Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes

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

---

I have never filed an ANI complaint previous to this in over five years and 50k edits, and I am sorry to have to do so now, regarding established editor conduct towards editors new to an article and on the broader topic of infoboxes and classical music composers and compositions.

On March 30 I stopped by Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach after noticing some changes on my watchlist there. I have never edited content at the Bach article to my knowledge aside from possibly some vandal reversion, and have absolutely no history with any of the editors at the Bach article. While there, I contributed a !vote on an issue being discussed, the proposed addition of an infobox to the article. I voted for inclusion, but is important to note at this point that the content of the article is not why I am here.

The reasoning behind my !vote was frank and straightforward, but hardly uncivil, in my own view. To my astonishment, User:Ceoil replied to my first-time Talk page comment with a "Fuck You" response either directed at me, or interpreting my comment that way, which either way is highly inappropriate. Ceoil has a long record of previous incivility etc. that has resulted in 11 blocks, from which he has seemingly learned nothing.

• I suggest a substantial block for Ceoil on the basis of this f-word diff, which, especially directed to a first-time editor at an article, is extremely uncivil and unwelcoming, and obviously designed to have a chilling effect. The infobox proposal was also the subject of a directed canvassing notice - by Ceoil. This results in a slanted group of commentators.

Looking at the current Bach Talk page, I notice a polite suggestion from User:Gerda Arendt on March 21 to be the cause of concern from about a dozen editors. As I say, I am not disputing content in this report, but the way the simple request for an infobox was dealt with... what can only be termed needless hostility, including a comment by User:Kleinzach, in which he inappropriately he questions the good faith of the proposal itself and by extension, the proposer.

• I suggest a strong administrator warning for Kleinzach on the basis of this diff - which again, in my view, is clearly designed to have a chilling effect.

Further reading the Bach talk page reveals at least one editor, User:GFHandel recently resigned in protest over the infobox issue and specific and arguably tendentious claims that the infoboxes are "difficult for women to edit", presumably after years of fruitless discussion with the aforementioned relatively small clique, and the resignation by GF Handel I can only take as another red flag. A few days ago I made a strong warning statement at the bottom of the Bach talk page regarding Ceoil calling editors that want userboxes "special interests" that has gone unanswered; it seems no one on the anti-infobox faction were untroubled by Ceoil and my reaction.

Another page that has serious current infobox issues is Sparrow Mass where I notice a violation a few days ago of WP:3RR by an administrator, User:Nikkimaria, who actually removed the offending infobox via a misleading edit summary called "cleanup." This plus three additional reverts resulted in a 24 hour block, the notice of which was scrubbed twice by the admin Nikkimaria to eliminate any trace of unpleasantry. I'd call this type of edit warring by an administrator highly unacceptable, and the edit summary and removal of notices lacking in transparency, which are crucial traits in an admin; Nikkimaria was also following Gerda Arendt and deleting infoboxes.

• I suggest that administrator Nikkimaria needs at the very least a serious warning, with possibly additional sanctions to make Wikipedia's basic policy clear and prevent further intimidation and process abuse, with any further examples cause for a desysop discussion. (As for the Sparrow Mass article, it had to be fully protected to stop the edit war, but has since been unprotected and has been quiet for the last 24 hours as of this posting.)

Historically, infobox opponents have tried to stifle opponents. The template for the infobox itself at Template:Infobox classical composer has been the subject of multiple attempts at deletion, with the last being closed as a bad faith nomination. Clearly User:Antandrus, the recipient of the bad faith closure and awarning to stop keep trying to delete the template doesn't want an open discussion as he advises the need to keep the infobox topic off discussion boards. This is sneaky battleground mentality, as I see it, and another example of a systemic problem on the infobox topic. Strike through with apologies to Antandrus, I got this backwards, as he was not the recipient of the bad faith closure.

To conclude, clearly there are editors and at least one admin that don't want infoboxes in classical composer articles, and said opponents are using methods that are, at best, irregular and questionable. In my view, these methods call for the admin community to investigate further. And really, all this over infoboxes! The topic of music composers, some of the finest examples of humanity, should be a pleasant place to edit, not a battleground that drives away those with opinions different from an established clique. Jusdafax 04:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, you still need to inform Nikkimaria and Kleinzach of this thread. That being said...
  1. I think Ceoil needs a NPA/AGF warning;
  2. I think Kleinzach needs to AGF a bit more (but as that edit was more than a week ago, not necessarily actionable by itself now);
  3. There is nothing currently that prevents an editor from removing any notices unless it's an active block notice - and the block had expired by the time that Nikkimaria removed it, so that edit is okay on that front. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have informed the parties you mention. Remedial efforts aside, you fail to address the larger pattern of the systemic abuse I have documented. Jusdafax 05:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, you have accused people of bullying. I read your entire post, but I saw nothing about that there; the issue regarding User:Ceoil is one of WP:CIV. Accusing people of bullying is a bold accusation, and even though I already challenged you to defend it here, you have not done so, and now are repeating that claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Our posts crossed, and I have moved the discussion here from the Bach page, by notification. Perhaps your definition of the word "bullying" is different from mine. I look forward to other voices than anti-infobox clique found on the Bach Talk page to give their views on the tone found there, including yours. Jusdafax 05:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"My tone"? My tone was one of opposing the infobox, in posts devoid of uncivil or vulgar language. Once again: diffs, please? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the diffs I have supplied (which I notice you do not discuss) are indicative of problems. In regards to your tone, calling an infobox "useless" is worthy of comment for starters. And one can be "devoid of uncivil or vulgar language" and still be uncivil in intent, as your repeated use of bolding in your "requests" which come off as demands. I again point out that the point of bringing this matter to ANI was to get input from the wider community, not to have the conversation dominated by intractable infobox opponents, which is how I would define your demonstrated inflexible opposition. Jusdafax 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never thought of the word "useless" as uncivil (unless it is used to describe another editor), and I'm unaware of an euphemism for it, except for perhaps "it would serve no purpose". As for bolding, you have made bold accusations; ones which I do not take lightly. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, please note that contrary to your assertion, Antandrus did not nominate that infobox for deletion. It was nominated by Pigsonthewing [1], and it was the second time he had attempted to get it deleted. Pigsonthewing received the "warning" about repeated attempts at deletion, and the bad faith nomination (rightly or wrongly). Antandrus !voted to keep it. I suggest you strike your accusation above. Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, I managed to get it reversed, which shows if nothing else that I am unfamiliar with this entrenched infobox battleground. My apologies to Antandrus; I'll do some strikethroughs. However, I now see that it is even more complicated than I previously thought... this template was another battleground and was never seriously used, as far as I now can tell. Antandrus' comment about keeping the matter off talk boards is still telling, in my view. I have notified Pigsonthewing about this discussion. Jusdafax 06:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Telling" to you because you chose to interpret his comment as a conspiracy to keep the discussion off the notice boards. He was absolutely right in his assessment, things do turn nasty very fast. Incidentally, the issue referred to there was then discussed at the Village Pump [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is your word, not mine. I am here to ask for wider editor comment and admin scrutiny, which you will hopefully welcome. Jusdafax 07:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have also notified Antandrus of this discussion [3], which you failed to do. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been editing non-stop for a couple hours, and had not yet notified Antandrus. Jusdafax 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another question, Jusdafax: you claim that there issues of WP:OWN going on at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, but all I see there is a discussion among editors. Where's the breach of WP:OWN? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's make it plain to the community, Toccata quarta, that you are a staunch opponent of the infoboxes, as the Bach Talk page clearly shows. What would you call the way I was greeted with an F-word... friendly? Now, the reason I brought this to ANI is to get some other views to this discussion. Let's let others be the judge of what's going on at that Talk page, shall we? Jusdafax 06:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN comes into play with comments like "not usually associated with composer articles"; "has never edited the article... like X", as though there was some requirement to edit a page (now much? how often?) before expressing an opinion on its talk page; and "contra WP:COMPOSERS policy" (my emphasis) as though that opinion page had any authority, which WP:Advice pages makes clear it does not. Likewise in the HTML comment at the head of the Bach article, which read "Please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" (again, my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by Gerda Arendt, involved, surprised

I suggested an infobox for Bach, knowing that Project Classical music asks to have no infoboxes for composers. It was discussed, supported by some users, not supported by several others, I moved on, suggesting a much shorter infobox for Handel.

