion of poorly sourced negative material. ScrapironIV is not a problem, Weatherfug may be, the IP definitely is. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

JzG is definitely involved in the content dispute as evidenced by the following diffs:

• JzG made a controversial edit to the article on 26 December 2014 [90]
• JzG was reverted by ScrapIronIV [91], In the edit summary, ScrapIronIV told JzG to participate in the talk page and NPOV Noticeboard discussions
• JzG ignored ScrapIronIV 's request for talk-page discussion and continued edit-warring [92]
• JzG then invoked his administrator status in the midst of a content dispute [93], despite being warned recently not to do that [94]
• JzG made his third controversial edit to the article by reverting ScrapIronIV yet again [95]
• JzG's controversial edits were opposed by both ScrapIronIV and the IP but he blatantly ignored them and continued edit-warring [96][97]
• JzG, very much a party to the dispute, has protected the page twice, on 30 January and 6 March 2015, after persistent edit-warring with the IP [98]

As shown by the above diffs, JzG's claim that this is not a content dispute is a complete lie. He not only participated in the dispute, but continued to engage in edit-warring and invoked his admin status in the midst of the content dispute. He bites the newcomers [99][100], views himself as a "long-time Wikipedian" [101], attacks other editors by calling them "apologist" in the edit summary [102] and accuses me of being a "quackery supporter" [103]. Surely, these personal attacks and abuse of administrative privileges must stop. -A1candidate 11:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED contains the "any reasonable administrator" clause. Given the semi-protection has been reviewed and endorsed by another admin, that is not of concern to me. What is of primary concern is JzG's statement: What you fail to recognise is that I am not part of the content dispute. All I did was to remove poorly sourced, contentious, negative material. We're supposed to do that. I have no opinion about the inclusion of material itself, should those determined to include it ever get round to finding a reliable source. That's my only "involvement" with the article: as janitor. indicates a lack of understanding of "involved" -- specifically admins have only been authorized/tasked by arbcom to act in this editorial capacity for WP:BLP issues; as WOT Services is not a person that is not applicable.

Of much greater concern is JzG's repeated failure to meet the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." As arbcom recently explained: "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others."

If the scope was limited to just this incident, I'd simply make the statement above and move on; however, given the recent AE warning I'd like to see an acknowledgement / commitment from JzG to abide by WP:ADMINACCT moving forward. NE Ent 13:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent - Does this mean that Guy is your next victim, the next admin you're going to go after and attempt to get desysopped? Do you undertake this campaign because you know that you will never be an admin?

Go edit some damn articles and make yourself useful. BMK (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IP claims that the article is unbalanced on the grounds that poorly sourced negative material is not included When did I claim this? The article is unbalanced because it takes an apologist PR tone. Check the edits which misconstrue The Nation's FAQ. Decide for yourself if that is balanced. Others have tagged it as reading like an advertisement. The NPOV board said the article had problems. Did the NPOV board take this view because there are not enough poorly sourced passages? I am not the only user who has voiced concerns about this issue. The consensus was to edit the article for balance.

"readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page". Did you engage on the talk page or just lock the article and ignore the proposed edit? I left the proposal up there for almost a week. If you had offered guidance or any feedback at all we would not be here. When I reinserted the passage, I did it in a way to address the concerns you mentioned. If you had other concerns, you could have shared them. You still have not addressed the seemingly duplicitous nature of how you determined that the source is unacceptable, after having previously allowed it.

"the article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company" I see no proof. There is a clear implication that I am one of these. I am referencing the talk page, near the top. Cursory research would have revealed this. My expectation was that an administrator would review these things. Maybe I was wrong to make that assumption. I will try to be more explicit in the future, although I fear that I have already become too long-winded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#References_and_POV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#NPOV_question https://www.mywot.com/en/blog/123-wot-publicity-awards-2008 Deborah S. is the WOT PR spokeswoman. The previous conflict of interest edits should be considered here, along with the apologetic tone of the article. I can not rationally accuse JzG of being involved in this. I have no way of providing evidence to support those accusations.

The way JzG presents the issues here seems dishonest in my view. Maybe this is due to my lack of experience. Maybe it is not, as others seem to have similar problems with his behavior. JzG's history of warnings speaks to this. Again, I ask readers to review the talk page and edit history before deciding for themselves.

I am not perfect. In fact, I am an inexperienced user. Why not offer guidance instead of making (seemingly inaccurate) accusations? I recognize that I might have taken a higher road on the talk page. In fairness, WeatherFug was confrontational from the beginning. My actions were quite mild as compared to the treatment I was given. I am open to criticism, especially specific instructions on how to navigate a situation like this. I know, you will say: "post reliable sources". I will find more sources. Finding The Nation took a bit of effort, but I am sure I can find more. My issue here is that the source was acceptable for JzG & WeatherFug, until it was reported accurately. Finding more sources is futile if I will be obstructed in the same manner. ScrapIronIV observed the same.

If JzG or WeatherFug are penalized, it is not my business. Resolution for me simply means stopping the obstruction. A pledge to edit in good faith would suffice in my opinion. Retribution does not solve anything for me. From the beginning there has been an adversarial tone. Initially this concerned my use of a dynamic IP. Can we move forward from this, and bring this issue to a close?36.252.1.183 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the article or talk page, but removal of WP:BLP violations from an article, and warning those adding them, does not make one an involved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Did Arthur Rubin even read this thread before making that irrelevant comment? WOT Services is not a person and this [104] is not a BLP issue. NE Ent 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your report above contains all those things. I fully understand that you believe your edits to be peerlessly neutral, of vital importance to the subject, and to fail to include them is a fundamental abrogation of Wikipedia's mission. And all you have to do to get your way is to produce reliable independent sources to substantiate the importance of the matter. Have you thought of trying that? I did suggest it on talk. You chose to reinsert the text without independent sources instead, which of course is unacceptable. I'm encouraged that you're now discussing things but shouldn't you be discussing the content on the Talk page? With reliable independent sources of course...

That is all you've ever had to do. Just saying. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for that. I do not claim that anyone is possible of holding an unbiased view. In my view, we all have our biases. Please do not make these unfounded accusations. It does not help. The rest of your response is just talking past what I have posted above. Please address what I have written.

...determined that the source is unacceptable, after having previously allowed it. This is the part where in my view, you push your editorial agenda. 36.252.1.181 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there is a need. It is not me who determines that the source is unacceptable, it's policy and guidance. I'm happy to talk you through that on the article's talk page, but in simple terms, in order for Wikipedia to accuse a service of being biased we require sources independent of the two parties, with some degree of editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. You will find, somewhere, a trenchant critic of just about everything, however Uncontroversial. Wikipedia does not, by design, weigh these things up according to our own beliefs, we defer to independent sources. In as much as I can make anything of the claim at issue, a WOT user mis-classified a site. The site asserts that this was a deliberate, evil and suppressive act, a clear violation of Hanlon's Razor on the face of it. The reader can't judge the merit of the claim because no trusted source, no analysis is provided. See the problem? Guy (Help!) 06:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for_inaccurate_hyperbole. Early on the talk page, I outlined my personal bias. I asked for help from more experienced editors. Not sure why you think there is a need to characterize my activities in that way.

The site asserts that this was a deliberate, evil and suppressive act... I am not seeing that anywhere on the source I posted. In fact, that was what I was clarifying. "For bullet point two, we did contact the original user who left the bad comment on elabs10.com and he said it was a mistake." So as you suggest, it was a mistake on the part of a WOT user. This is the content I inserted. We need to be on the same page. ScrapIronIV posted this in an edit summary. The way WeatherFug had composed the passage made it sound as if the error was on the part of The Nation. However, I will agree that on the WOT page there was plenty of the back and forth you describe. That is by the wayside, because the WOT page was not the source. Before deeming it an unreliable source you restored the passage written by WeatherFug. So at one time, you had interpreted The Nation's FAQ as a reliable source. Maybe you can appreciate how this gives the appearance that you were interested in promoting the view presented by WeatherFug's version which misconstrues the source.

For the 'bias' part, I removed that at your suggestion. It had been added initially because I made the mistake of referencing a disclaimer used at WOT. ScrapIronIV explained that this was an unacceptable use of primary sourcing, so I left that out.

Of course I will gladly continue this discussion with you or others at the article's talk page. For example, I responded to your assertion that The Nation is a blog. It is a magazine. If you had participated and said 'Well, actually this is a FAQ page which is unacceptable', I would not have used the source again. I gave it about a week before I re-inserted. Before we can discuss it there, you must participate. Reading the talk page, the content of edits, and the sources being contested might be part of that.

Again, I ask you to try to see it from my side. Not participating, being a bit abrasive(without logic or checking the facts - otherwise speak how you like), and then locking the article. It does not show you in a light of an impartial arbiter who simply wishes to adhere to policy. While the rules are definite, the interpretation is subjective. From where I stand it looks like you were willing to bend them for the benefit of WOT & WeatherFug. It gave the appearance that you locked the article because the source was not a blog and you could not produce further objections. Put this in the context of an article which has long-term neutrality problems and a history of edits by company PR staff. Maybe now you can see my side of it.36.252.1.158 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing to come back from a weekend off to see this here. I came across this article when it was posted on Third Opinion, and was surprised at its lack of content. I looked through the history, saw a consistent and concerted series of edits over an extensive period of time to remove any negative content from the article. This was being done by a user who, at the time, was not contributing to any other article here. It looked single purpose to me. Doing some research into WOT Services, I found a lot of controversy - but any small attempt to contribute was reverted. I tried to get involved, and found myself being accused of being a sockpuppet [105] from an Admin. I was an autoconfirmed user, so when the article was protected, the admin chose to protect it for Admin only. It seemed like an extreme action to me, as this is generally used for only truly contentious articles. I have seen on these boards what the sockpuppet accusation means, and pretty much decided to stop trying to contribute to the article. So, while I am a fairly new contributor, I gave up. I got bitten pretty hard by these users, and life is too short to get into warring contests. Long story short, it has colored how and when I edit articles. I'll occasionally correct a spelling error, or polish up some grammar, but it's just not worth fighting all the time. All of this discussion about editor retention, but no one really cares when a newbie is welcomed with bites, insults, threats, and accusations of sockpuppetry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to join me in patiently explaining to our new friend what Wikipedia requires in a source, and why a blatantly misrepresented primary source is a poor starting point for critical content. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, re: sources, I just want to add that your explanation to me last month about RS was nothing short of excellent. I thought it might be helpful to share it here. [106] Atsme☯^Consult 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Reporting User:Mabelina for repeated disruptive editing over the Venerable Order of Saint John article name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Mabelina is engaging in repeated disruptive editing over the issue of the correct name for the Venerable Order of Saint John article. She insists that the article name should be "Most Venerable Order of Saint John" and has been changing and edit warring with me over this on the Order of St. John disambiguation page. She has also canvassed my support for her proposed name change and has repeatedly ignored my formal request to stop contacting me on my talk page. As can be seen from her talk page she has a history of thinking that she knows what is correct and ignoring information and advice offered by other editors. In my estimation her behaviour is not only obsessive but also strays into stalking. I cannot provide diffs at present as I haven't worked out how to do so but it should not be too difficult to observe the problems on the pages I've mentioned and / or linked to. Your assistance will be appreciated. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting: in response to the above acccusations - I find the whole debacle utterly dismaying to start with. I make a huge effort to contribute to Wikipedia on subjects about which I know a great deal, and take care to explain my thought processes where they are either challenged or perhaps not understood. In this instance, Afterwriting interjected first (as you will see when you look into the archive history) & when asked (not canvassed) by me as to why it has now led to this situation. No doubt Afterwriting performs an important role but when it comes to matters of fact and fails to provide an answer save that I'll be reported - how can this be deemed helpful and collaborative-type behavior. This MOS issue blew up with one of Afterwriting's compatriots very recently & seems to transcend all other matters (including getting the facts straight) in their eyes. The unfavourable history which Afterwriting cites echoes the unfounded accusations made by Anglicanus and I hope you appreciate how dismaying it is to have another repeat performance. Stalking / obsession - who contacted whom to start with? My sole concern is to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles which I believe is more than borne out by my contributions. Meantime this whole issue about the Order of St John has certainly got very heated - but when one knows categorically something is incorrect, but gets confronted with a vociferous minority of activists who swear blind to the contrary, despite having having themselves produced (perhaps inadvertently) evidence supporting the point I raised, what to do? I sincerely hope that Wikipedia's integrity won't be allowed to be compromised in this way. By the way, if my point of view is overruled so be it, but to be harangued like this cannot be for the good of our most worthwhile project. I shall be very happy to answer any queries you may have - looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Where to begin?! Firstly, Mabelina's claim that I first made contact with her is simply false as can be easily confirmed by anyone who wants to be bothered to find out. The fact is that she initiated contact with me out of the blue about this article. I have no interest in the article and really couldn't care less what it is called. Secondly, I consider these comments of hers on my talk page as a form of canvassing: "Hi Afterwriting: I have proposed that the article currently entitled Venerable Order of Saint John be renamed as Most Venerable Order of Saint John, for the reasons stated on the Talk page. I trust you will be supportive of this move. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)". It seems that the repeated and ongoing problem with User:Mabelina is that she thinks her opinions on what is right on such matters always trumps the MoS and the views and consensus of other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can easily point out where to begin. It is not worthy of an exclamation mark about one view trumping the other, unless one party thinks this is some sort of game and has an agenda (which they will pursue at almost all costs). It is not at all amusing, not least since time could be better spent on other matters, but since a report has been filed I should defend my corner. 1. User:Afterwriting made the first move by deleting my edit & posting a message to say so. 2. If Afterwriting couldn't care less what the article is called why get involved? 3. I have already detailed to Afterwriting (in an attempt to conciliate, but subsequently deleted by him, that the wording "I trust" is equivalent to "I hope" at least in my parlance - it has no more forceful resonance than that) so to try to blow the issue up over this gives me the strong impression that Afterwriting is looking for an argument rather than making any attempt at being collaborative. Again welcome any further queries, and the sooner this increasingly partisan and vexed issue of the proper styling of the Order of St John is determined the better it will be - many thanks & looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina's comments become more and more false and more and more strange. I have checked my editing history on the Venerable Order of Saint John article. My only edits, both minor style ones, were on 11 February 2015, a day after Mabelina had sought to bring my attention to it on my talk page and requesting my help with it. I did not "delete" any edit on the article by Mabelina or "post" any kind of "message". All that I did was simply correct the way that the order's Latin motto was styled in the info box ~ with the simple edit summaries of 1. "Style" and 2. "Fix". This was hardly getting "involved" in the article. As Mabelina again indicates in her most recent comments on here, the only edits she will apparently accept are those that she personally agrees with regardless of other editors' opinions, consensus or the MoS. When they don't she becomes combative and disruptive instead of collaborative. I removed our messages on my talk page because she was continuing to harass me even after I had formally asked her to stop posting. Anyone interested can read these messages in my talk page history. Afterwriting (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Afterwriting - the only reason we came into contact today is because you reverted my edit about the Most Venerable Order of Saint John & I asked you why. It would never have crossed my mind to contact you otherwise, so let's just wait for the Tribunal to adjudicate because clearly there is little to be gained from discussing matters with you directly. I should just point out though, that meantime I have made some amendments (& I am not promoting them as improvements, in case you blow your top) to the Most Venerable Order of Saint John article. I await to hear from the Administrators. M Mabelina (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. I find it disgraceful that you continue attempting to spread muck attached to my name and trust that people see through it.

Anyone interested can check that I have not made any reverts to the article page either today or any other day. I have, however, today reverted User:Mabelina's repeated edit war change of the article name on the Order of St. John disambiguation page. I believe this is entirely appropriate given that (1) such pages should normally include article names as they actually currently are instead of being piped and not as someone insists they should be and (2) there is currently a name change proposal discussion on the Venerable Order of Saint John discussion page and this process should be respected and not bypassed. Afterwriting (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprised if this is your latest tactic to give the impression that Mabelina is a disruptive editor and therefore the proposed article name change is not worth supporting. However, apart from clearly having nothing better to do and little understanding of the subject matter, the facts don't support your evident opposition to the proper styling of the order as Most Venerable. I suggest we now keep silent until we hear from the Administrators - do you concur? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Such comments reveal the nub of the problem. Despite there being no basis whatsoever in fact, User:Mabelina feels free to make combative comments about what she perceives to be my hidden motives. I have not expressed any comments at all about "the proper styling of the order". Despite this Mabelina thinks she can read my mind on the subject. I could not give a crap what the order is or should be called. Afterwriting (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎121.243.113.135 - removing referenced edit

Hi, ‎121.243.113.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is removing referenced edits in a series of places articles related to WP India. Please help.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The activity stopped about 5 hours ago. I have warned the user. If the problem resumes, a better place to report it is at WP:AIV. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

IP says Jeremy Tolleson wants his bio deleted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jeremy Tolleson is a retired soccer player, who earned WP:Notability after a short article in a WP:RS announced his retirement. 190.92.93.227 (talk) made the following edits to his page:

• blanked it
• replaced it with "Non authorized." and
• nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion "[subject in article wants the page to be deleted]".

They were reverted each time, with template warnings, by Amaury (via Huggle), ClueBot, and Amaury again.

WP:BIODEL seems to suggest that we should probably delete as a bio of a non-public figure who has requested deletion, if and only if the IP can provide evidence (emailed to an admin) that they represent Tolleson's wishes, possibly after a formal deletion discussion. For now, per WP:DOLT, I've left advice on the IP's talk page and temporarily courtesy blanked the bio with a note on its talk page. I hope I haven't done anything to make the situation worse, but I think I need experienced help to move this forward. FourViolas (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The last one could go either way, but the first two edits the IP made were very typical vandal behavior (not calling the IP a vandal, just saying it's vandal behavior). Plus, we can't be sure if the IP is or represents the person in the article. Typically, in these situations, it's usually best to take it to the talk page of the article and reach a consensus. However, I'm open to any ideas or further feedback anyone else has. :) - Amaury (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to question your behavior. I almost did the same when I saw it on Huggle, until I remembered WP:DOLT. I agree we need evidence that the IP represents Tolleson, and explained as much (and how to confidentially provide that evidence) on their talk page and the article talk. I know the blanking is unorthodox, but I thought it was probably justified given the paltriness of the pageviews relative to the potential for angering an unwilling biographee. FourViolas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take it the wrong way. No worries. I don't think you made the wrong call, either. :) - Amaury (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit Warring with a sock at Jeff Cooper

IP editor User talk:99.242.102.111 is edit warring over a long period while logged out from their account User:Hga. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) [[107]]

I am not involved in any edit warring anywhere, and neither am I a "sock puppet" for Hga. Users User talk:64.134.157.208/User talk:172.56.9.232/User talk:208.54.38.247 actually appear to be WP:CAN and have been posting essentially the same material, and vandalising selected articles according to their POV, with the same wording in many different places. They are all from Oklahoma. As Hga points out, below, I am in Ontario, Canada, and I do not know Hga. 99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You've just deleted a fair quantity of content in small slices across this article - content that has been there for over a year. Can you explain in any more detail please, to make it more obvious to those unfamiliar with the article, just what's going on here? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty appalled to be accused of using a sock puppet, when 99.242.102.111 AKA CPE602ad08d9143-CM602ad08d9140.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com isn't even in my country! rogers.com is Canada's biggest cable company, me, I hope somewhat obviously, am a resident of the USA and logging in from AT&T in SW Missouri. I know better than to get into an edit war of any type, which is why I'll be replacing all references to on-line copies of Cooper's Commentaries with ones from the published books which are on order, which BTW I mentioned in the talk page.

We have an anonymous Wikipedia editor who in his last edit issued a (repeat) threat "do not reinsert terrible sources and quotes from them or I will put on notice board period". Maybe this is worthy of being put on this notice board, but the anonymous editor needs to look elsewhere.

As for the issue, this editor does not like the provenance of some of the references to Cooper's Commentaries, and believes e.g. the authorized bibliography of Coopers writings is "linkspam". I for one do not know how to deal with the latter, especially from an editor who does not log in, makes these sorts of accusations, and escalates so readily. Advice would be sincerely appreciated. Hga (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe this editor has also been edit warring on Hoplophobia, especially since I see he's accused me of using a sock puppet on that page, one I don't even have on my watch list.... Hga (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, 64, you appear to be edit warring while IP hopping yourself. You're the one trying to introduce a contested change to the article, which Hga originally reverted with what seems to be a perfectly reasonable response. Meanwhile you (or another IP?) apparently responded by labeling the reversion as vandalism and edit warring over it. That's not how we do things around here. I'm going to restore and protect the stable version of the page for awhile so you can discuss the change you want to make. Swarm... ^—X— 00:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:64.134.157.208 has also done the same thing with Hoplophobia. If anything, he, User talk:172.56.9.232 and User talk:208.54.38.247 are the sock puppets pushing the same POV. As Hga points out, I am in Ontario, Canada and I do not know Hga. 99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hga and IP 99 are both the same and keep trying to re add material from blogs claiming they are legitimate sources and the article history shows they have been tendentious editing the article for a long time with many editors being reverted who have raised issues with their use of blogs as sources. IP 99 has even reverted several time in a 24 hour period over the last week. He is also making up lies about canvassing to include his half baked claims sourced from blogs. The article is clearly being owned by Hga and IP 99 as its history shows. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any administrator who can access my IP address will be able to confirm that 99.242.102.111 and I are at least a thousand miles apart. I would appreciate it if you stopped these unfounded accusations (99.242.102.111 and I don't even have similar editing styles), and then take this to the talk page, where there is already a section on the issues you have with with the page, and we can stop bothering the administrators. Hga (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you want a check user and that would be great. None the less you are both including material from fringe blogs which in no way meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and you were recently warned of that and you deleted and reinserted your crappy sources and material. You have been editing (owning) the article for years. You have had plenty of time to find reliable sources and clearly have not done that so your material must be deleted IAW policy. Find a source that meets the reliable source guidelines before reinserting material about a person who died in the last 10 years. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• ODD Hga has not edited in days but shows up here right away with IP 99 who is currently editing. Very odd but not for a sock. Something fishy. More tag team behavior. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am involved in an Articles for deletion discussion on a programming language, where you will find my last edit prior to this page about 13 hours ago. Since I'm monitoring that discussion, I picked up your ANI notice rather quickly.

Is there any way you can start assuming good faith on my part, or ... well, I don't know; again, advice is solicited. Hga (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

64.134.157.208 SPI or shut it. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, I only suggested what I've learned is CheckUser because in this case it would rule out anything but one of the two of us using a hijacked computer, which I suppose is not beyond some sock puppeteers. But I agree it should be a last resort. Textual analysis, however, is soon going to be even more difficult for Number 64, since I just got the first two volumes of Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, through the year 2000, and after lunch will start updating the references. In short order see the Jeff Cooper talk page for more details. Hga (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Giorgi Shermadini

This user @31.192.54.173: keeps edit warring with me on uncited falsehood. Kochag is a Georgian word meaning "bravo".

I have already notified him to stop.

hist google results --Dixtosa (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've given the user a warning about it, and asked at WP:RPP for a temporary semi-protection. If it continues, come back here or report to WP:3RR (for edit warring). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some time ago, I blocked a user, and I've just gotten a talk page notification that he's back as a sock. However, I've temporarily resigned admin rights, so I'll have to leave it up to someone else to take care of the situation. Here's the message left on my talk page:

Hello, it seems you had blocked this user [[108]] (Billybowden311) some time ago for extensive demonstrated hoaxing. He has returned now on a sock account with (almost) exactly the same name, namely User:Billybowden211, same article interest, and of course same behavioural habit of hoaxing and making disruptive edits. 84.241.195.207 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've not investigate this user's actions yet, so aside from the username, I can't comment on whether it's a likely sock or not. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming a nearly-identical username popping up right after you blocked the first one isn't just some crazy coincidence. Billybowden211 blocked. Swarm... ^—X— 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dreadstar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams describing how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims. Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions over this discussion [109] at the Gamergate talk page.

I hurriedly followed up by email to Dreadstar, copied to some other administrators active in the area, to ascertain a necessary detail of the topic ban. I wrote:

Just for the sake of curiosity, I presume my topic ban also includes the pages on Campus Rape that I was asked to keep an eye out for by a counselor alerted through this recent coverage of Wikipedia, since campus rape is related to gender? I’d like confirmation of that for the record, so I can advise that activist, even though that likely means canceling her organizations initiative.

To facilitate flexibility, I agreed to abstain from any public comment for a short time. Receiving no clarification, I asked on my talk page:

@Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Wikipedia.

This particular question arose because an official of an organization active in this area had just written to me, asking for advice on their plans to be more active in encouraging their members to be active in pertinent areas of Wikipedia. Increasing participation by women is, of course, an area in which Wikipedia and WMF claim to be greatly concerned. The organizer contacted me because I was interviewed in the Think Progress piece, and perhaps because I have been cited a bit [110] in the wake of my writing on the infamous Arbcom decision.

Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email: In point of fact, my question was entirely reasonable. The topic ban extends to "gender-related disputes and controversies." I outlined why it might not be clear whether or not the subject at hand was in fact gender-related, and whether or not it is a dispute or controversy. I did my best to maintain a light and conversational tone, and this is the sort of close reading of which any educated adult should be capable. I do not raise that question here: that will be raised in a separate inquiry.

The topic ban itself is, in my view, neither just nor expedient. I do not raise that question here; I may raise it elsewhere.

The email responses (and outbursts on-wiki [111][112][113]; see my talk page for more) were outrageous: an request for administrative clarification concerning an administrative action was met by hostility, by implicit and overt threats, and by an epithet notoriously used to request that the umpire excuse one from the rest of the ball game.

Dreadstar has apologized only off-wiki and only in the most broad and general terms. Dreadstar has rendered long and useful service to Wikipedia (as, in point of fact, have I), but perhaps time’s winged chariot is hurrying too near.

Does the community endorse or repudiate Dreadstar’s correspondence? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein, what action is it that you're actually asking for here? Not couched in metaphor and euphemisms, but specifically? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at Wiki discipline. I do know the likely consequences that would ensue if any of my subordinates sent such email to a customer, but of course Wikipedia has its own sanctions and customs. In my own organization, I doubt a censure or a reprimand would be sufficient, and I would likely not wish that subordinate to represent us. However, it is not my place to instruct people so much more experienced in WikiLaw and WikiLore. You possess a variety of tools. Doubtless, administrators in the past have transgressed, and I expect there are instructive precedents.

Alternatively, perhaps this is entirely commendable behavior and I am mistaken in my belief that the community would not wish to endorse it. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just answer the question please, in plain and simple English. What do you want to be done here? You've already made a request at ARCA about the topic ban, and the community cannot do anything about admin conduct short of a full ban which is obviously not warranted here. If you have a concern about his conduct, it otherwise goes at WP:A/R/C. I don't see what we can do for you here. KonveyorBelt 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I get that you're frustrated, but repeatedly asking if the community "endorses" Dreadstar's email or if we think it's "entirely commendable behavior" is just unconstructive goading. So, do you want the community to come here and say "Bad boy" to Dreadstar, and you'll be happy with that? Or are you looking for him to be desysopped (have his admin privileges withdrawn), or do you want him blocked from editing for some period of time (or until he takes some specific action), or what? Do you want him barred from taking actions in some specific topic area? Do you want him barred from further interactions with you? Coyly hinting around the edges doesn't really answer the question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I don't know what the precedents are, and I don't know precisely how far your authority extends. A block might be suitable; resignation might be suitable; censure might be suitable; Bosstopher’s solution below seems perfectly sensible. (I would also welcome a formal, personal, and unreserved apology, if not from Dreadstar then from the community, but that's a bagatelle.) A mere reprimand seems insufficient to the circumstances, but if it helps to achieve your collective sublime object, to make Dreadstar a source of innocent merriment might not be altogether bad. I'd settle for "mistakes were made all 'round; no lasting harm; we welcome you both back into the community and roll back the time machine to Sunday morning." MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am (rather obviously) not MarkBernstein. But I believe that Dreadstar should put him himself up for recall by resigning his admin privileges and putting himself up for another RfA (and therefore that the community should strongly encourage him to do so). Pretty much everyone who's commented on this so far doesnt see Mark's comments as an accusation of Rape apologia. For context, Mark has made accusations of rape apologism in the past[114] which led to his first topic can, but this very clearly wasn't one. Even if Mark had actually made such a claim, it would still have been completely inappropriate of Dreadstar to start swearing at, and threatening Mark. Administrators should not be allowed to harangue the people they block. However there are slight (very slight) extenuating circumstances, such as Mark's previous reputation, I think he should go for a second RfA instead of just resigning. Bosstopher (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved party who would like to see this resolve with minimum additional drama, I suggest that the community should opine on whether the topic ban imposed extends to campus rape topics, and ignore the rude email as an apology has already been made. EllenCT (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

An example where the wording "all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed " is a big problem. As is, it appears the "broadly construed" bit is the issue - and rape is a "gender issue broadly construed." And I think that term should be retired. Collect (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have raised that question at ARCA. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So this appears concerning but I feel like I'm missing part of the full picture. @MarkBernstein:, could you please clarify what you mean when you say "Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email"? Was he aware of your communication with this "official of an organization active in this area" or was it a coincidence that he happened to reply at about the same time as they contacted you? Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In my initial email to Dreadstar (and other interested admins), I mentioned the ongoing discussion with the activist and asked for clarification. When this went unanswered, I repeated the question on my talk page. Minutes later, I began to receive the series of emails described above. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason you have been repeatedly plugging that think progress article on your recent filings here and at ARCA? It doesn't seem particularly relevant. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the subject that was under discussion at the time; when bringing disputes to AN/I, it's customary to briefly explain what was being discussed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you're going to find anyone, including User:Dreadstar, who is willing to defend this, but I also don't think we need a ritual denunciation of this either. Everyone has a bad day, and Gamergate has given everyone more than their share of bad days. Dreadstar has already expressed his desire to leave this topic area to others, so I suggest we let him do so with the community's thanks for the work he has put in policing these articles. I also suggest he drop the topic ban on Mark Bernstein and bring the matter to WP:AE to let other admins sort this out, allowing him to leave this matter behind completely. Contentious topic bans are better left for a collective decision instead of having a single unfortunate administrator be the target of everyone's frustrations on both sides of the issue. People have proven that the are completely unable to restrain themselves in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with Gamaliel. All my other experiences with Dreadstar in the GG topic area have been positive, and I'd like to thank him for his work in the area. I appreciate it is a contentious topic, and that it can bring out the worst in even the most level-headed editor. — Strongjam (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What would happen to me if I were to start communications with people "Oh you motherfucker?" Why doesn't that happen to Dreadstar? Does he get extra supermariopoints for having flown off the handle just days earlier at TenOfAllTrades (ref amongst others) or perhaps his recent grudge-holding abusive behavior towards people who he was in disputes with literally years ago (ref admin only - so abusive as to have been rev deleted). I'm certainly going to file an RFAr to have his tools removed - but the actions I linked to are not abuse of tools, they are abuse of people. Don't we typically block people until we are certain they are going to stop abusing people? Why do be believe this serial abuser of people is going to stop? Do admins get three free "oh you motherfucker" passes per week? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is why I asked for a withdrawal and retraction of the sanctions. I didn't want to see this coming here, or any other board. I fall in the camp of Gamaliel and Strongjam. A bad day and an apology seems to be enough. Let other admins at AE decide is the sanction is fitting. Driving off good people isn't a net positive for the project, so editors here should keep that in mind for all parties involved. On both sides of this particular issue. Dave Dial (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Dreadstar has made nothing but positive contributions, at least from my perspective. He has handled this entire situation with more patience and professionalism than one could reasonably expect. As a relatively new editor, I can also tell you that any edits to the GG page are frequently met with anger and vitriol. In my limited experience, it is my observation that MarkBernstein has at the very least engaged in passive-aggressive behavior on the GG article [115], making an already charged atmosphere even more challenging. I make this observation ONLY in relation to the Gamergate page. For all I know, Mark's edits on other articles are constructive and helpful. For whatever reason it seems GG strikes a personal chord with many here. From the very beginning, I had NO interest in gaming and NO dog in the Gamergate fight. The article was initially brought to my attention after reading about it on a news site. I attempted a few minor edits and was immediately (and inaccurately) labeled as a "Gamergate supporter". From the very beginning, Dreadstar has attempted to keep things civil in a very uncivil atmosphere. One of the few administrators I have encountered who takes the time to assist new editors rather than threatening sanctions or blocks. If he DID issue a block, I imagine it was well-deserved. Marcos12 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As others have noted here Dreadstar has been a excellent admin for along time. You won't find a lack of people to attest to that. If another editor had the same background, I imagine their mistakes would be taken in the same way as Dreadstar's are now... the ratio of a few mistakes to years of helpful work on WP. That Dreadstar felt he was being accused of a particularly heinous position is acceptable. Its his opinion. That such an accusation might hurt and insult is a given. Further, he apologized when he saw that others did not see the cmt the way he did so clearly, he is willing to acknowledge the will of the group, whatever he felt. He has also withdrawn from GG. On reading the threads that led up to the incident I feel there was fair amount of provocation going on in a highly contentious situation and in an heated up environment. I noticed also that a post was made on Jimbo's talk page looking for endorsement, perhaps of a position. No context given. That same editor is going to post an RfAr. Mark has posted here, and on AE concerning campus rape. Looks like a pile on to me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

I have notified the parties that I was expected to notify by law or custom. As a probable gamergate sock puppet IP editor had tried to exculpate Dreadstar’s behavior at User Talk:Jimbo, I added a brief pointer there as well. I have separately requested a clarification of the underlying issue from ARCA because ARCA is competent to do so, and no administrator has been willing to instruct this editor as to the meaning of a topic ban. That request for clarification has now ramified at WP:AE.

I am doing my best to address these separate issues separately, in the forums suited to each. The complexity of complying with this is formidable! The apology Dreadstar offered was general, not personal; vague, not specific; and far from unreserved, and no apology at all made before those to whom he wrote on-wiki, claiming that I had said something which no one reading what I wrote, cited above, could reasonably interpret in that manner. In effect, it was a fig leaf written for Arbcom. Friendship and long service aside, is no higher standard of conduct expected of Wikipedia administrators -- especially those working in contentious areas in which Wikipedia has recently and repeatedly been used to call people prostitutes and frauds? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Long service should not be minimized. Bringing calm on numerous occasions to heated situations should not be minimized. Kindness and helpfulness to others and newbies should not be minimized. Against that kind of work, mistakes possibly in the heat of a moment when provocation was clear should be taken in relationship to that long service. Dreadstar clearly saw the mistakes he made. He made an apology whether you like the form that apology took or not.

What did campus rape have to do with anything, and even here why is the situation being enflamed with reference to prostitutes and frauds. This is enflaming and doesn't clarify. What it does is further create a false sense of the situation. Its drama making, and this is no play. Dreadstar has taken measures which remove him from the environment. Clearly you want more. Why? What do you gain? What does the encyclopedia gain? I've never worked with you Mark; I have no sense of what you do but what I saw as an uninvolved editor when I checked out those threads were ongoing remarks that provoked and perhaps were meant to. Dreadstar seems to be trying to clean up his backyard you might do the same with yours.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

As I explained above -- quite clearly, I thought -- and as I explained in my original query to Dreadstar, it happened that a worker in the area of campus rape had written to me on Sunday, seeking advice for a Wikipedia initiative. I believe Wikimedia Foundation just announced $250,000 in grants for efforts like this one; presumable, that's part of building an encyclopedia and in the interests of the project. My assistance to them would be affected if this topic ban applied; hence, my request for clarification. As to the reference to calling users prostitutes and frauds, not everyone is familiar with Gamergate which can seem to be a trivial matter of playing fun games, not a concerted effort to drive women out of software development; it can be useful, amid the acronyms, to remember that this is not a game for the people against whom Wikipedia is weaponized. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate indeed "what does campus rape have to do with anything?" is a question that needs to be answered based upon the ArbComs general wording of the topic ban and the instructions to interpret them broadly. Given how "broadly construed" the other aspects of the remedies had just been interpreted, MarkBernstein had every right to ask the person administrating the topic ban if the "broadly construed" application would cover campus rape. He had, and has, every right to expect that the response is not going to be: "you motherfucker". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The AE Topic Ban is valid. The comment that spurred his Tban was noted by two admins that MarkBernstein's language was, once again, a violation of NPA and that he had been topic banned, blocked and warned numerous times for the same behavior. No, we shouldn't lift the topic ban, nor can it be lifted here or without Dreadstar's permission. MarkBernstein's bringing up the "campus rape" topic as if Dreadstars TBan was enabling rape apologists was beyond the pale. I can find no substantial contributions by MB to campus rape before the topic ban so I find myself questioning it's use in the same manner that Dreadstar did. We should endorse Dreadstar's action and follow procedure. MarkBernstein is topic banned for making comments about other editors. It has nothing to do with thinkProgress or anything other than MB's comments. This should be closed and hatted and if he wishes to appeal, there is ARBCA. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• MarkBernstein, the self promotional gamesmanship, both with the op-ed site Think Progress which interviewed you, and your very own MarkBernstein.org, are ... interesting; but please do see WP:SPAM, and in particular WP:LINKSPAM. As far as using said sites for references, see: WP:SELFPROMOTION. and WP:SELFPUB. — Ched :  ?  21:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is discussing using my site as a reference. ThinkProgress has an impressive masthead, an editorial process, and an explicit claim for fact checking: it certainly appears to be a reasonable source to discuss on a talk page. In any case, it's hardly unreasonable to raise the question. But this is hardly germane here; the question is not whether or not I publish ThinkProgress (and what's with that? I know 8chan thinks I'm on their board or something like that, but..). The question is whether, for asking an administrator as perfectly reasonable question about the nature of a topic ban, I should have been called a "motherfucker". MarkBernstein (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer is "No, you shouldn't have been called a motherfucker." even over email and and even though it wasn't on-wiki. It has no bearing on your TBan or anything else though. Can we close this? --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

and again No. No one should be called names. No one here and not even Dreadstar is suggesting that. He's removed himself as well. Was your comment reasonable or had you been provocative in multiple cmts? Were you surprised at an angry response given your comments? And you've used this kind of provocation before. [116]. I agree with DHeyward. Time to move on and hopefully everyone has learned something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

Yes, my comment was entirely reasonable. Yes, I was surprised struck dumb in astonishment at the angry response. I have never called a Wikipedian a motherfucker -- and I'm not an administrator. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can understand the emotions one might have if they feel that they've been accused of condoning rape? I'm not saying you did, many things can have multiple meanings, especially in text only. And email is not wiki btw. — Ched :  ?  22:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that MarkBernstein is now here to wreak "Havoc" on the community[117] with these filings. That along with his history of WP:NOTHERE and it may be time to show him the door. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Winmelgarcia

(unarchived by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
{{archive top|Wrong place and stale report. If vandalism continues take it to WP:AIV for an immediate response. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}
Winmelgarcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is suspected with hoaxing edits on Top Model articles, particularly notable celebrity stars. I reverted it/them all and vandalized it back. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you meant to say "s/he vandalized it back", didn't you? ;) Anyway, s/he hasn't edited since your most recent warning on his/her talk page, so let's just see what happens. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – (Non-administrator comment)Stale, next time take it to WP:AIV EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hang on. None of these edits is obvious vandalism to someone who has no clue about the Top Model thing. And I note it's described as "suspected with hoaxing edits". So AIV wouldn't really be appropriate, as it needs to be determined whether this is actually a hoax or not. If not, someone owes Wimmelgarcia an apology. If so, it doesn't make any sense to close this as stale. If this is true, why would we ever believe anything they ever write again? Creating hoaxes is fundamentally incompatible with writing an encyclopedia, and calling it "stale" doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's true.