I installed an infobox for Sparrow Mass, knowing that there is no such restriction (or how should I call it?) for compostions. It was reverted, see history, in a pattern that can be seen also at Peter Planyavsky and Membra Jesu Nostri. In the latter case, I received a discussion about the content of the box on the talk which I found helpful, and I made changes. A good way forward: I believe that discussion is better than reverting and edit war, and I respect the involved editors, see? Happy Easter. (In Leipzig at Bach's time, they celebrated Easter for three days.)

ps: this is the first time that I am an involved party on this page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

ps II: I miss GFHandel and said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, but again, what I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing. This is not about infoboxes, it is about the way opponents of infoboxes are acting. It has the effect of driving editors away, in my view, and in some cases investigation and correctional measures may well be needed. I am a totally uninvolved editor, so I saw bringing this to ANI as a moral duty. Your proposal was termed "bad faith" by Kleinzach, which I find unacceptable, and I seek comment and action on that here. Only one editor on the Bach Talk page, a supporter of your proposal, saw fit to speak up against this serious abuse before I did, which got my attention. It may not bother you, but what of someone new to Wikipedia? Really, what kind of editing environment exists at classical music articles? I submit there is room for improvement, based on my statement above. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax:

1. Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach doesn't show that I'm "a staunch opponent of the infoboxes". For a start, I'm one of the main editors of the article Magnus Carlsen, but I have never complained about the infobox there (or removed it). Like many other editors at the Bach talk page, I'm opposed to some infoboxes because of the reasons listed at WP:COMPOSERS. That's why I have no problem with geographical infoboxes, for instance.
2. I have already commented on the F-word issue by saying that it has to do with WP:CIV.
3. None of what you wrote has to do with WP:OWN. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (I saw the discussion but didn't post). I note that Douay–Rheims Bible, Rennet, Structural engineering and Captain Midnight are lacking infoboxes also. The reason I mention this is that Jusdafax, your comment "This one will have one too, sooner or later" was the kind of comment that - while not deserving the uncouth terms of the "F" response you got, was still not exactly going to win classical music editors to your cause. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • • As an eventualist, the comment I made stands, but it did not deserve the F-word, and when the person hurling it has been blocked 11 times, I'd say there is a problem. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. "In other words, I discount your argument, becuase I cant, and dont want to, understand it. And f.. you anyway. is how your comment sounded to Ceoil hence his next sentence "sooner or later" is the under current most of the supporters are hinting at, nice that you are so explicit." - he's saying you were in effect saying F. you to others. Yes he deserves a WP:CIVILITY warning. But to be honest even your comment here above "As an eventualist, the comment I made stands" might be worthy of a small baby trout. Do you not see that "This one will have one too, sooner or later" is not a conciliatory or communicative reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Uninvolved user here. I'm generally pro-infobox, but don't understand why people get so heated over one. The comment by Ceoil is absolutely unacceptable, and should result in a heavy sanction, given their history in this area (yes, their last block was January 2012, but for such an out of proportion attack, with the user having 4 blocks for personal attacks since whatever discussion overturned the earliest ones in 2008, a block is needed, and a NPA warning is utterly pointless). The second user needs a AGF/NPA warning, but probably little more, based on the evidence here. Nikkimaria has already been dealt with for edit warring, so there's nothing for anyone to do there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It is so heated because it became a personal thing which went on for years, 2005 has been mentioned. I am new to the topic, so not yet tired. How do we get to content? For example discuss the content for an infobox Bach, rather than yes or no? Bach is a vital article and deserves one, if you ask me ;) - I generally assume good faith and am speechless when I am not trusted, - thanks to those speaking for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment These discussions on infoboxes are rarely useful and can generate extraordinary responses. [4] The discussions also divert attention from the difficulty in actually producing reasonable content on classical music, which can be a slow process. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like a forum shopping expedition to me."What I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing." This doesn't sound like the same person who wrote: "Infoboxes are standard components to most Wikipedia articles. This one will have one too, sooner or later." Infoboxes "contradict orthodox editing" yet they are standard and every article must have one. Hmm. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't see "bullying" per the thread title; I did see one intemperate comment from Ceoil from a few days ago. I've asked him to cool his jets. It'd be great if folk could refrain from getting so heated over fairly minor issues like this one and use the normal channels of DR rather than coming here. --John (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Bach page is just one example. There's a lot of bullying and it consistently happens (Talk:Robert Stoepel is another recent case). And most of those opposed to infoboxes will consistently bring up that there's no rule for or against them, and that the guideline against them for classical music articles is just a guideline and should be taken on an individual basis....yet if someone puts in a box in good faith it'll be reverted -- here is a good example. "format per WP:Classical music" as an edit summary? Seriously? Not to mention as far as arguments in the talk pages we have this little gem. I'd give a lot more but at this point I've really stopped wanting to waste so much energy on it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • One wonders where bringing WikiProject Biography to bear on these controversies would force a different outcome. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • [ec]One? Perhaps you missed this: this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this ANI is well-taken, I see bullying occurring here quite clearly. I have not been involved at all in either of these two articles, but I have noticed that the anti-infobox "consensus" of these particular wikiprojects is rather odd and in conflict with most of the uses of infobocx person and its variants across wikipedia. As there is a good-faith discussion of whether that consensus SHOULD change, personal attacks on people who weigh in with good faith opinions is not appropriate. Having looked at the diffs and associated talk, there is a clear attempt to run off people who disagree with the "old guard" or even those who attempt to tread a middle ground. The individuals who perpetuated this incivility need some appropriate cautions and warnings. I don't see it as an "off with their heads" sanction, but telling anyone to "f-off" is not the way to handle any dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You will find that there POV is more important then there willingness to solve the problem. Many suggestions have been proposed over the years to no avail, resulting in the loss of there own project members and group isolation. Some progress has been made in the wording of there advice page, but despite the communities concerns this is still a problem. Its embarrassing and a waste of time to say the least for all of us who have to explain to people why this small corner of Wikipedia is uninviting and full of conflict.Moxy (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I've commented a little previously on this infobox issue. I see it as an unfortunate attempt by a group of truly excellent editors who have otherwise my great respect and admiration, to try to maintain a standard of formatting in their special area that is different from elsewhere it WP. I agree that articles look cleaner without infoboxes. I agree that our current formatting of infoboxes overly highlights them. I hope very much the Wikidata project devises some better way of handling it. But I think there is a general consensus at WP, rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes, and I do not think any one project ought to decide otherwise unless they can get a consensus of the entire community. We are a single encyclopedia. The project's primary job should be maintaining the generally excellent quality of the articles in their field, not fighting over formatting. If they try to maintain a special format they will inevitably come into conflict with outsiders, and give the impression of a closed community. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"But I think there is a general consensus at WP,rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes." There isn't. In fact, editors have been sanctioned for trying to impose infoboxes on articles by force and bullying [5]. I hope very much the Wikipedia Data project and its associated tag team give up their efforts to own every article on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a "tag team". There's similar remarks from other users on the Bach talk page that imply that roving gangs of bullies are going around trying to impose their info-box-will on others. There's lots of individual people who favour info boxes that are not doing so in an attempt to own the place or doing so on behalf of the Wikipedia Data project. Divisive lumping together of people of similar opinions into hypothetical factions is never a good idea, and it's one reason the issue is being discussed on this board. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a 'tag team'." No, I'm not and it doesn't sound that way, not if you read it properly. I'm referring to a small(ish) but highly committed group of editors who try to impose infoboxes on every article. Their reason for doing so, whether they state it or not, boils down to metadata concerns rather than any concern for things like accurate content. They appear on a wide variety of articles on subjects for which they have displayed no prior interest or knowledge. --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not part of a group "imposing infoboxes on every article". I explained (on the Bach talk) that I think Bach deserves an infobox because it's a vital article, like Franz Kafka, for example. When I noticed that the thought was not welcome enough I moved on and recommended to archive the discussion. Please stay factual. - Everybody is welcome to add infoboxes to "my" articles, I like structured information for easy access and I don't believe that they are "trivialising" the subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No one said you were a part of this group. But Andy Mabbett and his Metadata crew is not a figment of my imagination, although some of its members are now either banned [6] or otherwise sanctioned. Mabbett himself has been banned twice for a year by ArbCom for aggrssive behaviour. Most of these infobox debates would benefit massively by his absence. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should be about the incidents mentionened, Bach and Sparrow Mass. I suggested one and inserted the other. Why mention "group" in this context? - See my talk for an 1 April operatic semiseria DYK suggestion (not by me), for a smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mabbett features in both those examples as well as in most of the others mentioned in this discussion. --Folantin (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, making reasonable comments, so? - I am on friendly terms with him, with the three editors mentioned in headings below (1, 2, 3), with several others in this thread, - and would like to talk about the facts of a future rather than unpleasant personal experiences of a past that I don't share. I am sorry to disagree with Truthkeeper (in this case), recommending to NOT look at old discussions, but to take a fresh unbiased look at the question if Bach or others should have an infobox, and what it should contain if wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

He was permanently community-banned from contributing to Featured Article of the Day after a particular nasty infobox imposition incident only last August [7]. He's exhibited the same behaviour for years and shows no sign of stopping....But he's your friend, so OK then. --Folantin (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"shows no sign of stopping" - I don't see that, - also "on friendly terms" and "friend" don't mean the same for me. You show no sign of stopping to talk about people instead of facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that Mabbett has been community-banned and ArbCom-banned over these issues.--Folantin (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been away for over a week, not logged in once, because I'm sick of these discussions [8] and am more than disgusted at finding this here. That Gerda misses a user and adds that person to a special page [9] and ignores another who has left for the same reason shows the closed community DGG mentions above. I commented at Bach, and yes made edits when my suggestion to tidy the page were ignored,[10], [11], otherwise I've not edited there. These discussions have been raging all over the project and we *are* losing productive content editors because of it. One particularly nasty discussion occurred here, there's another here, one here, another here. Bullying? Yep, there's been bullying for sure. In my view bringing this is AN/I over a single word said by a single editor is beyond shortsighted. But carry on. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As someone who loves classical music, loves working together with other people and abhors incivility: this whole thread saddens me.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have stood back here after initiating this ANI thread and responding to initial comments, but I feel I must respond to Truthkeeper's post, as well as try to begin to wrap this up. I have attempted to make it abundantly clear that this is not about one profane word at one Talk page, but about the nature of the debate on infoboxes in composer and composition articles and the methods used by opposers. That f-word triggered thorough examination of that entire Bach Talk page and the topic as a whole, but I resent being called shortsighted by Truthkeeper (who does agree, along with a number of others, that bullying at classical music articles exists) for bringing the matter to this noticeboard. As I have commented on the Bach talk page, I gave the matter considerable thought. Above all, the fact that I was and am completely uninvolved in this debate and those debating it made me, I continue to feel, an ideal editor to initiate this ANI complaint to bring in fresh eyes to the overall topic of bullying and ownership at classical music articles. I also feel that the fact that I have never initiated a single ANI complaint of any kind previously added weight to my concerns. It may be important at this point to acknowledge that at least one advocate of infoboxes in classical music articles has issues of the his own regarding questionable editing practices. So be it. That a number of other editors have stepped forward to agree that a problem exists has been established. Let's move on from there to the next phase of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You do realise, don't you, that Truthkeeper was referring to what she perceived as bullying by pro-infobox editors? And that she pointed to what she considers to be further examples of it, not in classical musical articles, but in those on literary and historic architecture subjects? Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I've arrived here late, and to be frank I'm relieved to have missed most of it. I’ve been accused (inaccurately) of saying that the infobox proposal at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach was made in ‘bad faith’, though in fact I said was that it was an open question. What I had in mind was SNOW "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted . . . ." Here’s the relevant diff [12]. (The context of my remark was the attempt to close a damaging and unproductive discussion.) I stand by what I wrote there and elsewhere in response to the proposal. Anybody who reads this ANI and still thinks that these discussions are ruled by AGF must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Given the substantial blocks suffered by the leading player in these debates, going back to 2007, good faith is clearly in short supply. Kleinzach 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I live in a "cloud cuckoo land", not after reading "these discussions", but when suggesting an infobox for Bach. Things could be so simple, Gerda writes an article, Andy adds an infobox, Gerda says thank you. (This is an example, which also actually happened, see Holzhausenschlösschen). Note that I said "adds", not "imposes" "by force". I think of infoboxes as an additional access to structured information, we can discuss their content and their design ("cloud cuckoo land"?). I don't think sanctions will help to change minds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps somebody else has thus accused you, but IIRC I said you had "questioned Gerda's good faith". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Infoboxes aren't as great as many people think that they are. It is 100% ok to not use them. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It is also 100% OK to use them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The bias against infoboxes by the classical music/composer projects is a well-known fact and has been ongoing for many years now. There are good arguments on both sides. In theory, infoboxes were designed to help the reader; they were meant to confer essential information at a glance in an unobtrusive way, but that has not always been the case. The best solution is for preferences to control their placement. If you don't like them, then you should be able to use your preferences to control their display. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It is already possible for a user to hide them, using their local CSS (set class="infobox" to display:none;). I'm in a rush now, but I'm sure someone at WP:VPT will advise or assist anyone wanting to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions for Nikkimaria, Ceoli, and Kleinzach

It is established that there is a problem with the methods being used by some opponents to infoboxes in general and these three in particular. I have discussed each editor in the bullet points in my original complaint that started this thread. I call for editor comment on proposed sanctions for the three as a start to make it clear to opponents, and yes, supporters of infoboxes as well. One thing I notice is that none of the three has seen fit to contribute to this discussion to date, much less express contrition. This, in my view, should be a matter of of community concern and response. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I suggest you do your homework before asking for these sanctions. You've dropped into a single conversation, taken offense to a single word, and are apparently fully unaware of more than a year of seriously unacceptable behavior by Pigsonthewing et. al., that's had repercussions in terms of editor retention. The Bach conversation came directly on the heels of another infobox discussion and in the least the timing was bad. It was you who posted beneath my own post on Bach saying there will be an infobox regardless, basically telling me to fuck off. I'm very very tired of this and hope that other uninvolved admins do their homework, look at the many conversations - I can provide more diffs if someone posts a request on my page - and takes a good long hard look at what's really happening. Furthermore in terms of looking for contrition and responses, might be a good idea to look at editors' editing patterns to see how often and when they edit before asking for sanctions less than 24 hours after a single comment was dropped on a page. In my view you're fueling a fire that's best let alone and I strongly suggest you withdraw these proposals and let this thread be archived. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullying? Ownership concerns? The first just didn't happen – profanity and incivility are not bullying. The second is asserted but never even attempted to be shown. This whole soap opera/drama should never have reached this forum. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained the ownership concerns, above (Timestamp: 15:11, 2 April 2013). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed block of Ceoil

For his profane f-word greeting to my initial greeting to my initial post at the J.S. Bach talk page, as well as other highly questionable editing behavior found on the Bach talk page, I propose a block. This block is preventative, not punitive. To date, Ceoil has received a lukewarm warning on his talkpage, with no contrition expressed or indeed response of any kind. Again, this editor has amassed 11 blocks for unacceptable editing in the past, which must be factored into my concerns. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What a pompous and pretentious statement.  Giano  21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, Ceoil wrote "In other words, I discount your argument, becuase I cant, and dont want to, understand it. And fuck you anyway." Ceoil is not making an own statement here but is satirizing your position.--Razionale (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone of my replies, and the swearing, but just not for the substance of what I was (ineglently) trying to say. Jusdafax, contrition, really? If you going to get into arguments, and try and walk past people, full steam, and totally disregarding thier view point so flippiantly, expect frank openion back. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed strong warning or additional block for Administrator Nikkimaria

A 24 hour block for the edit warring and tendentious editing outlined above is not enough. Administrators must exhibit the highest standards of community trust; when they edit in demonstrated bad faith, a serious problem exists. Here again, no contrition has been demonstrated, to my knowledge. This suggests an intractable admin with a pov issue that needs to be dealt with by the community, and not just by a 24 hour block that the admin can then scrub from their Talk page and go on their way. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Was the user in question warned before they made their fourth revert? Also this happened 5 days ago thus a little old. And the users who were attempting to add the content into the article managed to do so per [13] and without consensus on the talk page [14]. Typically it is the person attempting to add new content who should get consensus before it is added not the other way around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The admin in question was blocked (24 hours) for that episode. The "warning" was a diff to this conversation. Unless I'm mistaken, the OP here is asking for an (additional) longer block for the offense she'd already been blocked for. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence of any "admin abuse". Nikkimaria did not use her admin tools in the dispute(s). --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC is thataway. --Rschen7754 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed warning for Kleinzach

To submit that a proposal for an infobox, made in civil language and with proper formatting and knowledge of the subject is in "bad faith," is unacceptable, and cannot be allowed to stand. At least one other editor has provided an additional complaint diff above; I suggest a strong warning on Kleinzach's Talk page to discourage this sort of attack-editing in the future. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• No sanctions. Some other admin may feel free to warn editors more sternly. Personally, I think that Ceoil's "Fuck you" came way too out of the blue, and if you agree you might feel inclined to leave some diplomatic words of your own on their talk page. But here's the thing. Some of you are some of the best editors around. There's at least a half a dozen names in the conversation above and the discussion on the article talk page--wait, maybe a dozen--of some of the finest editors I know producing some of the finest content we have. In y'all's capacity as editors, I look up to you. In y'all's capacity as human beings, you may not be as bad as I am, but you're not perfect either, that's clear as well. There's bad blood here, judging from some of the article talk page comments (there's mention of teams, of ownership, etc), but blocks are only going to make that worse. As an admin (admittedly not of the same detached and calm temperament as some others), I do not think that the (admittedly poor) behavior (of some) is blockworthy. Will you please work this out some other way? You're setting a terrible example for the kids. Sorry, I'd speechify more, but a student came in and we're talking Paradise Lost. Good luck to you all, and may you write your content cooperatively and in peace. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• No sanctions, please read what I said above, look for "cloud cuckoo land": "I don't think sanctions will help to change minds." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