So, @ApprenticeFan:, can you give all of us non-Top-Model people some proof that this is a hoax - that it, that it is wrong, and obviously wrong, i.e. Winmelgarcia couldn't possibly have thought it was right? If so, I'll indef block now. If not, please don't accuse someone of hoaxing without proof. On an encyclopedia, hoaxing is pretty much the worst thing you can say about someone (much worse than rude words). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This is all 100 percent hoax adding inappropriate hosting changes into Top Model franchise cycle articles: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]. Confirmed that is true not a pure vandalism, it's truly hoax. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism. (WP:HOAX). Still is vandalism, still can be dealt with at AIV. More importantly the user has stopped after recent warnings. Even more importantly, no one followed the bright orange notice and notified the user of this discussion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, a hoax is much worse than vandalism. And AIV is for obvious vandalism. And we don't allow people putting fake info into article to continue editing, whether they stopped after a warning or not. If left a message on the user's page that he cannot resume editing until this is resolved, only because with my level of knowledge in this area I can't prove it's fake. No idea if/when they'll return, so this thread can be closed. @ApprenticeFan:, let me know if you see this editor resume editing before explaining himself. I'll try to keep an eye out, but I'm easily distracted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Pammiepie9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user continously removes AfD templates from Pamela (Malof) Hill, despite being warned not to do so. Also, user has made only few edits outside topic, meaning a WP:SPA. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like someone who is writing a self bio, given their account name and the article name. Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The user also just now blanked their talk page in this edit, which I then reverted. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Which you shouldn't have done. If a user decides to blank their talk page, that is their prerogative. Blackmane (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. They are allowed to blank their talk page except for a very few exceptions, like declined unblock requests. Epic Genius (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox guidelines

Austin T Dalyai continues to edit against MOS guidelines saying There is no need for discussion, effected pages at this time David Coverdale, Rob Zombie. I have started a discussion here which Austin T Dalyai has not used. Maybe a timeout will get their attention. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• We don't do cooling-down blocks, Mlpearc. For better or worse. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• These edits, though, are ridiculous, and if Austin T Dalyai continues they should be blocked for edit warring, disruption, and violation of guidelines and consensus. In addition, I'm about to remove some content from their user page, where they're using one of our editors as a punching bag (they're not the only ones of course taking issue with Stefan2's work...). Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I was thinking more along the lines of "Oh, I must be doing something wrong" timeout, as opposed to a "cool down" block but, no problem, getting the disruption to stop is the only issue. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page is pretty much a prerequisite for asking for admin action here. I've offered my advice at Talk:David Coverdale. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to get them to email info-en-qwikimedia.org, so we can deal with this in a more private and less-public manner, or at least so we can confirm identities. Mdann52 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring IPs deleting each others comments

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia (2nd nomination), editors 64.134.157.208 and 99.242.102.111 have been removing each others comments and accusing each other of sock-puppetry while edit-warring across Jeff Cooper-related topics (including Hoplophobia and its AfD above). Examples: [124],[125],(two more reversions bouncing between those in the AfD history). See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Cooper_article. Pax 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Reliable Sources Noticeboard section is relevant (I don't particularly think so, seeing as it only has #64 and me, plus an unrelated #3 party commenting, and not edit warring), then much more relevant is the above "incident" where I am accused of using 99.242.102.111 as a sock puppet on Jeff Cooper. Not surprisingly, 99.242.102.111 takes umbrage at this accusation on the Hoplophobia AfD discussion, and he, mistakenly, I think, suspects #64 is canvassing other IP only editors. Bleah. Hga (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no edit warring, I've just been accused of being Hga's "sock puppet," and I have responded. I guess my arguments are threatening. Amazing how cheap politics plays into what should be a straightforward intellectual exercise. Sad.99.242.102.111 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

First law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP User talk:24.57.167.103

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP has never made a constructive edit. All edits from April 2014 have lead to warnings on her/his talk page, which see. Perhaps the IP should be blocked? --Hordaland (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AIV is probably the best place to go for stuff like this Weegeerunner (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP in question has made 5 total edits, the last was over a day ago. There's literally no chance anyone is blocking it. In general, only actively vandalizing IPs are blocked, and then only for very short periods of time, to basically shut down the vandalism. There are a few exceptions to that practice, but they're too rare to go into, and don't really apply in this case. --Jayron32 21:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user User:Lugnuts seems to be harassing me on the grounds that I’m a “troll,” particularly with this thrice-reverted edit to WT:NCF [126][127][128][129] and these edits to his own Talk (note the edit summaries) [130][131][132]. I’m not sure where to take this, but ANI seemed to make sense. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a closer look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_request_for_non-admin_closure_at_WT:NCF - where this IP simply wont let an RfC go. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take a closer look at what you “closed” on that Talk page. It’s only related to the RFC insofar as it would have been moot if the RFC passed. It’s a perfectly legitimate question that stands on its own, with or without the prior discussion. I’m surprised the answer wasn’t already on that page, but that’s beside the point. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, ANI does not make sense. You've had your answer, including at Wikipedia:AN#Review request for non-admin closure at WT:NCF. Please stop forum shopping. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m not forum-shopping. I’m asking for this user to stop harassing me. The AN discussion is ongoing, and the linked edits have nothing to do with that. (But these two—both again crying “troll”—do: [133] [134].) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a troll, stop trolling. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

About the above closure: The most forum-shopping I did was contesting a closure request at WP:ANRFC, and then contesting the actual closure at WP:AN, neither of which had anything to do with this discussion. I don’t see how any admin intervention on this issue could have any effect on that RFC, especially with AN in favor of its closure. I came here about a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, and that alone. Whether my efforts have been in good faith can be a matter for a separate discussion, if need be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@174.141.182.82: Here we discuss the submitter as well as the accused. Just leave it. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plagiarism from a Wiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Hi :) Not sure if it the right place for that ^^' But i would like to show you this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_locations_in_Once_Upon_a_Time That's not the first time it happened, but this time it is a really big big problem :/ 77.193.106.198 (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this! NW (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

somethings up at Keith Haring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Keith Haring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Somethings up at Keith Haring that probably requires a mop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Party of 6? A firm-handed mop and probably a CheckUser/SPI as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Flynnus GoldenRing (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Accounts CheckUser'd and blocked, page semi'd for a day just in case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IBAN request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been in a two-way interaction ban with User:The Rambling Man for over a year now. That ban was imposed here, not by the ArbCom, and that's why I have come here. I am convinced I can work amicably with the editor. I have been doing some work at ITN, and things seem to be going well there. I have heard his past criticisms of how I have worked at the ref desks, and I have tried to do better there. Also, in a discussion a couple of months ago, I said I would never again file a complaint about the editor, and I have stuck to that promise, and intend to continue so doing. If the IBAN could be lifted (or at least modified), I would feel at ease communicating in a collegial way with the editor, when or if the need arises. Thank you all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that the issues detailed in the following threads have been resolved.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#IBAN request (Users Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 110#ANI and The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's comment noted, if both TRM and BB say they're able to discuss collegiately, I'd happily agree to it. It can always be reinstated. TRM? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree if TRM is on board with it. It's not as if it couldn't be reinstated if it became clear that lifting it didn't work out. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support if both users join in the request. JodyB _talk 10:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of the IBAN, it's run for a year, the users seem to have buried the hatchet, let's get out of their way. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support if TRM is on board. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - if TRM agrees that everything is in the past. If so, seems like a sensible way to move forward. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Non-admin support If both parties agree of course.--MONGO 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would be happy if it weren't for the fact that I see an intractable link between his edits and opinions and those of User:Medeis, with whom I am also IBAN'ed. It's simply not worth the hassle. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I have been mentioned, I will say I do not oppose BBB's request, which I think is in good faith. But having recently been referred to obliquely by TRM as one of several Obergruppenfuehreren on a talk page, where he continues to criticize me and others without being so sloppy as to name us outright, I wouldn't want mine and TRM's IBAN revoked. As for any "connection" between myself and Bugs, that seems to be a conspiracy theory. We are not the same person, and disagree strongly on many, many topics (Think of me as a Reaganite libertarian and Bugs as a Scoop Jackson Democrat. We can live together civilly since neither of us views WP policy as a mutual suicide pact.) I'd implore TRM to divorce his opinion of BBB from his opinion of me. I'm even happy for someone to do an SPI re me and Bugs (with his okay) to announce the results. I don't intend to post here further or follow this, so please ping me if further comment from me is necessary.μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It matters not a jot what you have to say here, this is not about you, has nothing to do with you and your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion stands, as does the IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

wrapping post close comments into section and hatting. Blackmane (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above comment by TRM seems proof positive that that he is continuing to have trouble getting along with other editors, and that the interaction ban should continue. pbp 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC) No worries, I'll ask again after more time has passed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Why did you feel the need to continue this archived discussion Purplebackpack89? And no, it's not "other editors", it's "particular users" I have trouble with. If you can't postiviely contribute, don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duplicated articles, admin needed to fix

A new editor, Riahlynn923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has created three articles that all have essentially the same content: E-dura spinal cord implant, E-dura spinal cord implants, and Wikipedia:E-dura spinal cord implant. This is clearly a result of newbie incompetence rather than malice, but it will take an admin to fix. I'm bringing it up here in hopes that somebody with buttons will take charge of dealing with it. I'm not going to notify the editor because she is already quite confused, clearly, and bringing her to ANI is not the way to reduce her confusion -- it would be better for her to deal with a single admin on her talk page. (Let me also note that the basic article content appears legitimate to me, so deleting all of the versions is not the right solution.) Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an admin would be needed. Just decide which article title and/or article itself is the best, and convert the other two to redirects. (If you don't know how to do that, I could take care of it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The one in "Wikipedia" space shouldn't exist even as a redirect. Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I just deleted the one in Wikipedia space. Checking the others too. JodyB _talk 15:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good. So the question is, which of the two remaining articles should be the "primary" and which should be converted to a redirect? (That's assuming the article merits existence.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I redirected to the singular one, kind of arbitrary but that made sense to me. There is a question about whether the article is promotional. I'm still thinking about that and would appreciate other eyes there too. It seems to be a proprietary surgical device that has received a good report. JodyB _talk 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as a followup, I've proposed moving the new article into Spinal cord injury#Research. I think that would be the most appropriate place for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)‎

That might be best. The current article does look rather like a coatrack for advertising this particular procedure. It could merit a sentence or two in the Spinal cord injury article, with the current article being changed to a redirect to that section of the Spinal cord injury article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I did bit of gnomish work on the article, and after reading it I agree with Jody and Bugs, merginging seems like the best course of action. Also, I'm concerned about some of the language, which was either written by an expert, or is perhaps lifted from the two articles cited. If anyone who has access to Science and Medical News Today could check for copyvios, I think that would be a good idea.BMK (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a general look over at a particular article....

...which I see as plagued with ownership, NPOV, and civility issues. (With a little canvassing thrown in, come to think of it.) As I also see it, a particular editor has used the prospect of reporting here as a club; the civility level is either (marginally) acceptable or not, as, are, too, the other problems mentioned. I may or not even be able to respond to any questions this raises there in the short term, but I think a quick run through its recent activity will speak for itself, and in my absence I trust to the good judgement of the people here. Given that I am naming no particular editor, I don't wish to notify anyone or name the article until I have an answer as to whether such a review can be done here. Can it? General review, aimed as much at my own conduct as anyone else's.19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Not only have you not named an editor, it appears that you have not named the article, or signed your name. BMK (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess, on the basis of the OP's (Anmccaff's) edits, that the article in question is General Motors streetcar conspiracy. See the talk page for some elucidation. Deor (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd thought that autosign was suppressed in here. (Obviously not.) I've notified, based on this, the other editor who might feel himself singled out; should I also do so for everyone else who has posted recently?20:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I don't know if autosign is suppressed or not -- I signed it with the "xsign" template. Please sign your edit. Trying to be anonymous when editing from your account is silly, it's clearly indicated in the page's history who made the edit. BMK (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that. That said, back to my original question: is there a mechanism here for taking a look at the article in general, or is this strictly aimed at particular point events? "Incidents" is a clue, of course, but, then, any pattern is just a pile-up of individual incidents.Anmccaff (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If the issue is neutrality problems with the article in general, I suggest opening a thread at WP:NPOVN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

or conduct an WP:RFC. (those work best if you can work out a neutral wording together prior to the official posting so that the the parties can agree that the results of the RfC provide the evidence of community support that the parties will find satisfying enough that they will drop the stick.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit like the old joke about the fellow looking for a can of talcum powder, isn't it? "Walk this way, sir" "If I could walk that way, I wouldn't need the talcum!" I do not think there is enough common ground, at least among the actual gladiators, to work with that. On the other hand, I suspect my tacit question was answered, equally tacitly: by now, at least a few of you have probably looked in at the mess, and concluded it's no worse than can be expected, and beneath formal comment either way without a formal request....and I've also had the salutary vicarious experience of watching others here, which reminds me that, perhaps, my particular set of rock-heads -myself surely included - are a bit less rock-headed than some other specimens available, and I should thank Whatever Gods May Be that I don't have to deal with him, or her, or any of those guys. It could be worse.

Regarding WP:NPOVN: a particular problem, as I see it, is that this is one of those areas where the mainstream consensus for scholarship central to the subject points one way, but much of the peripheral scholarship does not. To use an analogy from military history, you could once find as many cites about Poles charging tanks on horseback as you'd like, as long as you don't look too specifically. The closer you looked, they vanished. Same sort of thing. Anyway, if anyone finds that my conduct on the GM Streetcar page warrants being dragged in here, consider this my invitation to please do so; otherwise I'll leave it at that, and try to remember to sign out if I wanna ask something else here. Thanks.Anmccaff (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an intervention

A frequent editor of Louisiana articles, Futurewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to struggle endlessly. The user has been cautioned again and again, and was taken to ANI twice under their previous username Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see sockpuppet investigation). There doesn't seem to be any learning curve, and editors spend a lot of time cleaning up after this editor.

Difs:

• [135] - no edit summary, reason or source, and has been cautioned to stop adding "Hamlet" to infobox names.
• [136] - added a photo gallery to an infobox.
• [137] - added "hamlet" to its official name after being cautioned to stop doing this.
• [138] - random unsourced content.
• [139] - added a small table. While editing as User:Dragonrap2, there were many cautions against this and it went to ANI.
• [140] - changed genre of a musician without adding a source or edit summary. Another editor reverted and cautioned them on their talk page to stop doing this. No matter, Futurewiki just kept on doing it.

Editor after editor has tried to assist, or warned this user about unconstructive edits. Thank you for any assistance you may offer. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The striking thing about that editor's talk page is that so many other editors have warned them about their errors, and pleaded with them to stop. Futurewiki doesn't say a single word in response. I suggest an indefinite block until the editor posts a sincerely worded unblock request, agreeing to engage in discussion with other editors, and to make a sincere effort to comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI at the time was closed by User:Mike V as "This looks like a situation where the user forgot his or her password and just created a new account. None of the edits overlap chronologically and the other account has not been used since the new one was created." Today that was disproved that by being both active at File:KEEL logo.png. DMacks (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure WP:CIR but a block at this time is a bit harsh. The contributions are a mishmash of poor and decent [141] -- not sure about Elite Radio Group notability -- but I'm not seeing evidence of edit warring or throwing a hissy fit when they're edits are reverted. NE Ent 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• What Cullen said. This is an editor who keeps doing things that are causing disruption, and who does not engage at all with those who try to stop the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps a warning to stop ignoring and start engaging, followed by a short block if he does it again just to get his attention? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok his latest act today is to page movie a bunch of templates for listing places in parishes to the title "populated places in xxx parish". This is going to require mass rollback. He was warned by Magnolia early in this rash of editing and just continued on. He doesn't read his talk page. Requesting an immediate block to stop disruption, a mass rollback of the template moves, and consideration of an indefinite block for CIR, pending his response. John from Idegon (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Futurewiki is a sockpuppet of indef blocked 123lilbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Dragon Lil Brad / Dragon Rap221 / Hissrap18 / Hissrap2013. As with the previous accounts, this user has made persistent borderline disruptive edits focused on the Ark-La-Tex region, especially Fairview Alpha, Louisiana. He/she has just crossed the line with scores of disruptive page moves. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of blocking this vandal? He's continuing to edit and the cleanup is getting larger each day. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on The Truth About Guns

Users SantiLak and 24.16.30.8 have been edit warring regarding whether a CSD tag should be there or not. SL claimed in one revert that it was previously tagged for speedy deletion and rejected, and from looking at the history of the article, that is true. However, the edit warring isn't necessary. - Amaury (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear that the edit warring on that article did stop, is an ANI really necessary for this because it seems like it could be resolved on the article talk page. - SantiLak (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It did stop, but the arguments are still going on between you two, and at this point, I think they're going nowhere. - Amaury (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The arguments are more over the fact that the other user continues to call me a self-promoting spammer and that the article is spam and me saying that I'm not and the article isn't, it isn't over the CSD tag which by the way should be removed. The article went through AFC and was approved and when that user CSD'd it in November an admin rejected it. It is a frivolous CSD that should be removed. - SantiLak (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Move to close: the page history of the article in question clearly shows disruption by the IP. Reverting explicit disruption is not edit warring on SantiLak's part. The IP needs to take the article to AfD, but either doesn't want to or lacks the competence to do so, hence the edit warring by the IP over tags that have already been removed by multiple editors. While it is true that SantiLak is the article creator, and should not remove such speedy deletion notices as such, the tag was previously declined by another user.[142] At this point, the IP is being disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. My concern was more on the edit warring, but it looks like the fault is really on the IP. - Amaury (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok well it was just deleted and I have no idea why, it certainly doesn't qualify for Speedy Deletion the way I see it. - SantiLak (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be there when I checked so the deletion was either reversed or you typed the wrong name.--69.157.253.220 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It was just reversed after I talked to the admin who deleted it. - SantiLak (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeated at the talk page that if anything the article should be taken to AfD. The CSD template is currently not in the article. I hope with this we can close the ANI thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Shirt58 has advised the IP of exactly how to raise an AfD should they so wish. If they continue to war over the G11 tag, well more fool them. CSDs should be (IMHO) reserved for blatant and uncontentious problems that experienced editors would assume a discussion obviously ending in "delete". Since we don't have that here, the CSD tag should not be applied. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Politecnico di Studi Aziendali

As part of a content dispute at the article Politecnico di Studi Aziendali, a new account (Equalizerter (talk · contribs)) has made the following statement on the article talk page:

I inform you that Anna Cuomo the writer of the reference no.14 edited on your pages will be prosecuted in Italy for a defamation, the his accusations of theft involving the vice president of the European parliament over the avv.Massimo Silvestri with false accusations and obscene.

For this will be presented before the Italian justice a formal complaint against her and also against those who spread these falsehoods imounemente.Equalizerter (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[143]

The latter part seems to be a legal threat against Wikipedia editors including the reference in the article. I suspect the user is a sock of Equalizerbis (talk · contribs), currently serving a block for blanking the article (possibly Equalizerquater (talk · contribs) as well). --VeryCrocker (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the repeated blanking of the page, it might be in order to ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, to at least stop the sock farmer from vandalizing the page. As to the legal threats, obviously an admin needs to block the socks and require a retraction and disavowal of the legal threat. However, as with any legal threat, it would be a good idea to make sure the threat is groundless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Socks blocked for block evasion and the apparent legal threat. Page is already semi-protected and am reluctant to raise it, but please let me know if either the socking or the blanking resume. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I blocked two more socks for legal threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of the legal threats / socking issues, the reference that seems to be the matter of concern is ... problematic. It's a page on a Wiki, for one thing, and it makes some claims that we'd never permit without far better attribution than is provided there. It's not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used in articlespace to say the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the observation. I just removed the reference, which makes me automatically involved with the article, so that we might need one more couple of eyes there for several days.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks to our Italian-speakers for checking this out. If the reference is unreliable or inappropriate then it should certainly be removed, and as that was the principal point of contention, hopefully the removal avoids the need for page protection. The article content seems unremarkable, but apologies that due to language barrier I coildnt check the ref directly. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Euryalus2: Google translate does a reasonable job on major European languages. Should enable at least a reasonable idea of what is printed. Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The socks returned to the talk page, mainly to swear. When one sock commented in Italian about another user's sister, I reverted it and indeffed the sock. However, the new sock writes in English and does not suggest that users get engaged in sexual intercourse with their female relatives, so that I suggest than an uninvolved admin takes a look please.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that what he was saying? I'm somewhat fluent in Standard Italian, but I've never heard dillo before in any rude context (it's not even a infinitive). Rather rude thing to say about my baby sister. On another note, the other sock was writing in Italian and being rude to another editor. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think my Italian is better than yours (probably worse), but the socks should be stopped somehow.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that I was doubting what you said. It was clearly something obnoxious regarding my sister and may very well have been dialect as the sock seems rather angry (like a sock that's made of carpet wool and is two sizes too small, but you have to wear it on a 10 km hike anyway) and many people in Italy will drop into dialect when angry. (Non-administrator comment) For now I've just reverted some of his comments (which is kind of fun), but with the article semied I don't think he can really do any damage other than leaving unhelpful posts on the talk page. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 13:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Long term abuse and NOTHERE by Gozonuts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Gozonuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making abusive edits for years. Currently 9 templated warnings on talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. A few more recent edits to demonstrate point:

• "fugly plastic surgery face"
• Attempt to insert random image, which they tried to upload as well
• Adding "Jew" in infobox as insult
• "Honorary Jew" as insult
• vandalism
• adding "racist" to lead sentence
• "french faggot"

Recommend indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The BLP violations alone should warrant an ban now. Blackmane (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. AniMate 06:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bolterc: Disruptive editing and IDHT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Three AN threads in roughly the last two weeks:

• Edit-warring at Aam Aadmi Party: 24 hour block
• Redirect and disambiguation muddle related to Aam Aadmi Party: Clean-up/protections by User:Mike Peel and User:RegentsPark
• Bolterc disruption to Aam Aadmi Party article: More clean-up and multiple advisory/warning notes to user.

Yet the bad faith comments and article-space disruption continue. Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding link to Unimportant articles through hatnote should not be allowed. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote/Archive_2#Notable_featured_articles_with_hatnotes_to_unimportant_articles. Bolterc (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Have reverted his edits, as he had removed the hatnote again when the consensus on the talk page is against removal. He does not seems to understand WP:consensus , or even try to learn by his mistakes Bentogoa (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc, your link is to a talkpage comment that received no replies. More, it seems to relate to notable [[WP:FA|featured articles, which is something of a misnomer - I think we can safely assume that the notability of all FAs has been accepted. That you think such links should not be allowed doesn't alter the fact that they are in fact what we usually do. You are showing no improvement in your understanding at all and you seem now to be wikilawyering in an attempt to find something that supports your original proposition: that is not the way to go about things and it adds to the feeling that you are here to promote a political position rather than to improve the encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic-banned from Indian/Pakistani politics under AC/DS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible attempt to out an administrator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What appears to be a single user posting from shifting IPs (174.45.188.190 (talk · contribs) and 75.166.119.124 (talk · contribs)) in their few messages under those IPs has twice referred to an administrator that the editor seems to have some beef with, and the name used looks like a last name and does not appear to be a user name. I'm concerned that this may be an outing attempt. (The user also makes reference to having been blocked in the past, so this may also be a block evasion, but I have not identified which account that might be so I cannot check whether it is an extant block.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be the edit in question. The name is mentioned here too. Just to be specific.

I will check the archive on the page to see if there was an editor with similar tone. Might not find anything though. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• • "Seifenstein" was a German Wikipedia editor. Not a last name. He was brought in to the George Reekers article over several disputes. Unfortunately, he and I had a major conflict of interest as he was a deletionist, even by German standards and I'm an inclusionist. It was agigantic mess and, in the end, I was unblocked. I'm free to edit here, but my account hasn't been used in several years and I can't access it. Working on LGBT articles here is always going to result in conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.119.124 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There's no user (or administrator) with the username "Seifenstein" or "Siefenstein" on this wiki, or the German wiki. An admin from the German wiki would not be able to issue blocks on this wiki unless they were an admin on this wiki too. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
      • This was several years back, I assume he/she was - I'm German, too. I suppose one could dig through the rather unpleasant archives of the Reekers article, if it mattered. I don't see that it does - I have yet to make an edit and already this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I did check the history of the article and talk page of George Alan Rekers (We have no article titled George Reekers). There's no user with that name or any similar name shown in the history of either the article or the talk page. The problem is that people think you somehow learned the real name of a Wikipedia administrator and are using it instead of their username. Hence the charge of wp:outing. I bet you have just misremembered the username. If they blocked your old account at one point, perhaps you could locate the actual username by reviewing the old block log? This can be viewed by anyone, without logging in. Just plug your old user name in at Special:Log/block -- Diannaa (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I have similarly checked the German Wikipedia article on Rekers, and see no similar name in the history of the article or the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Diana, perhaps I have mis-remembered. Or, perhaps it's lost down the rabbit hole. Doesn't matter, I was unblocked, my edits were restored and for several years I avoided all this by never editing. Now, my first gentle dip of a toe in the water and the same wham! against me as the last time, with the same person. It's not very encouraging. I know LGBT articles are really bound to stir up conflict, but this is ridiculous. In any case, I'm not outing anyone, never was. Nor am I a troll or any of the other nastiness. I am going to work on that article and I do expect the same fair treatment every other person gets. I regret you were dragged into wasting your time on this. This was baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Not at all "basesless"; you were engaging in an odd personal attack on an editor who was not even part of the conversation ("I understand Seifenstein is always happy to hassle anyone who dares question the conservative line on gays"). When I could not identify the editor in question in trying to better understand your comments, I faced concern that it was an outing, and as an act of caution I called attention to it so that it might be redacted if it were (such privacy is a matter I take seriously.) At it is, even you still have not been able to identify who you were talking about. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Everyone takes 'outing' seriously. That was a really nasty confrontation, a lot of editors who didn't care for the direction the Rekers article eventually took were very willing to Wikilawyer the whole thing to get rid of those of us editors who wanted the article to be accurate and that Adminstrator came down quite happily on the side of those fighting for their anything-but-neutral POV being incorporated in the article.

So, shall I did through several year old archives looking for the whole mess? Or shall we accept that working together has never been easy for us and do our best to make Same Sex Marriage in the United States a good article? You know, I haven't even made a single edit to the article itself. Oh, Dianna, I do apologize for them misspelling of your name. Voice-to-text is still more an art than a science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • OK, I've signed in. That, at least, will put an end to the IP confusion.Pauci leonum (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly do not care what problems you had or imagine you had back whenever (and your new identity just serves to confuse further, as it appears to be linking you to user:Pauci leones, who did edit the Rekers article and talk page in 2011, but who has nothing on their block log, and whom I can find no sign of direct interaction with on the only subject I can find that we both edited, the Defense of Marriage Act.) If you can go and at least delete the off-topic personal attack material on this supposed administrator, then we should be able to wrap things up here. Whether or not it is an outing, it is not appropriate material for that page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, neither user:Pauci leones or yourself have any edits on the German wiki. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear NatGertler, personal attack material? Taking another editor's name? I'm sorry, but you're clear concerns about 'outing' are, quite fortunately, not at issue here. There is no doubt that we are in considerable disagreement as to how to proceed on the article Same Sex Marriage in the United States and I can understand that my use of the proper terminology on the talk page to describe the people involved might meet with your disapproval. That's fine - I don't agree with some of your edits, either. Just - and this is important:

1) I haven't made a single change to the article!

2) I've clearly stated that I won't 'be bold' and make changes without discussing them on the talk page first - even though you make changes without gaining the 'consensus' which you require of me.

3) I do think this is an attempt to get me blocked, to prevent me from working on an article which you, for whatever reason, don't want me to work on. It's gone quite far enough. You're going to have to work with editors whom you, for whatever reason, don't care to work with. I have to, as well. I, at least, am trying to focus on improving the article, not on finding means to hinder other editors. I took your 'concern' seriously until this last round. I'm not deleting one single word from the talk page. Perhaps we can stop annoying these good people here and actually, you know, do something productive?Pauci leonum (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I find this comment–

Now, my first gentle dip of a toe in the water and the same wham! against me as the last time, with the same person.

–(from one of the above comments) to be very interesting. However, I understand that you may have mistyped/misworded it.

• If you can remember the previous account you had, the details there would greatly help to clear up the misunderstanding here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, perhaps I can't access it because it was a German account? Try Panthera_Germanicus. I left after one enormous fight over Rekers and DOMA, and yes, NatGertler and I have never worked well together. I'm not blocked, I left disgusted by appalling manner in which some editors Wikilawyer to attack newbies (me!) and to drive them out, especially on LGBT topics. For what it's worth, my edits to Rekers are still there, but the battle was beyond belief. I'd post a notable, verifiable, properly sourced (but not, goodness me, no, not ever 'primary' source), and wham! it would be removed. I'd revert with copious footnotes - even got called on having too many at one point - and wham! reverted. I'd revert and wham! blocked by that drive-by admin who should have immediately recused themselves as we'd had quite a disagreement on the German Wikipedia - I'm an inclusionist, he was a major delitionist.

I'd post a potential change to the talk page, wham! I'd get blocked. It went on for weeks and weeks and was horrible and awful and a lot of it was simply this: NatGertler doesn't work well with editors who don't do things his way. One may only disagree with him when one uses his style and his approved terminology. Else, he uses his vast knowledge of how to get other editors in trouble (and, let's face it - Wikipedia has become nearly impossible for a novice editor to navigate. One's always in violation of some guideline or other). That's what's going on here. I've not even made a single change. I've overcome my great sorrow and disappointment at the nastiness involved in editing any LGBT related topic. I've even come to terms with the fact that many editors here actually will reject an edit stating that 2+2=4 if there's enough reliable, proper sources out that to say it isn't. I'm sorry to write so much. I had hoped this was over and done with. Am I going to be hassled into leaving? Is that the point of all this? If so, I'll just go away again for a few years. As have so many, many other competent new editors. There's a very fine line between proper concern and maintaining a really good online-Wiki and abusing the many, many ways to get someone into trouble here. Goodness! I've not even changed one typo on the article yet!Pauci leonum (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Allright. As far as I am concerned; the details here have long since been lost. I'd suggest that the name simply be removed from the talk page; per WP:TPG if need be. This whole thing has been blown way to far out of proportion. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the name, it was the wrong name in any case - I'd remembered it incorrectly. Just as well, that admin. would wait until a 24 hour block was lifted on me and then block me again the moment I'd logged in, each time for increasingly long periods until the situation reached the point it was finally resolved. Anyhow, I apologize for the waste of everyone's time here. I sincerely hope this is the last of this. Goodness, I've not even corrected a typo yet and been already dragged through an emotionally exhausting and time robbing defense. Pauci leonum (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of clarification: it looks like he was User:Panthera germanicus, who was blocked all of twice. Reviewing edits, the only pages that I recognize having worked on myself are Talk:Same-sex marriage and WP:BLPN, and we were never in the same conversation. Looks like the majority of his edits were to Talk:George Alan Rekers, which, as I've noted before and which can be verified here, I've never edited. However, having seen the block log, I can now see that he was merely misremembering the name of the person who blocked him, so no, it was not an outing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was not an outing. I do hope this is finally settled. Goodness.Pauci leonum (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it was not outing. You misremembered the name. Please keep in mind too though that it's not okay to make derogatory remarks about other Wikipedians, like you did here and here. Please don't do that any more; please restrict your article talk page remarks to a discussion of the content and the sources. It's not the appropriate venue for discussing behavioural issues from the long-ago. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed topic ban for IvanOS

User:IvanOS is routinely reverting mention of alternate official names and spellings from lead section on articles about setlements in Croatia. In the latter case of Trpinja author for the several times overturned my contributions. At first I thought that it was a misunderstanding or content disagreement so I started a conversation on article talk page See here on March 6, but user ignored and continued. Than on March 9 I invited him on his talk page to take part in discusion See here that he also ignored and continued with edit waring. I would like to point out that editor has already been blocked over issue of edit waring and/or minority languages: One, Two, Three, Four. This time editor again take part in edit war, failed to discuss with the other party even asked to do so and forced his POV that is not in accordance with usual standards of Wikipedia community and prevailing opinion of the editors at WP:Croatia. Since I do not want to suggest blockade (editor aslo make some useful contributions) I suggest that IvanOS should be baned from engagement in topic of minority languages ​​in articles regarding geographic units and other entities in Croatia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, don't accuse me for this "incident" because you started this with adding of minority name in lede without explanation, although same minority version of village's name is listed in section "Languages and names". Secondly, you have already caused incidents few times likewise, with imposition of some minority names, specifically Serbian Cyrillic, which still reminds population of eastern Croatia on Serbian aggression in 1990s and massacres which were committed (for example: Vukovar massacre), so your imposition can be interpreted as Greater Serbian provocation. I already have written that all minority names of village (including name in Serbian) are listed in section "Languages and names". I don't see why some minority name should be mentioned twice in few rows, unless it is not a provocation. I think you should be "baned from engagement in topic of minority languages ​​in articles regarding geographic units and other entities in Croatia" because you regularly break previous agreements, every time because of the same thing. --IvanOS 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think comments from other users from WP Croatia would be useful. As to your argument that names are indicated in section "Languages and names" I can only say that the case is equal to case of town of Vukovar where your interpretation was not accepted (plus Vukovar case is much more controversial). As for your accusations that I am doing provocation and Greater Serbia propaganda I consider it an attack on the personal level. Regarding question why the name should be mentioned two or more times it is common practice that an article introduction summarize relevant information (and cooficial minority name is relevant) plus also mention of alternate official name and spelling in leade is common and there is consensus among WP Croatia about that (even in top controversial case of Vukovar). I'd really appreciate involvement of other editors who can objectively assess situation. Best regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Evlekis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi

Loud quacking noise coming from User:94.197.44.101.Amortias (T)(C) 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: 94.197.44.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --IJBall (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And already blocked by Barek! --IJBall (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Cydebot malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A discussion is open at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#CydeBot, following this adminbot deleting WP:5. Immediate operator attention has been requested. To prevent forking, please comment at WP:BOWN if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

VanEman

VanEman (talk · contribs) insists on adding material to a section of the article on Chabad that according to all recent participants on the talkpage is already out of place on this article. ([144]) He reverts all undos of his additions. ([145] and [146]) Can somebody please tell him to stop adding material that consensus says shouldn't be on that article? I have warned him on his talkpage ([147], and see also the Dropping a line section there), but he has chosen to ignore these warnings, instead accusing me of ulterior motives. It seems obvious to me ([148]) and at least one other editor, ([149]) that he has strong personal feelings about the issue (a child-abuse case), and these feelings of his are the reason he is not editing in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:EDITWAR. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I dropped a 3rr warning on VanEman's talkpage. He is currently past 3 reverts. What he is doing is WP:IDHT and personal attacks. Namely from the NPA guideline here is:

• Comment on content, not contributors.

-- Orduin ^Discuss 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides the 3RR rule - the user reverted [150] without responding on the Talk Page about the dispute[151].