ps: I try praise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Concur with Gerda. Some WP contributors are more emollient than others, but I agree with Drmies, above: we must not get so prim as to drive away key contributors over minor alarums and excursions. Kleinzach is a key contributor by any standard; the areas of WP that I work in would simply not exist as they now are without him. I've had the occasional reciprocal poke in the eye from Kleinzach, but such things are as nothing compared to his contribution. Strongly opposed to any sanction. – Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Drmies in the entirety. This whole thing is getting very unseemly. I've studiously avoided being drawn in, but even if people are unable to agree, they need to agree on a way of settling the question. Otherwise it's going to land in ArbCom. I used to tell parents in custody matters that despite their differences, it was better that they decide what happens to their children than a stranger, however well-meaning and learned. I do not feel a great deal of sympathy toward content contributors from ArbCom these days. Don't go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• It started unseemly and it will end with content editors walking away - off the top of my head I know of about five who already have, good editors even if not considered "quality editors". If the above is a veiled threat, then add more who will simply decide that if writing isn't valued on WP there are better ways to spend one's volunteer time. Giano got it right here. That's the only way to end it, but wasn't accepted and then moved on to Bach a day or so later and so it goes. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I did not mean to sound threatening and am very sorry if you mean that I did. I simply hope that you can settle this thing, in some way that ends this flareup.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "You" - singular? As in TK herself settles this? "You" plural as in "you group of editors?" Or perhaps "we" - as in the community, whatever that is. If "we" or "you" the community want only metadata then speaking for only for myself, I've spend too much money on library fines, books, etc., and way too much time creating content that's obviously meaningless and WP is the wrong place for me. If "we" the community want to impose across-the-board uniformity to the point of blocking editors who protest, then you're right, it needs to be settled. But I suspect strongly it will settled by people walking or committing wiki-suicide. And yes, the remark about the arbs vs. content editors did sound a bit threatening. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also support the reasonings by Drmies, Tim Riley, Wehwalt and Gersa. Per Tim and Drmies, we must never get so prim that we drive off any productive editors. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• 1) It does not appear that an infobox policy has been/will be adopted; 2) that leaves it to local consensus; 3) so, you are either going to have to work it out article to article (with the continuing sturm and drang) or come to some solution among yourselves (perhaps in mediation); but whatever you do, first decide if any of it is worth the cost. Isn't an infobox (as nice as they are) a small thing, compared to the article itself? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't want to comment on bans and civility blocks. I'd like to comment more generally. See Help:Infobox: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. It is a good recommendation for a free encyclopedia. I oppose promoting uniformity and I support people who still believe that this is a free encyclopedia. I don't think editors at WP:CM are a clique, they work in the complicated area of music history, which may be (and is) different from other areas. They have right to object to oversimplifications. They present their arguments in a sensible and informed way. They could hardly be called a "minority", because in that area, they are actually a "majority". A really free and professional encyclopedic project should respect their point of view. On a side note, I don't think we desperately need this kind of consistency (I mean "all bios must have an infobox"). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Maduro IP 98.252.50.93 gone ballistic

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

---

98.252.50.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone ballistic leaving 3RR warnings and threats on multiple userpages, including mine, and ranting on Maduro's talkpage. Samples:

What is going on here is a criminal strangle hold on his page, forcing him smiling...

and

Look at this crazy bastard...

and accusing other editors of being bullies etc. He got a week-long block before. Perhaps it is time for another. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. That's why me, as well as other Venezuelans editing this website, avoid such articles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand you. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I too claim on national TV that Hugo Chavez came to me reincarnated as a parakeet http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFbPo_5pyrI

Or when Maduro offered 20 million to a candidate openly, yesterday. Or when he shut down the airport to prevent a candidate from landing to campaign. (Stop me when I'm not right, wait I read UT / La Patilla and watch VZ TV half my day.) You have done nothing but reverts over 4 days. You have not participated in talk. If you think that talking to birds on national television doesn't define what crazy is, deal with it. Now stop wasting admin time, but while an admin is here, address the non-participation of this user in the Maduro talk.98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've no involvement with this matter whatsoever, but I did notice (and revert) a rather trollish message on Bbb23's talk page by the aforementioned ip. If I weren't going to bed, I'd file an SPI. The master shouldn't be too hard to find. If no one else does it by the time I wake (or the ip is likely blocked) ill handle it then.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing editors I am the ;offending' IP - the guy who wrote me up Dr.K is not participating in talk, only reverting others and he did hit 3rr - thus it was done. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21, you know as well as I that the homophobia and rampant crime are being redacted and censored here. Capriles was attacked viciously using homophobic slurs as part of the general campaign!

I am getting legitimate edits like the devaluation and the crime rate peak this February, using La Patilla and UT links, and they called them 'blogs'

This guy needs to A. stop undoing edits, and instead participate in talk. and b. stop deleting legitimate warnings on his talk page. Ballistic is saying 'crazy bastard' when referencing a guy talking to bird-men on national TV on the talk page. You don't like it, go quote me a byline against profanity in talk.

Here I have a link for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material

And to the admin Green Rosette, you are actually claiming - "I would ask you to the talk page. The users are very unhappy about you and your colleague's repeated redactions to the controversy section."

Is "Trolling"? Noticing they have made 5 undo's over 72 hours and given them an edit warning? That's far reaching to say the least. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on this, but I fixed the indenting as LGR and the IP's posts were mixed together. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@98.252.50.93: The issue, 98.252.50.93, is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make political campaigns in favour or against a political line of view. Whatever my thoughts are on Venezuelan politics are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia, and thus I refrain myself from talking about it, or even expressing such views on my edits, because that would be a breach of the neutral point of view policy. All content on this site must be neutral, and that includes pages about Venezuelan politicians such as Maduro or Capriles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've attempted a few more tweaks here to condense these seemingly random lines. I removed a few postings from the article talk page, since they are nothing more than a poorly written cocktail of personal attacks and conspiracy theories, besides some rambling on the wrong side of the BLP line. The IP editor will be blocked if they continue disrupting--at this point, the word that best describes it is "trolling". Yes, IP, trolling, and you must stop. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP has restored the BLP violations and insults by reverting you. I undid their change. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos and the most famous three newspapers aren't "conspiracies" - Go check the links before you yourself use offensive commentary on my contributions to talk. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material before you remove half a talk page. As you can see there is nothing about me using my own syntax while describing someone who talks to birds as reincarnated people.

To the editor who's views are close to the gay community, if you are to specifically not post content that relates to views you hold, I would ask you to cite that as a wiki pillar or wiki guidance, as the article you posed is not what your personal views are, but what the syntax of the edit is. That is a clear delineation that you must make. Also you might want to cite the actual by-lines when in effect labeling another editor's contributions entirely POV (if this was not the intent I stand corrected). I will not have 1/2 the talk page removed which also yet again included more editors than myself and held over 25 useful editorial links and dialogue. If you have comments you disagree with me on, or that you can cite a wiki pillar via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material I will remove it. You do not do a service to Wiki by deleting half a talk page. You can check out the JFK assassination if you are curious about what a Conspiracy Theory. Let me spoil it for you, it doesn't include 17 YouTube videos of the grassy knoll shooter talking about magical Parakeets. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you keep my views on sexuality away from this discussion. That's another topic I have zero desire to talk, write, or discuss about. That said, it is evident that you have a very clear point of view. You are trying to deceive one of the two candidates by adding claims that although true, are not encyclopedic content and only serve, by the way that you write them, to make the person look bad, and this even goes against another core policy: the biography of living persons policy. Look, I don't care if Maduro talks with birds or not. The point is that such things are not worthy of a mention unless they are truly important and valuable. Wikipedia is not a place for trivia, promotion, deception, personal opinions, or a newspaper. Those are things that should be kept for the people to discuss on the streets or at their jobs, and not to be included on an encyclopedia, unless Maduro becomes, seriously, known for talking to birds. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• In March I blocked the IP for one week for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks related to the Maduro page. Unfortunately, I stupidly became WP:INVOLVED later by removing attack content from the article inserted by registered accounts (not by the IP, who incites on the talk page), including User:Yeah 93, who is a WP:SPA, and User:Periergeia, who has only 530 edits (mostly Venezuelan subjects) and was egged on by indefinitely blocked User:LifeEditorLatinAmerica. Content-wise, I'm at a handicap because of my lack of knowledge of Spanish and Spanish sources, but there's way too much crap going on at this article and at its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• What you believe to be "attack edit" is what anyone else will understand as justified criticism and your edits is what other people will understand as vandalism.

Here it is: I added an important accussation carried out by an elected deputy against Nicolás Maduro, an accusation published in three well-known Venezuelan newspapers. Whether the accusations are of your liking or not does not matter at all. They are real and you cannot just delete them at your pleasure. --Periergeia (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Please, stop vandalizing.