The user also falsely accused me of "has repeatedly deleted a section agreed upon in the talk section"[152] despite the talk section at the time showed otherwise [153]. This might constitute a personal attack. See my detailed comments on the Edit warring Noticeboard (Which I put before noticing this. Caseeart (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Final chance to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and the community comments phase of the process is approaching conclusion.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Those who have not commented yet, are encouraged to do so over the next few days.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester's ownership antics?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RGloucester thinks he rules the world. This time, he rejected my draft, Draft:2014 Odessa clashes, by blanking it. Fortunately, I reverted it. The draft was created per EdJohnston's request. Actually, some people suggested a merger at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. That person, dedicated to his tyranny, objects it and deems these events as separate. I told him that he'd be re-report, so here I am rockin' like a hurricane. --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There is an ongoing RM discussion that you demanded to have at the talk page. The discussion has not been closed. Therefore, no drafts can be implemented. What a surprise! This is a total nonsense. I'm really tired of this Mr Ho character. It seems like he is dedicated to making trouble and frivolous AN/I requests. RGloucester — ☎ 06:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Drafts do not need a consensus to be moved into mainspace. Any editor who is convinced that a draft is ready for "prime time" can move it, although they face the possibility of being deleted via SD, Prod or AfD if they're not actually ready. While in draft space, drafts should not be blanked, as they are not actual articles, but only potential articles. BMK (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an article already, 2014 Odessa clashes. However, that was the result of RGloucester's actions when I did the first RM on the 2 May event. And it's different from the draft. --George Ho (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 Odessa clashes already exists, so the draft cannot be moved anywhere. There is an ongoing discussion about a move/merger, and Mr Ho was trying to circumvent it, despite clamouring for such a discussion ages ago. I blanked it as a copyright violation and as a coatrack. It had no original content. It was just a copy-paste of stuff other people had written (a hefty chunk by me), and no attribution was provided. This is the type of editor Mr Ho is. Instead of actually writing anything, he makes messes across pages he has no knowledge about. RGloucester — ☎ 06:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Attribution can be provided by leaving a note on the talk page [154] and there's no mention of copyright in the blanking edit summary [155]. NE Ent 09:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I offered him a mediation, but he didn't want it. He has been reported many times, including one time of his "gaming" the RM. His comments are just accusations and bitterness. As for the clashes, I read the article. The subtopic is part of recent Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and his dedication to broad topic has become totally obvious when you read his past posts. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand what there was to mediate. There was is an ongoing RM that you clamoured for. I assumed we'd allow that to be closed as is usually done. Instead, you pop into my talk page and start hounding me with made-up nonsense rubbish drafts? What a bunch of rubbish. The only issue here is you. You are a muckraker, enjoy making drama, and have nothing better to do. In fact, I'm not quite sure you are even here to build an encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 07:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• If everyone here despises the lowly Duke of Gloucester, feel free to dispose of him. What uselessness he weaves, no? RGloucester — ☎ 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, actually, you're generally a drag on the project, and would be best being disposed of. BMK (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's expressed in the terms we would like to apply to fellow editors, even those we disagree with, Beyond My Ken. Could you take a second look at what you've written? Maybe after you've had your caffeinated drink of choice?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• What? "Being disposed of"? Just my advice but you should take a wikibreak. (WP:COOL). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Taking a break isn't going to help. This is normal discourse for BMK. Have a look at the comments and page history over at Talk:William Street (Manhattan), where he is presently engaged in personal attacks when he didn't like the response he got from an RfC and then tried to collapse the comments. RGloucester is only one of dozens of editors BMK is free to attack like this. I'm much more concerned with BMK's behavior, here, especially in regards to ownership of content and images, where multiple disputes arise on a daily basis. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Dispose of" was RGloucestor's choice of words, not mine. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You both have been here long enough to know not to take swipes at your fellow editors and focus on the issues at hand, not the contributor. George Ho, is there some reason you are objecting to the process that's begun at RM? It's been relisted and additional editors have weighed in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no content issue. Mr Ho has been badgering me for ages, now. He is one of a little group of editors who believe that it would be best to dispose of me. As such, I keep getting dragged through nonsense like this for no reason. In an ideal world, Mr Ho would be blocked for his behaviour. That won't happen here. Instead, I'll keep getting dragged through the muck despite my own will. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you underestimate how poor your attitude comes across from the way in which you approach certain situations (particularly disagreements). All three of you have made comments here which should be reconsidered, and hope all three of you will amend the relevant comments accordingly instead of continuing this unseemly display of appearing to bicker (or finding other ways to bicker) with each other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Too late; RGloucester is becoming less cooperative. I asked him to help me on the draft, and this is how he helped me. This isn't about me or BMK's attitude. See the heading? I have been afraid that, if the RM closes as "merged", he would do something more drastic, like last time. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make a copyvio coatrack. You did. Take responsibility for your despicable actions. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

legal threat

Please forward to correct admin. The last posting to List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States has an edit summary with a legal threat. Hmains (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the guy needs to be blocked and possibly the edit summary erased. But does he have a point? If charges were dropped, is it a BLP violation to keep that reference in the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion or idea as I am not editing the article; I just noted the summary for anyone interested. Hmains (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Left the fellow a warning so he can retract it. I don't see why people can't just discuss things rather than threatening people. As for the BLP question, it might be best to ask in the relevant noticeboard. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775 03:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours (since it's an IP). However, we should be looking at why these people make these edits this way - the politician in question was cleared and charges dismissed but we of course failed to follow up. I've added the balancing information to the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted at the BLP noticeboard as recommended by Petrie. Even if charges were dropped, the guy resigned from office, so it obviously had an impact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't reflected in the article until FRF updated it just now, unfortunately. That's the problem. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, the edit summary invoked the possibility of a "defamatory lawsuit", which would an interesting change of pace. EEng (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary RevDel'd, any admin that disagrees may revert without consultation. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have. Regrettably I hit return before giving my reasons on the edit summary, so will do so here. The summary can be read both ways, as a prediction, and as a threat. I do not find any textual reason to prefer one interpretation over the other. I prefer to AGF and give the benefit of the doubt. The IP does have a point overall, and I'd rather keep things in the open as a first preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My earlier kidding aside I think the edit summary was a threat, and should remain revdel'd. If someone says "Writing X without foundation seems to me a WP:BLP violation", they're helping other editors understand the guidelines we strive to follow. In fraught areas such as BLP, those guidelines are set in consultation with the Foundation and its counsel; it's their job to translate applicable law into appropriate editing practices‍—‌not ours. An editor saying "Writing X will result in a lawsuit" is at best short-circuiting that division of responsibility, or at worst trying to frighten other editors to get the result he wants regardless of what guidelines say. (And the word will carries the very strong sense that the writer isn't predicting what someone else might do, but rather what he intends to do himself.)

In any event BLP exists not to "avoid lawsuits", but rather because Wikipedia strives to follow the law, which is not quite the same thing. Once again, how to do that is set out for us in guidelines, and that's what editors should talk about‍—‌not lawsuits. This is indeed a legal threat. EEng (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it was just an exercise in logic? Or maybe it was someone with a gift! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you propositioning me again? EEng (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How very dare you! "It'll never stand up in court!" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellows

User:John has semi-protected Oddfellows on grounds of "persistent sock puppetry," without any evidence for that claim. He is refusing to engage in discussion. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

From the looks of it this policy which User:John has already mentioned by advising you to take it to the talk page to discuss seems to apply. There were concerns of sockpuppetry that appeared to be legitimate and they were acted on. If your willing to take it to the talk page this would still be the best way forward. Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have taken it to the talk page and am still waiting for a response there. You will see from the article history that Jayaguru-Shishya was bold and I reverted. Instead of discussing, Jayaguru-Shishya started an edit war, accused me of a "high level of IP vandalism" and "making the same controversial edits over and over again" at WP:RFP, then suggested to John that I was a sock. In my view, protecting the page was poor judgement and I received short shrift because I choose to edit from an IP address. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Or do you mean three different IP addresses? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably hundreds over the years. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Does concept of sockpuppetry apply to multiple IPs? Depends on the edits, I think. So we're left with the nature of the addition? Best discussed on that Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOCK wouldnt seem to apply, working from a dynamic IP isnt an attempt to abuse multiple accounts so I wouldnt see that it fits under socking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 23:18, March 12, 2015‎ (UTC)

Yet the page is semi-protected and not one administrator has commented. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Those are rather severe allegations you are making, IP 2.27.78.13. Let me quickly comment some of your claims:

1. Bold. The section Manchester Unity Credit Union was first boldly added on 25th February[156] by IP 2.27.78.251. Partly the material failed verification, partly it was left totally unsourced. This has been explained in the Edit Summaries concerning the rephrasing of the section. You later admitted at John's Talk Page[157] that you are behind the IP 2.27.78.251 and IP 163.167.125.215, and therefore you have been repeatedly re-inserting material that you added to the article in the first place.
2. Verify. John reminded editors[[158] at Talk:Oddfellows that WP:VERIFY applies. You later commented there[159]: "Not everything needs referencing."
3. Edit war. You said: "Instead of discussing, Jayaguru-Shishya started an edit war..." Actually, I tried to get engaged in discussion with you at your Talk Page[160]. I haven't received any response from you, though.
4. RFP. As I have replied you[161], I mistakenly reported only one IP instead of two. After my report, a third IP appeared. You have admitted to be behind all those three at John's Talk Page.
5. Sock. You said: "...suggested to John that I was a sock." This is another false claim you are making. I never claimed you to be a sock. Instead, I said at John's Talk Page the following: "It seems there have suddenly popped up three different IP editors, all editing over the same content, and all of which seem to share the same interest towards credit unions according to their user contributions. Do you think they might be socks?"
6. Personal attacks. Now you are accusing me of personal attacks at Talk:Oddfellows without any rationale. According to WP:AVOIDYOU: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."

Summa summarum, in my opinion IP 2.27.78.13 is twisting the facts, making false accusations, and is blaming me from personal attacks without any justification. I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've unprotected given that 2.27.78.13 has accepted responsibility for the other IP edits and come to article talk to discuss. Please finish the discussion there before adding the material, and do not edit war. --John (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerning my dispute with Iryna Harpy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not know where else to turn when it comes to Iryna Harpy. I have been told by the dispute noticeboard to try and engage the subject again because of the fact that there exist too short a history between us to consider it urgent enough. But the problem is that she continues to treat me as if I was air, talking about me in our conversations as if I was an item and not a person, calling me names that she does not substantiate with anything and painting herself the victim when it was she that engaged in her attacks and deletions first, not me.

I am a person who is O.K. with people being straightforward with me, two users have told me to get out if "I don't like it". I'm alright with them explaining their position with me, I with them and we thus part ways. The problem with Iryna is that she will not engage in a conversation, she will not explain why she considers me to be attacking her, baiting her, trolling her. Why she thinks that I am un-wikipedian, a crusader, why she thinks that my posts are forumposts, why she deletes them, why she thinks that they go against the various policies she keeps copy-pasting without any context. I was about to write a post on her talkpage calling her a bitch, a fucking idiot and so forth, I'm quite an emotional person. But using her standing she'd turn that against me because of her subvertive style. In her last post she has the audacity to issue a fake, heartless appology to the fellow that informed her that my noticeboard request for mediation was closed by saying that she is sorry for having let her poor self get invovled with me. Yet during the very same period of time she continued to post in discussions that I am holding elsewhere. If she were simply to ignore me as I want to ignore her (unable to confront her or discuss with her) then that would be fine. But she does not ignore me.

So, here I turn to you. Please do not close this thread even though the harassement has been happening during only a few days as all that will remain for me to do is insult her heavily as a human respons where all other options have been exhausted.

Chronology of events: I write two posts for the following article: Talk:Battle for Ilovaisk And a now deleted one.

She replied to both and has since replied to several posts I have made, either indirectly or directly. She refuses to treat me as a contributor, answer my questions or comments but simply as explained above either insults my conduct or throws policies at my face.

"Hiho Gloucester. I'm actually curious about that, could you link to the discussion that has shown RT to not be a reliable source?78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Reply: WP:NPA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)"

We're all very, very tired of having to deal with bad faith personal attacks and crusaders. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Or on my talkpage: "Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)"

or on RGloucesters talkpage: "Don't waste time on sockpuppets"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

On her talkpage she appologizes (as mentioned) to someone else for "Feeding the trolls" (me) without even responding to my attempt to mediate with her.

I have several times asked her (on her talk page, and on the talk page for the battle of ilovaisk) to explain herself. But she continues to ignore me. She is engaging other people in conversations that I create without referencing even once to me, the OP. Example: Her own talkpage and this talkpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_RiaNovosti_not_a_reliable_source_for_the_Battle_of_Ilovaisk_article.3F

She does the same with others. Just prior to deleting my contribution she deleted the following one:

"The whole article is a masterpiece of propaganda. All pro-russian sources are declared unreliable, and all pro-ukrainian, like сensor.net.ua, are illuminated by godlike truthfulness :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.25.252 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)"

She does this by claiming to be quote "...Removing trolling"

Or at an other comment:

"WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)" Again, without any context or reasoning behind this claim.

If one reviews her contributions in the history of the Battle for Ilovaisk the same type of behavior presents itself as in other articles like this. She takes it upon herself to delete contributions, ignore non-western sources (and deleting them when added to that or other articles) and attack users using policy strawmans without any context to the actual contribution of the editor.

So I don't know what to do. I know it *may* seem minor but she is using Master Supression Techniques very skillfully to supress dissenting opinion. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No comment on anything else but you really need to learn the purpose of article talk pages if you want to continue to edit them, particularly talk pages for highly contentious articles where we generally have to be strict to avoid things getting out of hand. The standard template Iryna Harpy added to your userpage that you mentioned above is very good advice regardless of your problems with that editor. You should try and understand it, reading the linked policies and guidelines if necessary and seeking clarification somewhere appropriate like WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse if you are still confused. At least one of the discussions you initiated was deleted by User:Drmies and the deletion seems proper as it was indeed a clear WP:FORUM violation [162]. BTW, to be clear, when it comes to talk pages, no one cares about your opinion of the conflict in Ukraine on anything relating to it, any more than we can about the opinion of Iryna Harpy, Drmies or me. You are welcome to discuss your opinion somewhere appropriate like a forum outside wikipedia but not on article talk pages. The only thing that matters is how we can improve the article. That would require reliable sources, not personal opinions on how a source was wrong because X happened. (In a limited number of caes, there may be usefulness to discuss why a source is wrong in search of better sources, but this should only be done with care. Usually it only happens with late breaking news or with stuff that gets little real attention.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

She specifically uses policy idioms as a tool to silence dissenters by appearing to be knowledgable about the issue without ever providing a context. Her intentions are not to be helpfull because when asked to explain herself she does not. When invited to a debate about for example what is or isn't a reliable source she does not reply. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant to my comment. Whatever Iryna Harpy may or may not have done wrong, this doesn't excuse your forum violations. As I already said, you need to learn to use article talk pages properly if you want to continue to edit them. Actually I was fairly generous in my earlier statement, in truth you need to deal with your behaviour before worrying so much about the behaviour of others. People are unlikely to pay your complaints much heed when there are such obvious problems with your behaviour. And while we're on your behaviour, it's very rare that saying someone is "using Master Supression Techniques very skillfully to supress dissenting opinion" is helpful to any discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, the editor who opened this complaint has twice removed Template:Shared IP, contrary to WP:BLANKING & WP:DRC. See [163] and [164]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, my "blanking" of the talk-page was explained to the editor JoeSperrazza on his talkpage. The template requires the suspicion that the IP is shared (such as it being owned by an institution). It is similar to the behavior of said Iryna Harpy whereupon the subject uses policy as a tool to silence dissent but refuses to explain how the policy is applicable. I await the comment of neutral parties in addition to Nil Einne. The78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) An IP isn't an account and can't be "shut down". An IP can be blocked, but that required sufficient problems from the IP such as repeated personal attacks, to justify it. Adding Template:ISP doesn't make it more likely an IP will be blocked. If anything it could make it less likely or make a block shorter. Although hopefully not since an admin should be doing their own WHOIS if they'll be influenced by the template but there isn't one. The main reason for the template is to let people know messages on their talk page may not be directed at them, it also mentions some minor encouragement to register. Removing it is indeed one of the exceptions mentioned at WP:BLANKING to the leeway we provide to editors to remove messages on their talk page, so you should stop at least until and unless you can come to a WP:consensus it doesn't belong. Anyway if you can't achieve consensus it doesn't belong, while I don't understand why you're so desperate to have the template removed, your other choice is to register for an account. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I consider my IP to be my account for the time being that I am using it, it is the virutal representation of myself and I do not need any other alias, this is the principle I hold dear. Please continue this discussion in my talkpage or on yours if you want and do not be any more disruptive to the subject at hand 78.68.210.173 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note; there has been some discussion on my talk page about this. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Edits such as this are disruptive. Stop. Listen. Learn. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So are edits such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A78.68.210.173&diff=651247028&oldid=651245864 where you not only re-add a template without answering why but remove part of my other answer to you. I was just trying to teach you a lesson in empathy. Blew right past you. Now, please do not continue being disruptive. This is a place of last resort. If you have a dispute with me I am happy to discuss it with you first. I have not been able to discuss anything with Harpy and thus have come here. I will now archive this discussion. Please follow general guidelines that state that you should see to it that you have clear baggage yourself before making a specific accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.68.210.173 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear an IP is not an account. If you want an account, you will need to register an account. You are still allowed a fair amount of leeway with the IP's talk page, but it isn't the same as if you had an account. As I think has already been mentioned to you, it's completely your choice whether you want to register for an account, but you shouldn't expect everything will be exactly the same for you if you don't because it simply isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I've resisted commenting on the merits of the template itself. But looking more carefully, you seem to have missed a key point. The shared IP template (which wasn't used here anyway, the ISP one was) says it's for "pool of dynamic IP addresses" which your IP appears to be given the hostname "h173n19-rny-a13.ias.bredband.telia.com" (as this strongly suggests it's dynamic, even if sticky).

Note that the ISP template, is specifically for people who's IP address appears to belong to an ISP, so all the talk of libraries and stuff is missing the point. Yes the stuff about a proxy may be a bit confusing, possibly Template:Dynamic IP would be a better choice. And even if your IP is static, the Template:Whois would be appropriate and the blanking policy still disallows the removal of "templates and notes left to indicate" ... "to whom the IP is registered".

Personally, I don't see the template as a big deal and wouldn't have bothered to add it back. But on the other hand you also seem to be making it a bigger deal than it is. The details added the template are just what a WHOIS reveals. Even without them being added to the template, they're still easy to check, they're just there for convience (and in the case of a shared IP such as a dynamic IP, to let people know the messages may not be for them). If you won't want people to be able to check these details, you need to register for an account. As long as you continue to edit as an IP, your IP WHOIS details will be easily known, which includes telling us who the IP belongs to (this doesn't necessarily tell people where you live, as you could be using a proxy).

Do understand the presence or absence of the template isn't going to significantly affect how people interact with you, although you edit warring over it's removal may very well do so.

Also please do not hat stuff discussing your conduct at ANI. If feel it has no place at ANI, you're welcome to say so. Someone else will hat it if they agree with you. (Actually it's generally a bad idea to hat a discussion you've been involved in at all.)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Iryna doesn't deserve a gold star for this exchange, but there is no merit to IP's complaints. IP seems here to Right Great Wrongs and takes it as persecution when asked to adhere to the purposes of the encyclopedia. No disruption to article space has resulted, so I recommend no action at this time. Rhoark (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block requested -- recurrence of promotional editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last week, an anon editing from 47.20.155.176 was blocked for promotional editing/spamming for a podcaster and her program. Over the last two days, new user Jdshatz has been doing the same promotional editing, often on the same articles. This appears to be the same editor, and, after I reverted dozens of spam insertions, they've tested the waters on reverting one of my removals to see if it's noticed. A renewed, significantly longer block is appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing any warnings on their talk page. I also am not seeing any notification of the ANI discussion. None of which bears directly on the allegations. But still these things need to be taken care of. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the account, as their sole purpose here seems to be to promote something. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block request for 206.212.134.12, a NYPD user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Administrators -- I am posting an argent request. I am requesting that an Administrator block IP address 206.212.134.12. This IP address has been proven to be traced back to the New York City Police Department's headquarters, 1 Police Plaza. This NYPD user made a biased edit here and here, to the article about Eric Garner. This is COI, and against Wikipedia polices. I am requesting a temporally or permanent block. As of March 12, three of these edits the NYPD user made, remained in “Death of Eric Garner” article, while the rest had been removed in later Wikipedia users’ revisions. The IP address is a NYPD user, according to Capital New York. Please block this IP address, temporally or permanently. I also have more proof that this IP address belongs to the NYPD. I tracked the IP address on this map here. NYPD law enforcement can't edit articles related to their cases or their agency. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) For the record, IPs can't be permanently blocked. I do agree that there is a serious COI issue there though. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of a temporary block Erpert? CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't be against it, but it's up to an admin. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) This is being talked about a bit higher up actually. I think the best thing we can do as suggested above is to just remain vigilant and see to it that the articles are written according to the sources and any attempts to push POV or downplay referenced negative information is reverted. I'm a bit iffy about the IPs being blocked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 04:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• My comment got lost in the mix. No use in blocking an IP for an edit from that long ago (and it seems that positive edits were made from that IP as well). The article is already semi-protected; see the talk page for commentary on recent edits and a tag. This isn't a huge problem, nothing that ordinary editing can't handle. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ElKevbo conflict (FAMU & Arlington,TX)

ELKevbo (talk) is adamant about keeping the 2011 hazing death of marching band member Mr. Champion on the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University main page but there's no need. 1) It's already on the university's marching band wiki page so it's redundant (marching 100). 2) Other universities have had hazing deaths but I don't see him ensuring that the deaths are posted on their main page.

Also ELKevbo is adamant about stating the graduation rate in the history portion of the main page (misplaced). I removed it because the current graduation rate has nothing to do with the establishment of the university. And if it's going to stay, a new section needs to be created where discussing the graduation rate will fit.

In closing, the 2011 hazing death and graduation rate needs to be removed. If the graduation rate stays it needs to be taking out of the history section. No other university's wiki page has their graduation rate in the history section so why is he or she making FAMU keep it there. Any effort to rectify the situation has been reverted by the editor in question and he's threatened to block me for fixing it.

In the demographic section of the Arlington, Texas page I deleted the Vietnamese American addition because it's outdated and an irrelevant fact. Vietnamese Americans are counted in the Asian percentage and they are not an overwhelming representative of the Arlington diverse population so if they're going to be singled out, then so does every ethnicity living in Arlington, TX.

All efforts to rectify this has been met with hostility. So I'm need assistance to make what's wrong, right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadmoor (talk • contribs) 03:50, March 14, 2015‎ (UTC)

These seem like routine content disputes to me, which should be discussed on the appropriate article talk pages, toward the goal of achieving consensus. Are you asking for administrative action, and if so, why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Garden variety conflict dispute already being discussed on my Talk page. But can someone else please drop Broadmoor a line about edit warring? He or she may not appreciate such a message from me. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Also left messages about leaving Edit summaries, and signing Talk page messages. --IJBall (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Death threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No matter what allegations you face, there's no justification for threats and attacks like this.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not familiar with the expression 'digging your own grave'? http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dig+own+grave It's merely an expression, and as a result, no action should be taken. Or are we going to block all the users who mentioned 'hanging himself'--a reference to WP:ROPE? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bazaan is also relevant. Tutelary (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rainmaker, I think it would be in your own best interest to withdraw this studiedly clueless complaint, but if you insist on pursuing it, far be it from me to stop you -- it's your funeral. EEng (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It might be best for the OP to bone up on English language idioms, preferably the American ones as the British ones are indecipherable. Check odd expressions first in case you risk jumping the gun. I think the SPI is what the OP linked as well. Does this count as WP:BOOMERANG? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 02:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

List of expressions related to death may help, although it does not include "dig your own grave". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is either a specious filing, or a severe English-language (understanding) issue, but either way, it now needs to be closed with Rainmaker23's sudden "retirement". --IJBall (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This entire situation is confusing, considering Rainmaker apparently retired over a week before opening this discussion (maybe {{semi-retired}} would have been more proper?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm seeing not only a violation of WP:NPA here, but also a possible WP:NLT violation (or at least something that creates a bit of a chilling effect). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 04:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I was told by User EEng to withdraw this complaint, which I did and yet it still lingers? It was neither specious or a language issue, its an issue of sensitivity and civility. I've often tried to give olive branches to these people, and instead of responding with logic or merit, I'm told about graves in a sock puppet investigation and a funeral in an ANI. Its all a bit too much really. Have my edits been controversial? have I pushed a POV? Instead I'm being targeted in the worst possible way by conservative WP Bangladesh members who simply hate me for my narrative. They hardly make any meaningful contribution at all, to be honest. Whatever I'm not interested in legal threats, but without having any idea or respect for my intellectual curiosity, I've been harangued for months. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NYPD editing

This makes us look like idiots: NYPD caught trying to rewrite Wikipedia. The Google doc is here. Can somebody please look into this? Bearian (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've looked. It would be useful if you or other members of the community would put together some proposals - do you want these IP addresses (and presumably logged in edits a checkuser would need to identify) reverted and a warning/block where appropriate, do you want the entire NYPD blocked from editing, do you want this referred over to WMF to see if they want to complain/liase with NYPD about this or something else ? Nick (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make "us" look like idiots unless they succeeded. If they didn't, it makes "us" look pretty smart. As far as I can tell, they didn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I will readily admit to not reading all 27 pages of the Google doc, but in the first 7 pages the majority of subjects edited are not controversial at all. It would be helpful for someone to reduce that list to the articles about controversial subjects in which edits favorable to the NYPD were made, then those articles can be added to people's watchlists to make sure that all editing remains NPOV. Blocking the NYPD is draconian and unnecessary, and it surely would make up look bad in the press. Short blocks per IP seems like it would be an ineffective tactic, since presumably the IPs are available to mutiple people. BMK (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with watching those pages. Provided I don't get an NYPD baton to the face during my commute, of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The three articles that were mentioned by name were: Shooting of Amadou Diallo, Death of Eric Garner, and Sean Bell shooting incident. The edits are all from the range 206.212.128.0/18 (covers 16,384 IP addresses). Range contribs tool on Labs shows 1,655 edits altogether, dating back to 2003. (The list on Labs is glitchy and incomplete.) Anyone with their finger on the pulse in NYC could please make a note to add future events to their watch-list as they occur. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There's more than a few regulars on here that are New Yorkers including me, and news about the NYPD travels pretty fast, so that shouldn't be too hard. Odd that Amadou Diallo would be tragetted. It's an old case, always on people's minds when discussing the police, of course, but still very old. The NYPD has been engaging in a PR campaign with limited successand this Wikipedia campaign is another example. Also, if this is any indication, some of what's being done is just your ordinary run-of-the-mill vandalism. All righty all, let's do our Wiki-civic duty! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 04:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone has set up a bot Twitter feed thingy, https://twitter.com/nypdedits, which will post all the Wikipedia edits from that set of IPs. It must be pretty new; no posts yet. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the three extant edits on the Garner page that were mentioned by CNY. Meanwhile, I have also raised the issue at WT:NYC, requesting help for the matter. Virtually all of the NYPD's edits outside of the three mentioned articles are basically uncontroversial, though. Epic Genius (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

First related discussion

As per this news article, apparently, some anonymous edits are being made to the articles of Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo": "Computer users identified by Capital as working on the NYPD headquarters' network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations, including entries for Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses." Is this being discussed somewhere? I know this is nothing new; members of Congress and other politicians were caught using playing dirty pool with opponents or opposing views, and of course the perennial nationalistic nonsense that crops up all too often. I just think it is more depressing when cops try to erase an article that points out mistakes they have made. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Is this thing on? (tap tap)... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Second related discussion

Hello Administrators -- I am posting an argent request. I am requesting that an Administrator block IP address 206.212.134.12. This IP address has been proven to be traced back to the New York City Police Department's headquarters, 1 Police Plaza. This NYPD user made a biased edit here and here, to the article about Eric Garner. This is COI, and against Wikipedia polices. I am requesting a temporally or permanent block. As of March 12, three of these edits the NYPD user made, remained in “Death of Eric Garner” article, while the rest had been removed in later Wikipedia users’ revisions. The IP address is a NYPD user, according to Capital New York. Please block this IP address, temporally or permanently. I also have more proof that this IP address belongs to the NYPD. I tracked the IP address on this map here. NYPD law enforcement can't edit articles related to their cases or their agency. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) For the record, IPs can't be permanently blocked. I do agree that there is a serious COI issue there though. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC) What do you think of a temporary block Erpert? CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Personally, I wouldn't be against it, but it's up to an admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) This is being talked about a bit higher up actually. I think the best thing we can do as suggested above is to just remain vigilant and see to it that the articles are written according to the sources and any attempts to push POV or downplay referenced negative information is reverted. I'm a bit iffy about the IPs being blocked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23 Adar 5775 04:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr uca / U cho aung

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Mr uca & User:U cho aung - repeatedly creating autobiographies and related articles despite multiple warnings and deletions, eg: U CHO AUNG, Uchoaung, U cho aung, see also AFC/R diff, Patuakhali Polytechnic Institite, and Patuakhali Polytechnic Institute. 82.132.216.222 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The autobiography qualifies for deletion as A7 (non-notable person). I have notified both user accounts of this thread. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional addition of cites to a self-published paper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All edits ever made by User:197.78.162.209, such as this one, have been for the purpose of adding a citation to a self-published.paper at ResearchGate. The citations have been added for facts such as the apparent height of the sun in the sky giving rise to the seasons, or "vertical south-facing (equator side) glass is excellent for capturing solar thermal energy". Such facts are so well-known that a citation might not be needed at all. If a citation is desired, anyone capable of writing a suitable source would also know that a citation to a standard reference book would be far more suitable than a citation to a ResearchGate self-published article.

This behavior convinces me that one of the authors of the ResearchGate paper is shamelessly promoting his/her paper. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. I warned and rolled back. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• The warning issued by Drmies has been ignored. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  I blocked them for 24 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I want also to point out that engaging in sockpuppetry means automatic red card in wikipedia, there is zero tolerance for it. 37.136.114.237 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism found

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure where to put this.

In 2007, someone put some false info into Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porto-Novo&diff=140394811&oldid=135630846

This is not true. The British bombarded Porto Novo in 1861. See See p.589 of International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, Volume 4, edited by Trudy Ring, Robert M. Salkin, Sharon La Boda Also see Google Books

That editor, Corvus cornix stopped editing in 2011 after editing over 30,000 edits. He/she was accused of vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Corvus_cornix

See, I help WP even though I have been the source of bullying.

Why not give me a small barnstar? Oh, Wikipedia is mean and nasty so some bully will probably have some snide comment or even dream up an excuse to block me. When was the last time you researched an error and was in the process or actually did fix it? Never? Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So you do not even for a minute allow it was a typo for instance?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Or it could have been a simple mix-up with the French protection in 1863. Anyway corrected now. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

More importantly... why are we discussing something on ANI that happened in 2007? This should have been brought up at the article's talk page. Seems like this was more of an attempt to find an excuse to harass a completely unrelated editor (User:Betty Logan), due to his block a few days ago for edit warring. The only advice I can give is for Wowee Zowee public to drop the WP:STICK. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Coffee concerns

Look at my post above. It makes no mention of Betty Logan. True, it did but I corrected it seconds later. (Betty Logan make a false report of 3RR and got Coffee to block me. Another uninvolved user determined that no 3RR was done) However, Coffee continues to harrass me. And he is an administrator. This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name. It is common for admins to edit before they become admin. Then they stop editing after getting the tools because the sadistic side of human nature is that it can be fun to block people.

To others, I have also found other cases of errors that might be vandalism. I will get to them in time. Frankly, with the bullying in Wikipedia, it is easier to let those error go. Sad, but true.

Requested solution: declare that Coffee must stay completely away from me for 2 weeks. He/she must not comment on the same articles or areas or noticeboards as I do and I will do the same. No, I don't think that Coffee will agree because he has not only the stick, but the nuclear bomb (blocking tool). He/she is a bad example of an admin. He/she could have easily not attacked me like he did in the above. He/she keeps attacking and attacking. Bad. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocking you, to prevent disruption (which was upheld by another uninvolved admin), and warning you to not edit war does not qualify as "bullying". Furthermore, pointing out the motivation of your actions above does not qualify as "attacking". If you had simply originally complied with our policy on edit warring, none of this would have happened... and we wouldn't be having this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a lie. When you blocked me I told you it was punishment because I pledged not to edit the article. Therefore, blocking did not act as prevention. The article was even page protected (fully protected) so even if I tried to, I would not be able to edit. Also, Betty did not discuss, merely reverted, while I discussed / modified edits (did not re-post the same thing, but tried alternative wordings and toned stuff down) / and did not 3RR (as certified by an uninvolved user).

Also, Coffee, you write that you are on your last "straw" when I post a polite request to stay away from me (and vice versa) for 2 weeks, yet you used to continue to plaster messages on my user talk page even after I told you to stop.

Coffee, you lack the maturity needed for an admin. An admin should be calm, follow rules, display the utmost respect even if spit upon. Instead, you act with glee to block. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does this look to me like a WP:BAIT to get Coffee to comment here so you can bring up a WP:POINT about them?

• Wikipedia is mean and nasty so some bully will probably have some snide comment or even dream up an excuse to block me.

The use of bully here is similar to the section title here, which directly refers to Coffee. WP:BOOMERANG -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin Touche... good point. Aaaand I completely fell for the bait. *sigh* — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This also looks like baiting, which really isn't cool. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

An admin is supposed to be immune to baiting or they should not be an admin.

It is also not baiting. It is a fine suggestion that you stay away from me and I stay away from you. Coffee did not accept the suggestion, which is what you would expect of a non-admin. I am disappointed that WP has admins like Coffee. Too bad. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely wrong I did not bait Coffee. Coffee baited me...see that mayhem started when he started commenting!!!! Now that I see it, I will stop taking the bait. I wonder if Coffee will be so wise or will he be a bully since he is an admin? Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And now your implying that all admins are bullies... good grief. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This is NOT COOL either. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying to bait me and stir up trouble? You want me to say exactly why another candidate is not as good as him? Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop posting immediately, you are doing yourself no favours with your accusations which verge on personal attacks (actually, one of two cross the line - knock it off!). I guarantee you that this will not end the way you intend if you continue in this manner.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think WZP is displaying some competency issues an inability to play nice with others. Not to mention he's making lots of personal attacks. I also disagree with the statement that admins should be immune from baiting. Watchful, yes, but immunity should not be required. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 20:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wowee Zowee public, everybody should be ammune to baiting not just sysops. Unfortunately they're not and trolls will always exist. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that Wowee is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. In the last day or so s/he has gone WP:FORUMSHOPPING here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#forum shopping advice and here. S/he has also commented on contributor rather than content here and here. Sadly, s/he is treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. S/he seems to think demands that other editors not make edits (see here and here) is the way to handle things. All one has to do is read the edit summary here as well as the collection of unblock requests that the edit removed to see that everything is a win/lose situation for this editor. In spite of not being able to drop the WP:STICK at a couple articles Wowee has made a few helpful edits and there is a chance they could become a productive editor but only if they were willing to take on a WP:MENTOR - if that program is still active that is - and stop attacking anyone who disagrees with her/him. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Digging the hole deeper

Wowee Zowee public just continues to abuse the block appeal process and refuses to 'negotiate' their block with all but 'neutral' admins (I'm here because of a failed attempt by them to pick a fight at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cube (U.S. game show) which was averted by the block). It might be time to block access to their talk since they have made no cogent argument to lift the block. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

They have already been warned on their talk page that if another unblock request is declined then talk page access will be removed. If they continue to abuse the process then it will be removed. Davewild (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hijiri 88

I can understand that editors disagree [[165]] amongst other issues, but this post here by User Hijiri 88 crosses some lines [[166]].--Catflap08 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, the second link is to a talk page thread. Which specific comments, if any, are you finding objectionable? John Carter (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

this one here "It should be pointed out that Catflap08 apparently has a history of writing what he wants on Wikipedia and pretending to cite sources, even when the sources don't actually say what he claims them to. All material added by Catflap08, even if it appears to be sourced, should therefore be taken as suspect, and unless material has actually been verified by independent users checking the sources it should not be included in the article. I'm saying this having interacted with his POV-pushing on a bio of a poet who's been dead for over eighty years -- it only applies about 8,000,000 times more for this article.

(And yes, I did "follow" him here, but only after he and his friend effectively forced me to. I was not involved until Catflap08 and company wrongly equated this article with the Miyazawa Kenji article. (Catflap08 didn't directly support the linkage but he deliberately avoided correcting his friend when the link was made.) Since Catflap08 appears to be showing the same disruptive pattern here as he has on those other articles, and I've already admitted to believing that this is a recurrent CIR issue with Catflap08, my coming here is also policy-based.)"''--Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, the two edits here and here. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What lines do you believe he's crossing specifically? If you read WP:HOUND, he can follow you around if you're violating policies, in this case WP:CIR. @Hijiri88:. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter told me that it was my responsibility to investigate Catflap08's entire edit history before complaining about his edits. When I did, I found him engaging in the exact same abuse of sources on another article as he was on the article he first interacted with me on. This user should be indefinitely blocked, since he seems to only be interested in writing what he wants on Wikipedia, regardless of what the sources -- the sources he cites -- say. Get Catflap08 to cite the specific diffs where I "hounded" him, and you will see me citing diffs clearly showing Catflap08 engaged in disruptive behaviour. The relevant edit I made in which to which he was referring in his OP is here. John Carter also seems to think that my scrupulously scouring a source Catflap08 cited to see if it actually says what he says it does (it doesn't) is also problematic, although Catflap08 himself made no reference to this edit.

Someone please block this incompetent POV-pusher like he deserves.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Catflap08 appears to have realized that no one agrees with him on the talk page and has decided to forum-shop the dispute to ANI. Wouldn't be the first time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Um...you have forum-shopped too, Hijiri88. Maybe y'all really do need an IBAN (that, or at least avoid starting an ANI thread about each other every week). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, the fact that totally unacceptable language like "jackass" and "jerk" have been used in recent conversation might support that contention. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Which side are you referring to, JC? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, in his hatting of some earlier discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#User:Catflap08. Honestly, given the nature of the discussion here, and some of the related discussion now taking place at WP:BLPN#Daisaku Ikeda, including apparently unfounded claims about what sources do and do not say, I'm thinking there is a real chance that individual might be more deserving of sanctions than the other. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert:, No, I brought a legitimate concern about Catflap's CIR and IDHT issues to ANI, and didn't discuss article content until Catflap started repeating the same nonsensical arguments as on the talk page that I had already corrected him on (that I had "removed the cited sources" because, even by Catflap's own admission, they had no relation to the article text). Frustrated, I collapsed my own off-topic response with a summary that read I already provided the diff above -- and I provided it elsewhere too -- but here it is again. Please, someone block this jackass for this IDHT skullduggery. He immediately posted a separate thread on AN and was told by several others that because he was behaving like a jackass, calling him such was not an actionable offense.

You wrongly accused me of forum-shopping because, having seen Catflap's own obvious forum-shopping, you had to be fair and accuse me of the same thing. (You first did so before I ever opened the ANI thread you are linking.) As for John Carter's accusations of the same, they were based on the lie that I was forum-shopping an open DRN thread, even though I had absolutely no involvement there until last night, and made no reference to it when I allegedly forum-shopped it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what that Hijiri88 person has in stake, but he seems to get away with murder. I have been insulted numerous times by the editor. So if admins continue to behave the way that they do I will not any longer waste my time on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about die as a reliable source – the behaviour of certain admins will be an example on how that was allowed to happen.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that Hijiri seems to think that any questioning of his or her actions is unacceptable. And Hijiri's obvious incompetence in understanding that, his own opinion of himself aside, he is not in a position to absolutely and authoritatively make declarations on how others are acting raises serious Dunning-Kruger effect questions. I repeat, once again, that the most problematic behavior I have seen here, including Hijiri's repeated rushing to conclusions about others, is on the part of Hijiri. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 is defying consensus on the Miyazawa Kenji article over and over and over again. On the Kokuchukai article, he specifically admitted that he doesn't know how Wikipedia sourcing works. On the Daisaku Ikeda article, he appears to be doing the same thing. Why has this user not been blocked per CIR yet? I've been putting up with this idiots abuses for months, and I'm getting pretty sick of it. Everyone here except John Carter agrees that "jackass" and "jerk" are far politer epithets than Catflap08 deserves. And John Carter: what the hell is your deal? Are you just trying to get revenge on me for pointing out your abuses in the previous ANI thread? Get the hell over yourself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also: "Wikipedia is about die as a reliable source"? Seriously!? Catflap08 is asking that he be allowed post whatever he wants, pretend to cite sources, and even when those sources say something completely different from what he is saying his words need to remain. Or Wikipedia will die as a reliable source. Ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"This idiot's abuse"? Hijiri88, telling you not to use personal attacks was not a suggestion. You really need to stop this behavior (and you are also well aware that Catflap has also been sanctioned, so stop acting like people are only coming down on you). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Don't put words in my mouth: I used the word "abuses" in the countable noun sense of [www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse "the improper use of something"]. And I am not under the impression that no one has rebuked Catflap for his bad behaviour, hence my above citing other users, including an admin, saying he behaves like a jackass and thus deserves to be called one. But your claim Catflap has been "sanctioned" is bogus; he is continuing the exact same anti-consensus, IDHT abuses as he has since he started editing Wikipedia, and has not been placed under any sanctions whatsoever despite countless users complaining about him. I on the other hand now have one user (aside from Catflap himself) calling for actual sanctions against me merely for pointing this out. John Carter's behaviour on these three consecutive ANI threads has been quite ridiculous so I honestly doubt I have much to fear, but still.