• • I used Google translate to read the sources and the allegations against Maduro are vague and also not carried by all three sources. One of the three sources, "El Universal", does not mention Maduro at all which indicates that Maduro is not the focus of the controversy. "Ultimas Noticias" says: Alleged acts alleged by Deputy Palacios occurred while Nicolas Maduro was the president of the National Assembly , so the leader responsible directly to the current Vice President for these irregularities. which does not implicate Maduro directly, other than in his role as leader who should have known better. "TalCual Digital" mentions: Another who was involved in alleged corruption is vice president Nicolás Maduro. [...] The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said that evaluates request merit impeachment against National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano for alleged corruption, then the president of the commission of the Comptroller of Parliament Pedro Carreño, appropriated the video of the press conference where both political leaders admit the allegations. So we have a lone deputy who has made some corruption allegations that do not clearly and directly involve Maduro but rather National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano and Maduro is mentioned almost in passing. These allegations are so vague and isolated from the wider political scene of Venezuela that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at the present time. If they spread to a wider political circle and become more Maduro-specific perhaps they could be included, but not before then. Finally, I know Periergeia is a relative newbie but they should understand that calling other good-faith editors' actions "vandalism" is a form of a personal attack and they should stop doing it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mine wasn't atteck content. It was what I genuinely thought a valid point and relevant enough to be included in the article. I want the article to reflect a neutral point of view but I did not know it violated one rule of BLP. If there was an incident with this I apologize, because I truly didn't do anything to bash or attack the article or someone else. --Yeah 93 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP is back

• leaving personal comments on my talk. How long can this go on? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think he likes us. Personally, I'm pleased to be in such good company. We should collaborate on our extrication speech.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lol. So am I. Thanks for that Bbb23. :) Meanwhile I am starting on the the write-up of out joint speech. I'll send you a copy as soon as I finish, so you can add your own points and practice on your delivery at the Maduro talkpage. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Gone ballistic Part 2

• Now he is spamming Latin-America-related articles, including the Portal accusing two editors and canvassing for help from other editors: [15]. We are having some serious problems with a couple editors who are restricting [Nicolas Maduro] when the information posted is negative, even when the information does have well cited sources and is without POV language. It's very frightening because when I saw them plug in a rare, and photoshopped photo of Maduro, smiling, without going to talk first, I knew that something was very wrong. Please, editors, assist us, don't let the page become a shrine to their regime like the Hugo Chavez page became, even Jimbo Whales said he was depressed by that result. Really bizarre behaviour. I think he is asking for a cool-down block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked 98.252.50.93 for WP:DE and various infractions. 2 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Dennis. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Little green rosetta

In what is highly reminiscent of Belchfire's previous disruptive reverts and hounding of Roscelese before he was blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, Little green rosetta (talk · contribs) has now taken up where Belchfire left off and has begun following me around to articles he has never edited before to revert my edits and has generally been uncivil and combative.[16][17][18][19][20] This behavior consists of deliberate hounding, blanket reverts, and ignoring requests for sources on Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability. Little green rosetta was politely asked to stop hounding me and he was invited to use the article talk page to discuss his concerns.[21] His response was to tell me to "Go away and don't come back"[22] and to tell me to "fuck off".[23] Further, he did not add sources as requested[24] and he quite blatantly continued to follow me to pages he has never edited before, simply to revert me.[25] He was given a second warning,[26] which he promptly ignored while continuing to revert me.[27][28] After multiple requests on his talk page, Little green rosetta has refused to stop hounding and reverting me, and he has refused to respond directly to the discussion on the talk page. Finally, he has falsely accused me of "vandalism" because I used his talk page to ask him to stop this behavior once again.[29][30] Therefore, I have no choice but to ask for administrative intervention. The user has been asked twice to stop following me around and has refused. The user has been asked twice to stop reverting me and has refused. Finally, the user has refused to engage directly on the talk page and to provide the requested sources supporting his reverts. This is not a content dispute but a documented case of disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• This user told you to stay off their talk page, you ignored it, so that bit IS vandalism. What about diffs that show they weren't reverting dodgy edits, but reverting good ones? From what I've seen, the hounding may be the other way around... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you are mistaken. Per dispute resolution protocol, I am required to communicate with the user. There has been no vandalism of any kind. As for the hounding, the diffs clearly show that Little green rosetta followed me to two different articles (Michael & Me and Larry Elder) and reverted me twice. How could this possibly be the other way around? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people that vandalism is the deliberate defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Ignoring a request to stay off a talk page, though possibly disruptive, is not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "disruptive" or "hounding" to ask someone to stop hounding. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

the 1st dif you provided was of you deleting an entire article about a documentary? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not deleting, redirecting to the parent topic, Larry_Elder#DVD, which is sourced to the author himself. The film article has been unsourced since 2007 and LGR can't bring himself to add any sources, just revert. As I have already shown on the film talk page, there are no reliable film sources to support this encyclopedia article. Feel free to take your queries there. This incident report isn't about the content, it's about LGR's behavior which consists of following me around and reverting me and then telling me to fuck off when I ask him to stop. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Viriditas, the two articles are related as are the content edits. You want to redirect an article, and lgr disagrees. Each time you revert each other, the redirect target has to be changed as well. So, we really only have one issue. lgr's use of FO was ill-advised but not really that big a deal; at least they didn't spell it out. I know of no "dispute resolution protocol" that requires you to communicate with lgr on their talk page. If they tell you to go away, go away. Finally, the reference to Belchfire is a bit coatracky and unsupported, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bbb23 in that we're really talking about one issue here, and that I don't see the direct relevance of Belchfire to this situation. That said, given the fairly substantial personal hostility evident in lgr's posts/edit summaries, I am somewhat curious whether he's willing to indicate whether he came to the Michael & Me article by way of Viriditas' contribution history. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the question is whether LGR can account for arriving at the article via a path that doesn't involve Viriditas's contribs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Has LGR really "picked up where Belchfire left off?" As I recall, you and LGR have a lot of overlap in areas of editing especially on conservative politics. I think it's likely that you've been able to devote more attention to LGR now that Belchfire is gone. So associating LGR with Belchfire is just an attempt at guilt by association. I see no reason to have sock puppetry and LGR's name so close together in your OP. Might be worth considering striking or removing that part altogether and focus on just your complaints about LGR.--v/r - TP 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, they have close to zero overlap in areas of editing. See my analysis at the bottom of this thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear from lgr as well, but, at the same time, I don't follow how this started. Viriditas begins with the claim of hounding, but, generally, for hounding, there has to be something that precedes it, that sets up the supposed retaliation. According to Viriditas, why do they believe lgr went after them in the first instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I couldn't tell you what started it. From my own experience, Viriditas is a smart guy who is very often correct in his arguments, but he's hardly the most pleasant fellow. Maybe LGR got put off at some point? Hard for me to speculate on anything other than my own experiences and I generally try to ignore the political cross-bashing wherever possible.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• All I can tell you is that this has been going on for a long time. Just last week, LGR was hounding me. He was monitoring my talk page and when Deskana contacted me and left a comment, he then contacted Deskana about that comment. He's been closely following me for a while, and this is just the latest bad behavior. As for the comparison to Belchfire, I don't see why the analogy is disputed. The both of them did/do the same thing: follow editors around and revert them. This is particularly true with reverting editors involved in the LGBT topic area, which I do not edit, so for me, the analogy holds. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• My experience with both puts them in dramatically different categories. I don't know what you've experienced that puts them in the same category and from my perspective, it seems your trying to use some of the negative emotions around Belchfire to stick to LGR as well. If you can't address LGR on his own merits, then you shouldn't have opened a thread here.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Wrong approach here, but it's your call. As for Deskana, apparently lgr didn't like this. I'm now beginning to understand why there's so much bad blood between you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also noticed that lgr has a habit to follow other users around. This can't be a coincidence. He/She also followed user Scientiom in the same manner.--В и к и T 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Intersection of edits without more doesn't demonstrate hounding.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was about to say the same as Bbb23. A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data. I'm sure he's not houding me (I'd hope). Need more context here.--v/r - TP 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas.--В и к и T 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My analysis: An interaction check[31] shows 14 examples of Viriditas making a first edit to a page and Little green rosetta showing up and reverting him/her as his/her first edit to the page, [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] two examples of Little green rosetta reverting Viriditas a second time on the same page,[46][47] 1 example of the opposite happening,[48] and 1 example where it looks like the two just happened to edit different parts of the same page.[49] My conclusion: this is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING by Little green rosetta.^{See comment by Kyohyi below} --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Doing the same analysis with TParis and Little green rosetta[50] shows 6 interactions (3 of which were over a year apart) and 0 reverts of TParis by Little green rosetta,[51][52][53][54][55][56] which means that the claim "A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data" is factually inaccurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"... is factually inaccurate" Apparently you and Wikiwind share a common ailment in that you really have no sense of context. Wikiwind gave a link to a editor interaction analyzer. I said, paraphrasing, "So what, mine and LGR's look like that too, need more context" to which Wikiwind replied "It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas." (Thank you, Wikiwind, having given context I can see what you were getting at.) At the time of my comment, it was factually accurate given the lack of context. Your analysis enjoyed a bit more context than mine did, so before you call me factually inaccurate, examine the extra bit of information you were given. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my choice of wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

From reviewing the diff's of LGR's and Viriditas interaction, on December 28th of last year, Viriditas inserted quotations around the term ex-gay in 12 of those diffs. LGR reverted citing MOS. Of the remaining 3 articles, 2 are the subject of this ANI, and 1 is unrelated. If Veriditas was violating MOS in his edits on the 28th, I'm fairly certain this is not WP:HOUNDING.--Kyohyi (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I am going to assume that this one[57] was a simple error. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wether or not it was an error on someone else, I missed that when I was looking through the diff's earlier. Thanks for pointing it out. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That diff is not an error, but a great illustration of the blanket reversions made by LGR after stalking my contributions. He never followed up to remove the scare quotes,[58] he just reverted my edit without ever looking at it. Finally, the MOS does not proscribe scare quotes, it just discourages them because they can be misused. And since there is no such thing as "ex-gay", I believe they were used correctly. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In Viriditas' favor, I would have liked it a lot better if Little green rosetta had consistently removed quotation marks and consistently added [[ and ]] to create a wikilink. Although I struck my "clearly" comments above, it does look like Little green rosetta just reverted whatever changes Viriditas made. Is that hounding? I could argue either way.