As for "idiot": what would you prefer I call someone who places citations at arbitrary points in the article, next to text they do not support, and then when others remove them and explain that on English Wikipedia sources should back up the statements to which they are attached, starts an RFC to see if that's actually the case? "Idiotic" seems like fairly appropriate descriptor for this behaviour. You and John Carter seem to be only interested in the words I use, and not my actual behaviour, and you hypocritically ignore Catflap's violations on both counts. (If either foul language or sarcasm actually counted as personal attacks and were sanctionable on English Wikipedia Catflap would still have been the one who "started it".)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer that you make some obvious attempt to actually abide by policies and guidelines, which your own comments above seem to indicate you have either little understanding of or perhaps a rather irrational belief that your own personal opinions somehow are so obviously "true" that policies and guidelines to not apply to them. Frankly, your conduct is such that I think some sort of sanctions are called for, and am proposing them below.

Proposed sanctions on Hijiri88

This obvious grave dancing by Hijiri88 here, along with his rather self-righteous responses above, provides to my eyes sufficient reason to believe that Hijiri88 is perhaps demonstrably incapable of understanding that basic behavioral guidelines apply to him. That being the case, and the fact that his behavior, which I personally see as being at best a demonstration of obnoxious arrogance, leads me to believe that he may well be at least in some areas more of a burden on the encyclopedia than a benefit to it. On that basis, I think it reasonable to suggest the possibility of sanctions against him. I would propose, initially, a topic ban from Soka Gakkai related material and perhaps an interaction ban with Catflag08. That latter editor has indicated that he will remain active in the German wikipedia, and there is a chance that he might return again, particularly if he sees that what he has called a failure of the adminship here is less evident. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose He has been dealing with idiocy for months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - calling a spade a spade doesn't seem like a personal attack to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not adhering to rules regarding WP:USCHARTS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On What Kind of Man (Florence and the Machine song), I know that Ellis.022 isn't setting out to be intentionally unconstructive, but I have been asking him for about 7 months to please pay attention to WP:USCHARTS and study which component charts are not allowed to be included in the charts table if a song has charted on the main chart. I have gone though all the warnings on his talk page for doing this on lots of articles and still this happens. The addition of two components (Alternative and Adult Alternative) which are not allowed to be included (as the song charted on the Hot Rock Songs chart and Rock Airplay chart), which I removed just 5 days ago, with an edit summary echoing what I am writing now. He is aware of the rules but keeps on breaking them. I know he means well (it's good that he updates articles with Billboard chart positions every week), but it's getting really frustrating to constantly revert additions of component charts that he keeps on adding which are not allowed in the tables. Has also been warned for doing this on Time of Our Lives (Pitbull and Ne-Yo song) for example (I removed Dance Airplay, Ellis added it back, then I removed it again) as well as other articles, for which I warned him on his user talk. He must start adhering to the rules of WP:USCHARTS because it makes the history of these articles unstable.  — ₳aron 17:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen this too, which looks suspicious.  — ₳aron 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines/MOS are not policy. No editor is required to follow them. They are not 'rules' they are guides to editing which can be ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at User talk:Shhhhwwww!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had a content dispute with this editor but I do not think that the legal threat posted on their talk page by Wakanebe Wizard is appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also worthy of note is that Shhhhwwww!! has posted a retirement notice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please, I am not threatening him/her but I'm just leave some note to remind him/her to become more cautious of his/her disruptive editing. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "I will forgive you at this time but I will not hesitate to take any legal actions on you in the near future if you continue to doing any WP:DISRUPTIVE editing . . ." which reads as a legal threat to me. I encourage you to withdraw the threat, Wakanebe Wizard. It isn't allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will retract that words. Apologise to you as well to the editor. I'm actually never intend to be involved in any dispute with other editors. Once again, forgive me. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wakanebe Wizard has blanked the comment in question, with my thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Whilst we're discussing Wizard can someone strip his rollback considering the edit warring hes involved in? Corporal Applegate (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Better yet can we agree on a consensus to community ban Wizard entirely for threatening legal action, biting a newbie and abusing his tools and being a jerk? Corporal Applegate (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Who are you? A sockpuppet of Shhhhwwww!!? Biting a newbie? Are you sure that Shhhhwwww!! is still a newbie? And who are you to calling someone a "jerk"? This is more like a personal attack to me. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Corporal Applegate, since the problem has been remedied, please supply some diffs that back up your proposal to take further action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wakanebe Wizard I was calling you a jerk but am sorry I offended you and take it back. Im not a sockpuppet of Shhhhwwww!! but I do stand by my allegation you were biting a newcomer and considering you did the same albeit less severely to me I request that you do not contact me again. In return I will do the same. Corporal Applegate (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This, this and this are enough in my opinion to justify further action. Corporal Applegate (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hah? Now who is the one should been called "jerk" for? You are not just lying to me but to the whole Wikipedia communities. Like people said "What goes around comes around". I trust with that principe. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by IP 189.7.227.232

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP has been persistently adding unsourced (and often questionable) information to several gang articles. IP has been reverted by multiple editors and been given several warnings[167]. This diff is a good example [168]. IP hasn't responded to a single warning, not left a single edit summary. Closest thing to a response was an attempt to vandalize my user page [169] Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: 189.7.227.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --IJBall (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thrown to WP:AIV for whats usually a quicker response to pure vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Morty Smith 2.0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Obviously a personal attack only account. WP:DENY may also apply. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed his talk page access as he was plainly abusing it after being blocked. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

109.151.127.186

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently reverted some edits to Spike and Tyke (characters) that appeared to be vandalism—changing cartoon titles like "Heavenly Puss" to "Pussy PUSSY", etc. I also deleted some sections listing unsourced trivia and catchphrases and removed some unsupported fields from one of the infoboxes 109.151.127.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who I don't think made the original questionable changes) has been blindly reverting these edits, giving me "warnings" about "removeing good text," and deleting any comments I make on their talk page. Would someone care to intervene? Trivialist (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

trivialist is doing a bad job this is uncalled for lets just forget the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.127.186 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I not a admin so I can,t block this ip but in my view I say the ip needs blocking trivialist is being bullyed by this ip. does anyone back up what I think?.

--Iniced (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The IP is a bit of a funny vandal, but he's still a vandal, unfortunately. Someone should make him go poof. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 31 hours for vandalism, not here to sensibly contribute. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iniced:: I didn't feel particularly bullied, but thanks for your concern. :) Trivialist (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Err, we may need help on his talk page.... [170] -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING I don't see why they can't blank the talk page, though the personal attack in the edit summary was uncalled for. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point, it just says that they cannot remove declined unblock requests. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, really? Sorry, had no idea... I'll leave it be. The guard kitten I left there seems to have scared him off though. Must be an ailurophobe. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope sorry -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Better keep an eye on him when the block expires though. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• sadface* Ah darn. Oh well, since actually trolling him is a wiki-no-no, I guess that as you said, we'll have to keep an eye on this fellow. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Roscelese

I am not able to get this user to understand that a discussion and subesquent Rfc about sources needs to be resolved with consensus before cite tags repeatedly are removed [171], [172], [173] [174] [175](with personal accusations just about every time) from the article's text. Much stronger claims about the sex life of that biography's subject person have recently been added to the article. I have no objection to that (contrary to repeated personal insults made against me in that discussion, alluding to my own sexuality) as long as those allegations are clearly and reliably sourced, which I do not believe is the case now, at least not yet. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden the overall consensus appears to be the claims are adequately sourced, and given a 1654 death year WP:BLP does not apply. NE Ent 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion as NE Ent. It's SergeWoodzing himself who began the ANI and POV-worded RfC which he is appealing to in order to justify edit warring over adding citation needed tags where there is evidently a citation. A discussion looks merited, but why not leave the article alone while the discussion is ongoing (like you've requested Roscelese do with your own version)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• An RFC is absolutely warranted, for that issue and probably a couple of others. But Serge's "RFC" is simply a list of his opinions and a demand that we all acquiesce to them. Any suggestions that is the case are met with accusations of "personal slurs". Nobody, for example, has "alluded" to his sexuality. Serge seems to disagree with what is in the article because he personally disagrees with those who wrote it like Crompton (regardless of their reliability) and agrees with the opinions of others like Stolpe (regardless of their reliability). All of that is perfectly fine (he is entitled to his personal opinion) but of late it has manifested as edit-warring and talk page tactics that have ground all meaningful discussion to a halt (with a POV he has been pushing unsuccessfully since 2012). Last time people simply gave up arguing with Serge and allowed the WP:WRONGVERSION to stand and it stands to this day (without LGBT categories; he simply edit-warred until everyone else gave up). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree with everyone else; and for the record, SergeWoodzing, telling you to abide by consensus isn't exactly a personal insult. (I think I see a kangaroo...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: this sounds similar to the Kerouac bisexual controversy. I'm not sure how that was ever resolved, but someone might want to look. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, so, Roscelese is under some ArbCom restrictions after 7 March, including "indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day" and "indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes". Most of the diffs are before March 7, but the second one is after and could be classified as personalizing the dispute although it's not a personal attack. Roscelese made two reverts within a day [176] [177], but they were consecutive edits so I don't know if that counts to the restriction. If there's more, next time it should be filed at WP:AE, not on this board. --Pudeo' 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." NE Ent 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Serge has continued his (deliberate) misinterpretation of other editor's comments, now claiming that Rhododendrites' comments justify further edit-warring ([178]). Even if that were what Rhododendrites was trying to suggest, continually tagging the same sourced quote because you don't like the source (though, literally, everyone else says its okay) is plainly disruptive. I've reverted the tendentious addition of those tags, because Roscelese can't (and surely that was the point of quickly adding them back in). I hate to say it, but I think consideration needs to be given to topic-banning Serge from Christina, Queen of Sweden and related articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I saw the edit war first, which looked to be based on CN tags when clearly a citation was there. So I reverted and pointed out that cn is not an appropriate tag (that there are others). That's not an endorsement of tagging, just an invalidation of one tag. But perhaps it was misleading since after I read up on it it looks like -- as I mentioned in my comments -- Serge is the only one who thinks the statements should be tagged. I think a discussion is reasonable, but that sufficient consensus exists to remove the tags until which time as Serge convinces others they're merited. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear everyone, I only want to be able to see in the text of the source that Queen Christina had affairs with women that were noted in her life time, if that's in the source's text. I don't see it there, can't find it, and feel we should all be able to. It's my experience that we are encouaged to ask for clear sources. If I'm wrong about that, that's what I need to learn: that I'm wrong about that. How can my problems be so extremely controversial and lead to so much animosity? Can't someone just help me find that? Please! I'm asking real nice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue (for about the 10th time) isn't the content dispute, which everyone seems to agree needs to be resolved. It's your behaviour and the way you have sought to "resolve" that dispute. You have form in this area, Serge, and the rest of us are sick of being bullied. There is no way we can even begin to address the content issues you have raised until you agree to conduct yourself with decorum, to stop the edit-warring and to stop it with the disruptive talk page tactics. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user removing DS notice from article talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user known by the handle SteveStrummer (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing a DS notice from Talk:Donbass. The article falls under the scope of the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions. Please entreat this user to stop being disruptive. Much obliged, RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The tag is unjustifiable based on the discussions and page history. I have never been faulted for my behavior on Wikipedia, and I'm standing my ground on this one. The tag is just a transparent effort at intimidating future editors who may come across the discussion. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "intimidating" anyone. It is merely an alert that DS apply to the article. They do, whether the tag is placed there or not. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And have I? My remarks have all been civil and modest, while yours routinely display an unseemly aggression. There was nothing disruptive to justify this tag, except your own repeated attempts at ownership of Russian-related articles. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no involvement in "Russian-related articles", so I simply don't know what you are referring to. Nothing "disruptive" is needed to justify a tag. It is merely a notice of existing DS. In fact, it is much more transparent to place the tag on the page, so that people are aware of what they are getting into. Those DS apply to me as much anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict" according to Arbcom [179]. By the same token, any editor can place such tag on the talk pages of appropriate articles. Tagging articles themselves is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"By the same token"? No. The rules you point to say explicitly "the editor's talk page": there is no broader permission to tag article talkpages. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is my reading of this (by the spirit, not by the letter): there is nothing wrong with alerting other users about DS if this is done appropriately, for example by using an official template in an article that clearly belongs to the area of conflict... My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

My reading of it hews to the actual terms: this tag is only used when "discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". There are no such sanctions in place and never were. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This article definitely falls in the scope of ARBCOMEE and hence discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions; specifically these. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOMEE notes that relevant articles may have discretionary sanctions imposed rapidly, but it does not say that every page may be tagged as such. The tag implies an existing conflict that has already induced sanctions. It is not meant to ward off any and all new contributors. Few EE articles have this tag, including several that were page-protected at one time or another. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand the DS system. All articles within the scope of WP:ARBEE are already covered by the sanctions, tagged or not. Tagging has no such implications. It is simply a notice. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Another personal attack. That's wrong, and so is your claim. Tagging does have clear implications to the readership: that's their whole point. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What personal attack? There is nothing wrong about it. Do you want me to summon arbitration clerks to verify this? I know that it is the case, and it is very easy to prove. Tagging cannot have any implications for the readership, as the readership does not look at talk pages. RGloucester — ☎ 20:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just leave the tag there. It's not that important whether it's there or not, an the article is clearly in scope. NE Ent 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'll just say: you don't understand what it means to have a "readership". The page in question had over ten thousand page views in the last thirty days, while the talkpage earned a mere eighty-seven. Assuming most of those were us, are you going to tell me that those scant few explorers – potential contributors all – would not be dissuaded by having this tag in their face? We never had any ArbCom adjudication here, and there is no justification for labelling it as a disputed page. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"We never had any ArbCom adjudication here" is incorrect. Donbass is in Eastern Europe as usually defined. The topic area of Eastern Europe is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Read WP:ARBEE. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not the issue; the issue is the tag. If all EE pages were to have that tag displayed without existing disputes, they would all have it right now. They do not, and neither should this. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you really think that the use of the tag on article talk pages is improper, I suggest that, rather than edit-warring over the tag, which is what brought you here, you request a ruling at ArbCom Requests for Clarification or Amendment. I think that everyone here except you (SteveStrummer) thinks that ArbCom will clarify that the tagging is entirely proper, but if you really think that the tagging is improper, that is how you can ask ArbCom to clarify whether any editor may apply the tag to any article in an area that is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There's obviously no question of whether or not I this the use of the tag is improper, and if a neutral administrator says that I was wrong, I will indeed follow that link. Thanks for your input. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a problem tagging the article talk page. Whether or not a tag has been placed, the fact remains that the article is covered under the scope of DS regarding EE. Therefore the tag is merely informative. I think awareness of a DS is a more preferable outcome than ignorance of it. —Dark 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• SteveStrummer, the tag isn't there for readers; it's there for editors. Sure, not every page on an Eastern European topics tagged in that way, and if a page isn't tagged, that's probably because editors didn't see a need to tag it--presumably because there hasn't been a problem. Apparently good-faith editors signal either a possible problem, or the likelihood thereof, in this case, and it seems to me that therefore its placement is valid. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I sense that at least one of you knows that, despite the persistence I showed in this particular case, I am not a member of the Wikipedia warrior class, and I appreciate the collegial tone of your replies. Still, both your explanations appear to me to be post facto deduction, and not supported by the actual wording of the ARBCOMEE policy in question. Accordingly, I reserve the right to raise this question at ARCA. As for the rest of it – the ill-considered page move, and its "review" – I continue to believe strongly that what's happened is very bad for the project, but I can see that I have exhausted my reasonable allotment of objections and I will offer in good faith my own self-imposed one week topic ban, extendable at your discretion. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban request

• I requested an IBAN against Hullaballoo Wolfowitz last year and the discussion was archived without anything actually being accomplished; still, I was pretty much able to stay away from him since then. But now, he's at it again with comments that don't even make sense. ("Personally directed innuendo"? What?) And it's funny how he thinks he can ban me from his talk page but then think it's okay to wikihound me in other forums. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully,

• The IBan discussion was 11 months & 11 days ago,
• An editor can ban another editor from their talk page, and,
• The diff you provided is not, by itself, evidence of WP:HOUND.

If you have recent evidence showing hounding, please provide diffs. Otherwise, it does seem to be a content dispute. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing when the original IBAN discussion took place, nor am I disputing banning someone from a user talk page (I have done that myself, but only in rare occasions; plus, when I do that, I certainly have no interest in further conversing with the user elsewhere). And true, the diff taken by itself may not look like hounding on the surface, but in conjunction with the other diffs I posted, it is. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat from an IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see this talk page. Hope this is in the correct place. I'm pretty sure it's just a troll, but still. - Amaury (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I was being dead serious. I have contacted my local PD.71.96.64.169 (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine... Anyway, already blocked fro 6 months by Acroterion. But it looks like someone may need to take a mop to some of the other Talk pages this IP vandalized... --IJBall (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone believes the IP, I have a slightly used bridge to sell to them. Some assembly required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Working Looking at any of the talk pages + contribs. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "pussy" when referring to a lack of strength comes from the word "pusillanimous" which means "showing a lack of courage or determination". It has nothing to do with female bits. Chillum 16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like etymology convergence.[180][181] Either way, it signifies "unmanly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please help me how to protect myself from INSULTS of others users while editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Respected Sir, I am very much new in this wikipedia , First I have done a page of my favourite author mr. Kishalay Bhattacharjee with other members help, and they were so helping and kind to me that I got inspiration to write the second topic of my favourite book, Che in paona bazaar as I have bought the book through online, so I gave the link to other readers to get the book easily, there was no other bad intentions of mine. And the entire thing was written by me only, But Sir, I got mail from one of other member who was taken initiative to edit the materials, He/She wrote me as harsh as possible that my parents also never speak to me that much of rudeness. His wikipedia id is: Quinto Simmaco , And he attacked me directly by accusing as publisher or author, secondly, he/she insulted me that I might have copied the whole writings from the back cover of the book , Without reading the book how he could be insulting me like this ?

I wrote him/her that entire writing was mine only, and I hardly know the author of the book... I requested you to help me in writings not to insult me like this, though I thanked him/her for such a ruthless behaviour. Then he/her deleted all his/her conversations from talk page immediately. I am requesting you to eye on and take a step against these kind of harmful wikipedia users, for them We the newer users can get psychological problems. Thank You Sincerely Yours, Gargi

Gargi 17:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choudhury.gargi (talk • contribs)

Are you asking to block e-mail access from other users? If so, you can disable your e-mail in your preferences. Epic Genius (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think he's referring to this. Does that seem like an attempt to make someone out themselves or am I mistaken? Also, no need to be so formal here, my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I see he means a talk page message, my dear sir.