As for the question of whether there is no such thing as an ex-gay and thus the quotation marks were correct, that's a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. It certainly was OK to mention it in passing while arguing that the reverted behavior was correct, but I would really like to see the content dispute dealt with in the appropriate venue rather than through reverting. Perhaps one of you might want to open a case at WP:DRN on the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything seriously problematic here, I think warnings are all that's needed. I'd strongly suggest LGR avoid tracking Viriditas' edits in the future. (And I'd advise Viriditas not to watch LGR very carefully.) Even if it is not technically WP:HOUNDING, it is likely to lead to further conflict and be generally unproductive. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree; this diff, taken in context, suggests that LGR is tracking Viriditas' contributions and reverting them as sort of a knee-jerk reflex. Whether or not we choose to call that "hounding", it's really not a good idea and should be discouraged. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with this outcome. I think both editors need to be more careful with each other and distance themselves from whatever past problems they've had. That said, lgr has not made any edits to Wikipedia since this discussion began. As MastCell mentioned earlier, it would be helpful to hear from lgr before closing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that if this happens again, we'll all be a lot more likely to take action. Hopefully that realization will cause people to be more careful in their interactions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone concerned that Viriditas effectively deleted an article without going through Afd? NE Ent 23:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Redirects are not deletion. If the change to a redirect is objeted to, any editor, even an IP, can return the article to an article with a maximum of three clicks; deletion is, well, deletion and removes the history, too. For simply changing to a redirect, though, WP:BOLD applies (and, by extension, WP:BRD) - I've seen far too many AfD discussions where boldly redirecting in the first place would have been the better move, they should be encouraged, not discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record there was a discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Michael .26 Me and, as near as I can tell there a consensus had not been reached regarding deletion or a redirect. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Slightly concerned, yes. "Redirect-deletion" should really only be done in uncontroversial cases, after you're reverted once you should go to Afd instead of reverting to a redirect again as happened in this situation. Again, not block-worthy but far from "best practice". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree. Redirecting non-notable topics that lack sources indicating their notability is standard best practice. I even said I would restore the article myself if the notability criteria was met (two reliable reviews) and I repeated this good faith offer in two different discussions. Further, LGR was given the opportunity to add these putative sources on two occasions and failed. He was also asked to do so on the talk page and ignored the requests, preferring to edit war and revert to an unsourced article. He has repeatedly claimed that sources indicating notability exist, but he refuses to provide them. That is certainly not best practice. The burden is always on the editor adding or restoring content to show us their sources. LGR has refused. Further, I have not been able to find two reliable reviews of the film nor have I been able to find anything other than passing mention, in other words, insignificant coverage. Meanwhile, LGR hounded me here, refused to show sources supporting his reverts, and is disrupting multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say your self-righteousness and repetitiveness are offputting. Worse, you're wrong. You redirected and were reverted. At that point, the burden was on you to gain a consensus for the redirect. Reverting back to the redirect was inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit that made the article a redirect (diff) is not a problem at all because the edit summary ("Redirect unsourced and non-notable film to author") is extremely accurate. Best practice would require a good-faith attempt to determine whether suitable references are available (not two dead links to foxnews.com, neither of which appear to even claim notability in the WP:N sense), and it is very likely that such an attempt was made (see Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability). It is ok to revert such a redirect, but best practice for the reverter would involve more than finding mentions in Google. Assuming the accuracy of numbers mentioned above (Viriditas makes first edit in 90% of the interactions and LGR reverts in 100% of the cases), it is clear that LGR needs to be told to drop the pursuit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, that's nonsense. Discussions about notability do not occur in edit summaries. This is an article that has existed since 2007. That doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping, but it most likely means it shouldn't be redirected without discussion. I don't object to the bold redirect by Viriditas, but once an objection was registered, either a discussion must occur on the talk page or at AfD - not just, "I'm right."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion occurred on the talk page and LGR failed the burden. It's very simple. Three times, LGR claimed "sources exist" and three times he has refused to provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the explanations -- I had falsely inferred that since Afds may result in redirect as outcome, a redirect shouldn't occur without an Afd. Reviewing the policy WP:ATD-R it does state "an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." As the only participants in the discussion appear to have been lgr & Viriditas, this second insertion of the redirect seems inconsistent with the policy. NE Ent 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. I was stalked by LGR and my edits were reverted with the justification "sources exist". I had already justified the redirect on the project page when this act of hounding occurred, noting the dearth of sources. I did not automatically revert in return. What I did was I started a duplicate discussion on the article talk page and invited LGR to participate, also warning him not to stalk me. In both the article discussion and in the user talk pages, I requested sources justifying the revert. None were ever provided and LGR ignored the request for sources in both discussions. After this refusal to justify his blanket reverts, I restored the redirect. LGR then reverted again. Returning to the discussion, LGR then ignored the request for sources for a third time, once again failing the burden. Now, what action of mine was "inappropriate" or inconsistent with policy? None. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So what are you looking for, Viriditas? Are you looking for a block or intervention? Do you want a formal interaction ban or would voluntary "stay the heck away" be workable for now? Would you like LGR to be reminded to explain and support his reverts better especially when challenged?--v/r - TP 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but IRL fun was to to be had last night. A few points to address some issues en masse, not necessiarly in order of importance

• Per WP:VANDTYPES. Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism.. Since the talk page in question was "my" talk page, who is best suited to decide if Viriditas is unwelcome on this page?
• Per WP:HOUND The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.. Viriditas re-insertion of scare quotes, which IMO is a violation of the MOS is also (IMO) an overriding reason.
• As anyone who has used Stiki/Huggle or recent changes can attest to, one should not be surprised to see prolific editors contributions appear in such views. Curiosity often wins out and I'll examine the article in question. What happened in this situation is similar, though slightly different. Due to the recently caught socks of banned editors Acoma Magic (talk · contribs) and Benjiboi (talk · contribs) I've been interested in writing a sock-bot that monitor's contributions to pages favored by a sockmaster. I belive TParis can testify that I asked him about the API's weeks ago for this purpose. In the process of evaluating various technologies I was programatically (http scrape) reading recent changes and my job encountered an out-of-memory exception. Examining the output I saw three things that caught my eye. 1) A familiar username 2) an article title that seemed familiar -- Roger & Me stood out (correctly it seems) 3) A large numberof bytes removed. By the comments made here, it seems that several editors feel my revert was reasonable. Though in essence this is a content dispute. The wholesale redirect of the article was unwarranted IMO. Viriditas asks for sources, but fails to mention which specifc content needed citation. No one is seriously questioning that sources exist. But this conversation doesn't belong here but rather on the article's talk page.
• Is this a WP:BOOMERANG? As as others have pointed out (here and elsewhere) Viriditas may be the one doing the hounding and making personal attacks, being combative etc. I'm not going to bother submitting the diffs here, as I've been advised by a few admins (both on and off wiki), that discussion might be better held at WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas3. WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas and WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas2 already appear to be occupied and contain other complaints of harrassment.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this and I haven't seen anyone suggest Viriditas was hounding. Luke made an early comment completely unsupported and someone else said that Viriditas shouldn't track you but it wasn't hounding. You should strike that.--v/r - TP 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Making this report is not boomerang worthy as there does appear to be legitimate underlying issue here, although it is rather hard to conclude anything with the information given. You appear to acknowledge you follow the editor in one paragraph but you say it's not in a problematic way, and then imply you didn't in another paragraph. You mention scare quotes, but here, where you reverted [59] they aren't in quotes, but italics, and they are present in your version as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@TP, Clearly I'm not asking for anything to be done here as I've already stated what my suggested remedy would be, so there is nothing to strike. I've been contacted by a few editors who have asked "what's the deal between you and Virididtas" already and they have made the harassmenent allegation. Obviously I'm annoyed with Viriditas. Being called a homphobe for jesus is kind of offensive after all. Him chiming in on talk page/noticeboard issues I was in discussions with was "in your face" belligerence. Once again I'm not asking for anything here, so I'm not bothering to provide diffs. @IRWolfie --- I'm certainly not "getting up in his grill" as it were. He's got a certain POV in some topic areas -- and shows it. Fine, no big deal, but obviously we overlap on some subjects, so I should be able to comment in those areas of common interest. Either people here are going to AGF and believe me when I found this edit by random chance (bully for them), or they aren't (shame on them). As for the Larry Elder article, I just reverted the removal of the wiki-link. I didn't notice the scare quotes.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, LGR, let me give you some advice. We get along well so I hope you take it. And if Viriditas is offended by what I say, well so what. Anyway, my take on people is that I try to see their value. If they have none, then I dont bother with them. Viriditas is not the friendliest guy here. I've bumped heads with him several times, he's recently called me a troll, ect ect. He's not someone I'd go drink beers with. But, he's incredibly smart and usually has insight into particular issues that I don't. The way he articulates himself is clear and understandable. If I were on a debate team, I'd want someone like Viriditas with me. My point is this: find a way to get along. It doesn't have to mean agreeing, sometimes it means ignoring, but find a way to get along. You may have use of Viriditas some day, you might find yourself on the same side of an issue, and he can be a resource. Start by not reverting his edits. If you have a problem with scare quotes, seek a wider consensus at MOS to remove them. And be clearer in your edit summaries why they are scare quotes. If challenged, try to get a 3rd opinion instead of reverting. Clearly, coming here isn't a very happy experience for either of you.