Anyway, removing talk page posts is allowed per talk page guidelines, but outing a Wikipedia editor requires administrator or oversight revision suppression. The talk page post seems to be a conflict-of-interest warning, since uploading an image of the book's cover to Commons under the rationale "own work" is only applicable if the author and this editor are one and the same. Since Choudhury.gargi does not claim to be the author, that assumption is mistaken and the image on Commons should be immediately deleted as a copyright violation. Epic Genius (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha, sorry, the no need to be formal was directed at the OP, probably should have used proper indentation. I've informed Quinto on his talk page. I think that going by AGF, the putting it as his own work was an accident and would be incorrect anyway as it would be the publisher's copyright for the actual book cover. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The image is no longer on the Commons; it's here, and it's now appropriately tagged for fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Choudhury.gargi:: Please accept our apologies for the behaviour that you found as insulting. Obviously there's some cultural differences here that are at least partially responsible for the problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I just received the notice, so apologies for my lateness here. I had asked if the user was either the author or someone working for him, due to the overly promotional material (including the earlier version of the article where the only two citations were links to buy the book), his edit history, and that the author's photo is apparently one taken or owned by him as per the usage rights on the Commons. I understand that editors with a COI are only encouraged that they disclose their identity (and not required), unless they are a paid editor. Given the user's possible attempt to sell the book prior on the article, the heavy promotion, etc... I was concerned that aside from COI or paid editorship, there may also be a copyvio. I could have been more diplomatic, and assumed good faith, but at that point, I thought there were too many issues. You may look at my response to the user at the take page, and all relevant edit histories. I asked for the advice of two far more experienced editors (Huon and Lixxx) as to how to proceed to avoid any missteps. I asked them to take over the situation. I'm unfamiliar with copyvio and BLP, so I wanted to step back. MY only interest was solving these potential issues, but given their complexity, it's a bit beyond me. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have checked for copy vio, and the current revision is fine. Revision 651477187 has some unattributed copying from The Sunday Indian, so I have done some rev-deletion. The earlier version of the article before Huon's re-write was indeed overly promotional. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw that Diannaa. Thank you. :) As you can see in my reply to the editor (on my talk page), I explained who I was, what my intentions were when asking him about the possible issues, and I apologised for any possible misunderstanding. And that I was stepping back. I really do think this may have been a misunderstanding either cuturally and/or about attempts to have the article conform to policy. Huon,, as you indicated, has apparently rewritten the article to comply with Wikipedia standards and avoid copyvio; something which I had offered to do myself. Please, if I did something wrong, let me know. I think I was civil, and I know I'm allowed to ask if there is a conflict of interest or paid editorship... Though in the former case, they're not required to answer. As I said, I apologised for any perceived "insult", as the editor claimed. And I washed my hands of it. I was surprised to see my name appear here. I spend most of my time here on Wikipedia welcoming new users and helping them to learn to edit (especially as a helper on irc), and had never encountered a possible copyvio or BLP issue (I didn't even check the article, but an uninvolved editor told me there were issues there). I'm happy to distance myself from this, and even apologise again for any misunderstanding. But I'd also prefer to avoid any missteps, though I tried to do so here in this case. So please, let me know how I can approach such a situation in the future. I was told that if talking to the user failed, I could report it to COIN or contact an admin, which was my first inclination. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have viewed / repaired a large number of Indian articles in the course of my copy vio work, and one thing I have noticed is that all the villages are famous, and all the movies are super smash blockbuster hits. Spend some time reading the articles and sources, and you will see what I mean. Even if they are not a paid editor, new editors from India will have trouble adapting to our environment and grasping the concept of how to write a neutrally-worded article, because of the difference in the way even reliable top-tier newspapers are worded. There's also some unexpected differences in the way people speak to each other, what is insulting and what is not. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Easy to understand given how diverse India is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually know this quite well. Heh. I'm usually the "third shift" helper in irc, due to my insomnia. In the early hours of the morning, of course, it's actually daytime there due to the time differential. So the vast majority of the people I help in irc, and those who post help requests on their users pages, are Indian or Pakistani. Mostly organisations and CEOs trying to promote themselves; apparently, English Wikipedia is thought a bit of as a directory for who and/or what has "arrived". Notability and reliable sources are almost always the issue at stake. A small minority of them do meet the criteria. Of course, I'm willing to help any and all, and try to encourage them to stick around and contribute constructively, even if I know their article doesn't have the independent, secondary sources to support inclusion. Perhaps I should have just tried to be more clear and concise, or bluelinked more of the relevant policies into what I was saying... Honestly, AN/I seems like a bit of a scary place. Nice as all of you are, I'd rather not be back here again. But I'd still like to try to make sure the articles are up to snuff. I guess it's necessarily a precarious proposition? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the data to back this up but I think that providing a commercial external link is a common mistake for new editors and they do not view it as promotional so much as directing interested readers to where they can purchase a copy of the work or find more information at a fansite. It's an opportunity to educate them, I think. I wouldn't jump the judgment that there is some deep COI, just a misunderstanding that in their attempt to be "helpful", it is not appropriate in this context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. There was some confusion, mainly due to differences in communication, because the OP was from India and most of the rest of us are not. Epic Genius (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be a bit more than that. I was ready to simply chalk it up to that (despite some lingering but moot suspicions), but... Someone who saw this brought this to my attention: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/zIDKGyYPSQU/JH8pw7bvWL8J … and this: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/webmasters/o9e_FvSuUw4 What started me down this rabbit hole in the first place was in part the suspicion that the user took the author's picture on the article about the author (and thus knew them), and was intentionally trying to promote sales of the book. But as I said, this is beyond my ken, and I'm happy to wash my hands of this. I figure you guys know how to follow this sort of labyrinth, if there's anything to it, and you were so inclined. But I'd be remiss if there was actually something, and I didn't bring it to your attention. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. I have placed a COI template on his user talk. I would not be surprised if he abandons the account. We shall see -- Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for following up on it. You all enjoy your evening (or day, as it were). Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page harassment by User:Mabelina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Mabelina is continuing to harass me on my talk page. She has not only refused to respect my formal request that she does not make any direct contact with me in this way but she has also restored comments she made which I had already removed. This is completely unacceptable and I request that appropriate action be taken. Her behaviour is both harassment and stalking. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina is now continuing her pattern of seeking support from other editors on their talk pages and also making derogatory comments about editors she has some bee in her bonnet about. All of this needs to stop. Afterwriting (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Afterwriting, please provide some diffs that support your claims so admins will not have to search for them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how to create diffs. The evidence is easily found in Mabelina's recent editing history and on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a reminder at User:Mabelina's talk page. Perhaps this is all that is needed. JodyB _talk 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Afterwriting, it's very simple, a diff is just a link to an edit that you find problematic. Go to the page history to find the edit in question and then the diff would look like [PutURLHere description of problem edit]. See Help:Diff for more guidance. But perhaps JodyB's message will be sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Creambreek, sockpuppet of LTA Sju hav

is currently making a lot of low quality WW II related edits to German Red Cross. The edits include copyvio/close paraphrasing from this article (and probably other sources). He is already under sockpuppet investigation and CU has confirmed sock puppetry, but closing and blocking of the accounts has stalled pending further CU checks. Iselilja (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: Creambreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User removing content from RSN discussion

User Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed content ([182], [183]) from a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. I believe this content is relevant to the discussion, as it provides context for the question being discussed. Formerly 98 apparently considers the material a personal attack, per his edit summaries. Regardless, this user should not be deleting comments from an ongoing discussion. Please advise.

Note: This user has an extensive history of what I consider disruptive editing, for which I will probably create a separate posting eventually. This posting is specifically for his disruption of the RSN discussion. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Further information: we had a brief, unproductive exchange about this on my talk page; also Formerly 98 has a section about this on his user page in which he (mistakenly) claims that this behavior is justified by WP:NPA. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. The removed content is a personal attack, and has no business being at RS/N. It's your putting it there (not its removal) that is disruptive. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  I contend that my comment was directly relevant to the discussion. Users had expressed confusion over why such an obvious issue was being brought up. I cited a specific example of disruptive editing to clarify why this was being discussed -- i.e. we have a problem editor on our hands, this user is is willfully misinterpreting the policy to support his disruptive edits, how can we explain to him that what he is doing is inappropriate? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RSN is not the place for discussing "problem editors". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. Sounds like the best thing to do would be to remove portions of content regarding Formerly98's conduct and rephrase the comment to focus on the portion relevant to the discussion, to wit: "This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious, as in this example: [...]". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What I would like from you is a discussion of content and sources. Content disagreements can usually be handled without making assumptions about other editors motivations. If we don't agree, we can do an Rfc, and of course will both be bound by the opinions of the overall community.

I am as concerned by your editing style as you are by mine, but that is neither here nor there, and questioning your motives will not help us reach consensus. Let's debate the sources and their interpretation on the article Talk pages, and do an RFc if we cannot agree. And lets keep the discussion on the Reliable sources page limited to whether sources are reliable. If either one of us violates 3RR, vandalizes pages, or calls the other a "ninny", that is suitable material for ANI.

If we can agree to work together on this basis, I think we can get along and not waste our time battling it out here. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this diff removed the accusations of user misconduct, leaving only the facts and my position on the question at hand. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the gesture of goodwill and look forward to working with you to address our differences. I would also like to apologize for my comments on the Criticism of Coca Cola Talk page, which were unnecessarily provocative and which undoubtedly contributed to this conflict. I have struck the same. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am privy to this discussion thread on the noticeboard. On the one hand, I am slightly dismayed that the IP editor feels the need to go straight to AN/I with this. It seems like something that could be resolved with a bit of discussion. The IP editor must know that they aren't coming here with clean hands: the material which they posted (and which Formerly 98 removed) assumes bad faith on the part of Formerly 98 and accuses him of "clear[ly] deliberately disruptive editing" in a case that is not clear at all. Why was that obviously disruptive editing? There are many reasons why material might be culled from articles. Furthermore, I do not see how that was even relevant to the discussion on the RSN. The fact that the IP editor feels so certain that s/he is correct and that administrator intervention may be needed for that issue, too, shows, in my opinion, an unwillingness to engage in the normal dispute resolution mechanisms on Wiki before jumping to the AN/I noticeboard. Did you even attempt to discuss those other edits with Formerly 98?

On the other hand, it is arguable if these are clear-cut "personal attacks" which would entitle Formerly 98 to summarily remove them himself -- in their entirety -- per WP:RPA There is an actual point in those comments about Formerly 98's editing history (however possibly irrelevant or badly stated). There is a good argument to be made that this was really an "uncivil comment". Uncivil comments are different from personal attacks, and according to WP:RUC: "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording . . . It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." (Emphasis added.) Even if we assume that it was a personal attack and not merely an uncivil comment, I don't see why Formerly 98 would remove the entire text himself (despite its possible irrelevance) instead of only the phrases which directly accuse him of bad faith. So, possibly some room for apology on both sides. Xanthis (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by Formerly 98 -

• I don't believe I removed material other than the personal attack. If I did so, I apologize for having done so. It was my intent to remove the WP:NPA violation only
• On the other hand, the removal of personal attacks is justified by WP:NPA, which states in its very first paragraph:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."

• If 67 disagrees with my edits, I am more than happy to discuss these on the relevant Talk page, and to cooperate in an RFC if we are unable to come to agreement. What seems unacceptable to me is that every disagreement should immediately be met with unsupported allegations and personal attacks.
• I respectfully request that this discussion be closed immediately with a warning to 67 to abide by WP:NPA and WP:GF. Respect and civility are not merely guidelines, but policy. They are part of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I've been a contributor here for over a year, working in good faith to improve the content of the encyclopedia and trying to follow the rules. I have never been blocked or even warned. I deserve to be allowed to edit in peace without personal attacks.

Formerly 98 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

These were neither uncivil comments nor personal attacks. Rather, the IP violated AGF quite blatantly. This was bad, of course, but it wasn't a proper basis for removal of their comments. Their comments should be restored and Formerly98 should be warned not to edit other editor's comments in these types of circumstances. The IP should be warned not to jump to easy conclusions about their fellow editors' motivations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss my behavior with the community and I respect and appreciate Dr. Fleishman's opinion in particular. However,

• WP:NPA defines personal attacks as including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."
• 67's accusation was a serious one: "t's clear that the user is deliberately misinterpreting this and other policies in order to remove criticism from corporate articles." He presented no evidence in support of this accusation other than diffs of some edits he disagreed with. Yes, this was a presentation of evidence, but not of serious evidence. At some point the point needs to be made that "disagrees with me" is not evidence of COI or ill intent, and that making serious accusations based on "he disagreed with me" arguments is not acceptable.
• Even accepting Dr. F's premise that this was a WP:GF violation and not a WP:NPA violation, it is difficult to understand why he thinks it should be restored. (67 has already restored it). In either case it is a violation and at a minimum, 67 should be asked to strike

I am trying my best to deal with a difficult situation in a way that is respectful of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. There is a cadre of editors here with whom I have frequent content disputes, who respond to every difference of opinion with accusations of COI and bad faith editing. I have not responded in kind. Their accusations were recently reviewed here at ANI and dismissed. I request that the decision at the ANI board be respected and that I be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again.

Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I did present evidence for the accusation in the form of a diff, etc. It seems that the real problem is that I chose the wrong forum to raise my concerns. I would be glad to correct this in the RSN discussion per my reply to Alexbrn, above, and raise my conduct concerns elsewhere at a later time.

Also, I hope it is not the policy of Wikipedia administrators to grant any user a "free pass" for future scrutiny of their behavior. It would seem like the frequent complaints about Formerly 98's behavior indicate if anything a need for greater, not lesser, oversight. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, I am as concerned about your editing style as you are about mine, but have not made any assumptions or accusations regarding what motivates you. You are unhappy with my edits, but this is a content dispute which I believe can be handled by good faith negotiations, and if necessary, and RFC or two. There are good reasons for the rules WP:GF and WP:NPA, as comments about the editor rather than debating content and sources is usually energy intensive and non-productive. I respectfully request that you strike your comments on the reliable sources board (which I have not re-reverted) and discuss specific concerns on the Talk pages of the articles in question. It is very difficult for me to provide a specific response to a broad accusation such as "Formerly 98 is a POV editor who is misusing the sourcing rules". thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Formerly98, the ANI concluded that no action was necessary at the time. That is not a statement about your future editing, or about your history, but only about the specific diffs brought to the noticeboard. There exists no policy to support your request that you "be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again" based on a past ANI. No one is immune from scrutiny. To attain NPOV takes a village. Welcome the feedback - this is fodder for a more well-rounded editor. No human is perfectly neutral. You shared with me (on Gandy's talk page) that you are very closely connected to the pharmaceutical industry; it seems possible that you may have a blind spot regarding your own POV in that area. As I stated previously, your edits could be described as nothing short of "spindoctoring on steroids". I've never seen anything like it since I've been here. I see why it would be desirable, but I highly doubt that you will be 'left alone' unless a more neutral editing style is attained (and perhaps things have changed, I am referring to edits in May/June 2014). Thank you for hearing me out. petrarchan47tc 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

P, I think the problem here is that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Your suggestions that

• That my editing style is not "neutral"
• That my that edits could be described as nothing less than "spin doctoring on steroids"
• That I have a "blind spot regarding my own biases

Are all based in your implicit definition of your own POV as "neutral" and assumption that the "bias" of others can be measured by the extent to which their point of view differs from your own. I'm sure that if you think about it, you will recognize how indefensible such a definition is. I am also sure that upon further reflection, you will understand how inappropriate it is to attempt to use the ANI process to deal with differences of opinion. Rather we discuss, and compromise on the article Talk page. There are no Thought Crimes at Wikipedia. Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You work in the pharma industry. You should probably be editing articles outside of this realm so that your contributions are more neutral. A strong passion either way can make NPOV impossible. I am not surprised that I continue to see you at this noticeboard. Your "blind spot" is evident with every response you make. It's worrisome. petrarchan47tc 17:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that it should actually matter, but I haven't worked for a pharmaceutical company for close to a decade. In any case it would only be a COI if I wrote about a current employer. Following your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, we would not allow doctors to write about surgical procedures or the diagnosis of illness. Expertise is not the same thing as COI.

Please think about what I said. Disagreeing with your POV is not evidence of COI or "biased editing". It is instead a sign of the diversity that makes Wikipedia effective. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Frequently incompetent editor promotes himself to page maintainer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) proved to be a frequently incompetent editor on Helen Hooven Santmyer, and worse, usually edit-warred first, Talk-paged second on matters that he clearly knew nothing about.

• He deleted biographical details on the grounds they were "trivia", when in fact they were significant details that Santmyer incorporated into her fiction in a major, unforgettable way.
• He rewrote prose, changing the meaning into versions that went beyond the sources, or worse, contradicted the sources.
• He even claimed to have never read the online linked-to NYT obituary—the utter bare minimum reading even the laziest of those claiming knowledge about HHS have read—as a not very plausible defense against plagiarism.

These are all in Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer/Archive 1, and the Edit Summaries. I wish to emphasize he made many good edits along the way, removing puffery, finding the right words, and so on, but overall these were at the level of copy-editing skills, not expert knowledge on HHS or any of the sources. And worse, he preferred to revert/edit-war first, ask questions later over anything which he couldn't figure out its greater purpose, rather than ask first.

There is also history. WV has the atrocious habit of mini-WP:HOUNDING editors who cross him, finding one (and only one) article and then locking on, just so he can Template their Talk page and more. So far as I can tell, that is WV's only interest in HHS. About two months ago, WV received his second edit-war ban, and more or less swore off of interacting with people he edit-warred with, at which point he stopped editing HHS. Now he has added his name to the maintained-by Template on Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer, in open contradiction to the documentation for Template:Maintained.

More precise links will be added upon request, but as usual, it's extremely boring.

Incidentally, there has recently been a discussion on Template talk:Maintained to delete this Template, just because of this sort of issue. Choor monster (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The same sort of issue on Bobbi Kristina Brown. I it's a good thing he has taken charge of the article improvement, but it really does start to feel like ownership and then there comes to maintained template with an edit summary of "+". I think Template:Maintained needs deleted honestly, unrelated to WV. Or maybe a rewording of some form. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained/doc specifically rules out articles subject to POV-controversies. That could be broadened, like requiring consensus, but yes, WV has obnoxiously self-nominated himself in other articles for maintainance in the past. And yes, it does look like deletion is the way to go. Choor monster (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained. Now this discussion should focus back on the editors behavior, and template discussion should happen over there. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a case of an editor wearing his disability like a badge and expecting special treatment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

By which you mean this? I don't know, but this discussion reminds me of this monster from a few weeks ago. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not "good with vagueries or ambiguities" but then violates one of the clearest rules in the book (3RR). Hmm okkk EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Do not discuss personal issues (at least not before the editor himself plays the relevant card). Really, it's disgusting and frankly irrelevant. Choor monster (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The editor has already played that card, with his user page essay, which reads like a pre-emptive excuse to rationalize anything the editor does wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It reads like a heads-up. No more, no less. He has been known to misuse it—including a waste of bytes with me on Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer/Archive 1—but it's still off the table. As User:Drmies advised WV in the previous pile-up we had here, keep your eye on the ball, not the players. Choor monster (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • What do you call this? I recall a similar statement at the large AN/I discussion from January. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't call it anything. It's not part of this instance until he makes it part of it. I'll also point out that he has not gone for more edit-warring on Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer since I've posted here and notified him on his talk page. I'm willing to AGF and assume that he is now familiar with Template:Maintained/doc and before he was not, believing it to be a "howdy stranger" tag. I'll probably non-admin close this discussion, especially if it turns into a train wreck or if he acknowledges my guess is correct (which including a Thanks here or there). (As a hint, I've been studiously avoiding WV discussions no matter how tempting.) Choor monster (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.