I just don't see this thread progressing toward an administrative action, so it might be time to close it unless Viriditas has any other comments.--v/r - TP 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

He may be smart & articulate, though IMO he commits too many logical fallacies that I'd caution you for your debate draft. The scare quotes issue has been hashed out many times; I'm fairly certain consensus is they are not acceptable (quotes are for attriubtion, not emphasis or disaproval in Wikipedia's voice). I could be wrong, but this is besides the point. Viriditas has bloodlust and has been trying to satisfy it via sanctions. Filing a 3RR report on an article he has never edited? Soliciting a (sockpuppet of a banned editor) for more of the same? The filing of this report reminds of a book that Judge Judy wrote called Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining. Your advice is of course sage, and I'll try to heed it in the future, especially the ignore part. I make no promises (short of an IB being placed), but will try. Hopefully we are both adult enough that is not necessary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with filing a 3RR report on an article you have never edited. In this case the report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive208#User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned) and the result was that little green rosetta was warned about edit-warring and Viriditas was told that his rhetoric was over the top and was asked to tone it down in the future.

As has been explained several times, whether or not the quotes are acceptable is a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. I suggest a WP:RFC so that there is no doubt about what the consensus is on this particular content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As to pointing out the 3RR report and the solicitation to file an ANI report should be obvious; Who's stalking who? As to your other points, yes content disputes are best handled elsewhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is stalking who? Well, clearly this report shows you stalking me. Exactly which articles are you editing right now where I'm showing up to revert you? None? You dishonestly claimed there were loads of sources supporting the article you reverted but failed to offer those sources. Perhaps you should attempt to meet the burden outlined here. I don't buy your "I make no promises" claim. You either promise to stop hounding and reverting me for no reason (that's right you've offered no sources to support your justification for reversion) or this needs to escalate further. You do not get to continue this behavior. You should also think about using your account for constructive purposes, such as creating new articles and contributing actual content, not for hounding and reverts. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

This is going on way too long. Now that we've heard from lgr, I'm still in favor of an outcome along the lines of what Mark and MastCell proposed. I don't see either editor coming off as a saint, either outside of ANI or in this topic. I propose formal warnings to both editors that they need to behave and stay clear of each other more, sort of a mini-IB, or there will be sanctions. I'm open to someone else crafting the warning. If that's not acceptable, then we should just close this and hope that both editors get the hint.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support As much as I like LGR, I think continuing the feud with Viriditas will cause unnecessary tension and grief between them. IMHO, a short IB will hopefully settle the bad blood between them. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Both editors have behaved questionably towards each other, as much as Viriditas has tried to play the saint at times here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think LGR is most at fault due to following Viriditas and the knee jerk reverts highlighted by MastCell. But Viriditas also needs to distance himself from LGR too (as highlighted by Mark Arsten). They should stop following each other, and that should be an unacceptable excuse in the future, but not formal interaction ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support mini I-ban. Pass a Method talk 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support a mini interaction ban between LGR and Viriditas. I think that they should stop the bear-poking, otherwise, they will end up being blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please look at comments and edits by User:Herzen re article and talk page for Pope Francis

I have never brought an issue to ANI, but there is an issue that just will never be resolved without help "from above," regarding comments made by Herzen regarding a quote about Pope Francis in the article by that name. here is the discussion I would ask an administrator to look at, which centers around what I think (and other editors who have expressed their opinion on the talk page think) is a positive statement about Francis and his relationship with the Jewish community based on his experience in Buenos Aires. Here is the quote, taken from an editorial in The Jerusalem Post: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." My understanding of that quote, as well as the understanding of other editors involved in the discussion, is that John Paul II, the pope who had the closest relationship with the Jewish community in the past, could only have that relationship as a young man because the Jewish community in Poland was not strong after the Holocaust; on the other hand, Francis had a life-long relationship with a strong Jewish community in Argentina, as the first non-European pope -- and so he will be the pope with the best understanding and closest ties to the Jewish community of any pope in history. Herzen has repeatedly deleted the quote and continues to make comments on the discussion page that I think has crossed the line of appropriateness, focusing on these three major points:

• mentioning the Holocaust is "contentious" in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs
• using a quote that mentions John Paul II and Francis, without mentioning Benedict XVI, implies that Benedict XVI was a Nazi
• using a quote from an Israeli "secular newspaper" like the Jerusalem Post is inappropriate because Israel is an apartheid state.

Of course, please look at my comments as well, and let me know if I have crossed any lines in terms of appropriateness -- although I hope I have not. I have tried to discuss this issue with Herzen on the talk page, and also on his user talk page, here. I notified him that I might take this issue to this page -- ANI, and will now notify him that I have done so. I admit that I first was a little "mystified" (the word I used in my discussions) with some of his statements, but now I think they have crossed a line into the realm of inappropriateness and unreasonableness. I would appreciate an administrator with fresh eyes taking a look to see what might be done to prevent further reverts and further inappropriate statements (that is, if the administrator also deems any of his statements to be inappropriate). Thank you. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article section was changed to Talk:Pope_Francis#Relation_to_Jewish_community_in_Brazil_Argentina. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This appears, at this point, to be a purely content-based dispute, which administrators do not resolve. If you post about this issue on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, you will get a lot more help. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bring this to dispute resolution, but I think the comments on the discussion page I've linked are worrisome...and now Herzen deleted the phrase based on the claim that the "contentiousness" of alleged attacks on Benedict XVI (that NOT mentioning him is a claim he is a Nazi -- Herzen's wods) or mentioning the word Holocaust (in and of itself "contentiousness" because of the views of "Muslims and Arabs") allows him to make the deletion regardless of talk page discussion. Other editors who have taken part in the discussion agree there is no contentiousness except in Herzen's mind. I have never been in a discussion where the other person made claims that were (at least to me) just...a little off-balance and weird.... Again, I'll look at dispute resolution, but if you could take one more careful look at the discussion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, NearTheZoo (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at the linked section, I don't see anything particularly uncivil about what Herzen has said, but I do see unnecessary hostility from NearTheZoo. I think the interpretation by NearTheZoo of what Herzen has said shows a lack of assuming good faith. For example, Herzen did not say that "mentioning the Holocaust is 'contentious' in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs". This seems written to imply he is a holocaust denier, what he actually said was "Anytime the Holocaust is brought up when it is not directly relevant, contention will likely arise", which appears self-evidently true. I think the post here has made a mountain out of a molehill by not having assumed good faith, and by the appeals to ridicule in the posts. As an aside, NearTheZoo, who primarily appears to edit Israel related articles, insisting on trying to insert an editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which mentions the holocaust (for no apparently relevant reason) in the Pope Francis article seems decidedly like POV pushing, particularly considering the edit warring: [60][61][62]. WP:BOOMERANG should be considered IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All the other editors (including myself) who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote. The article talk page consensus is clear that it can be kept. I don't think it's fair, therefore, to say this is about POV pushing by NearTheZoo. Let's not make more of this than it is. Yes, NearTheZoo has made a mountain out of a molehill by bringing it here, which was a mistake, but let's not add to the mountain with a few more molehills. This is just a run of the mill content dispute, where tempers got frayed. I suggest closing this and let Herzen take it to DRN if he wants to change the article talk page consensus. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not true that "All the other editors ... who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote." Another editor deleted the quote twice [63][64]. – Herzen (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On his Talk page, he wrote, in response to NearTheZoo: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed. Furthermore, it says nothing that is not already in the article." – Herzen (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Maker Studios

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

---

• Maker Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Maker Studios (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Afropuff76 (talk · contribs)
• 76.89.180.85 (talk · contribs)

Persistent edit warring, most recently removal of talk page comments by 76 account [65], and continued editing on article after receiving 3rr warning [66] (waited for just over 24 hours to do so); this could just as well go to edit warring or page protection boards, but this is a longterm issue involving an experienced single purpose user with an apparent conflict of interest and a strong sense of article ownership. It seems clear that these two accounts are related, if not puppets. Disclosure: I've been involved at this page as two 99 IPs in the last few weeks, and opened a thread at BLP noticeboard last month [67]. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

IP attempted to remove this section, reverted and warned. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the registered account for 2 weeks and the IP for 3 months. Comparing their edits, the evidence was overwhelming. The IP is supposedly dynamic, so I'm not sure how much good it will do. If necessary, I will semi-protect the two articles (the other article is Ray William Johnson).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Pks1142

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

---

• Pks1142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has been going on for a long time now, and after innumerable tries to deal with calmly, User:Pks1142 has crossed all limits. It all began with the editing of Priyanka Chopra's page, an article that failed a recent FAC due to huge amount of fancruft that has been added by this particular user. When I tried to bring a semblance of sanity to the lead. this is how he responded: [[68]] and [[69]]. Also have a look at Talk:Priyanka Chopra (all the sections) and the way this user has been creating problems with everyone who is trying to help. Other editors trying to sort the issue on his talk page also did not help, as he started attacking other users too (see User talk:Smarojit#Chopra FAC too). --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, You have a nice thought of interpreting things and come up with a different story. I was behaving in that way because you are showing bias in the biographical page of chopra. No one asked him to improve it, See his first edit on the talk page of Chopra Talk:Priyanka Chopra and his concern was over a line which says "She was noted for her versatility...."He reflected that we were turning the article as articles bouquet not thorns. Then, he himself came with a new lead completely opposite of the original. Then I told him not to change, because I added that stuff after long discussion with My co-editor Bollyjeff and Dwaipayan (who said he liked my new version). Suddenly, Smarojit changed the lead and started reverting my edit. I told him that he doesn't own the article and he said "I will revert your every edit". Meanwhile, the other editor (with whom I maintained a distance, as they want their credit in the article, which I never denied) were started adding fuel to the heated argument, you can see here User talk:Smarojit#Chopra FAC. I reflected him not to do that (I also suspect of Gleeks having another account), as it will only stretch the discussion. I have contributed much to the article. The article failed its first fac, not because of fancruft, but of fragmentry style see here, The candidate failed because of fragmentry style not for fancruftry But, the user has interpreted it differently to tell a new story. I'm sorry for my anger, but the user wants me to leave the article for him. I requested him to reflect on first fac, but he didn't and now he is telling a new story. He is a bias as well, he considers an actress a "female hero" and praises her to sky but here he goes saying "sex symbol". This shows his biasness. He used the word sex symbol after one source but, another source said she acts like a hero, did he included no. Playing favorites might be the reason. Please, I request you to tell him not to kill my mind. I have injured myself and will not interfere with his any edit.Prashant talk 05:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Adminstrators: Well he has requested many of his friend to support him and I don't have any support in my favour. I'm not here to make any friends and take benefit of that. I'm here to edit and I had contributed to many articles and will always. I gave my blood and sweat to the article, but now, no one will see my hard work because of the above user. I'm feeling beaten, scolded and punished by doing good job to the article. I'm killing my self as why i came here to edit. Well, I have nothing to say nor have any support but, i have truth and my hard work to support me, but will anyone notice that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 April 2013

A small piece at the end of the above comment was removed by the WMF after a report, the rest of the comment was left so as to allow continued discussion Jalexander--WMF 06:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The reported user (Pks1142) has many good contributions to his credit; however, in this particular instance, was not agreeing to the good faith changes that Smarojit brought to the article in question, despite multiple explanations, requests, and telling that the article is in a manufacturing phase, and has not attained a stable phase yet. Discussions were on way in the talk page of the article, but frequently disrupted by rather childish behavior of Pks. I understand Pks also acted on his good faith, but his repetitive reverts on the article and inflammatory comments in the talk page were creating hindrance. I hoped with time things will calm down, but it did not. We definitely did not want to bring this to ANI, but could not find any other way. I feel what would be beneficial for the article and the editors is if Pks refrains from editing in the article and its talk page for a few days. Let the article develop, and then he is welcome to comment for further improvement. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have cleared everything and I think it's all well. Also, I tried to pass the olive branch but, he is not keen to accept it. However, co-editors on the article have helped us solving our differences. I'm ok with that user and he should also remember and accept it. It was just because of the stretched discussion and I'm apologetic to everyone.Prashant talk 00:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor has apologized. Nothing to see or gain by taking action here. An admin please close this as soon as you can.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Sandbox defamatory vandalism

SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify (talk · contribs) has been adding YouTube links to the sandbox with the summary '[name deleted] is a loser'. Someone please block him/her.--Launchballer 06:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked... this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of requesting a revision delete of most of the edits listed at Special:Contributions/SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry

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

---

• Yeoberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also IP edits [70] and [71])
• Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iconography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Epiphanius of Salamis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• History of the Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Second Great Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fourth Great Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Fogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parable of the talents or minas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Model of Christian Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Globalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• And probably others that have been miseed
• User Yeoberry notified of this AN/I discussion here.[72]

User: Yeoberry has been engaged in a long-term edit war stretching back to August 2012 over the inclusion of the views of John B. Carpenter across a wide swath of articles. Discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Iconoclasm_and_related_articles back in August, and just recently WP:RSN[73] and WP:COIN[74] reached community consensus that (i) this is a matter of self-promotion by an editor across numerous Wikipedia articles and (ii) Carpenter is not a reliable source for the purposes proposed in those articles. Nevertheless, Yeoberry has persistently re-inserted the deleted material, even after such consensus was reached. He has been warned numerous times[75][76][77][78][79][80], and has been the subject of a prior discussion of the same material at and has deleted the warnings without discussion or response. After those warnings, he has persisted in re-inserting the material.[81][82][83][84][85][86] (He's actually at 3RR right now at Iconoclasm) He has previously been blocked for edit warring over an unrelated topic area.[87] This persistent, and defiant disruption and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude needs to be curbed. In the short term, a lengthy block is in order. In the longer, term a topic ban prohibiting Yeoberry from inserting material from Mr. Carpenter across Wikipedia articles is probably in order as well, as this appears to be a problem that will not go away absent sanctions of this kind. Fladrif (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The article I (yeoberry) reported on is an academic article, in a peer-reviewed journal (edited by notable scholars), and certainly relevant to pages on "iconoclasm", icons, etc. While the paragraph may could profit from some editing, Fladrif has deleted the paragraph without discussion and ignored comments in the talk page.

Fladrif suggestion that wikipedia ban scholars from commenting on their area of specialization is absurd.174.53.88.54 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. Your paper has no academic or theological value. As we explained in detail to you multiple times, and in multiple fora, Google Scholar does not even detect the paper. It is useless. In addition you refuse to understand that you have a WP:COI and you are edit-warring to add your non-notable work across many articles. Now you are using the IP to avoid scrutiny and continue the longterm edit-warring of your main account across multiple articles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see also relevant discussions at

• Multiple religious articles related to Eastern Orthodoxy (WP:COIN)
• Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics (WP:RSN)

Where the consensus is clear that this is a COI case of an editor adding his non-notable paper across many articles using longterm edit-warring and personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the article but everything suggests that it is an apologia for a Protestant iconoclastic position and does not represent a position held across the field. I note for instance references to the Synod of Elvira, whose canons have been a subject of debate since the Reformation. Carpenter's paper could be presented, I suppose, as an exemplar of a certain position, but his conclusions do not enjoy, shall we say, catholic acceptance. It is also freshly published and thus certainly subject to criticism as an untested contribution to scholarship. Yeoberry's rock-headed resistance to anything except reception of the paper as an indisputable authority has wasted a great deal of time for all involved. I have to think that, if nothing else, he could find other Protestant apologists with more of a track record to express the same positions, again noting that it a position and not the consensus of the field. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Besides the fact that Yeoberry (editing now as an IP for some reason) has ignored RSN, edit-warring to keep material in where the editor has a clear COI is unacceptable. That Yeoberry has a major COI in regard to Carpenter is IMHO indisputable - he hasn't denied it and the evidence at COIN makes it explicit. Despite discussions at COIN, RNS, article and project talk pages he continues to do as he has done since he created a new deleted article on Carpenter in 2007, push Carpenter's ideas wherever he can (a list is at COIN). Given his insistence that he is right some sort of sanction, preferably something like a ban on using material based on Carpenter's work, seems required. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) And the response of Yeoberry on their talk, includes the following appraisal of Wikipedia:

I'm fine with discussing the issue informally with you but I'm a little frustrated that it appears what goes into wikipedia is sometimes determined by a "idiocracy".

with edit summary: 174.53.88.54 Epiphanius Letter 51 discussed in a footnote; wikipedia is an "idiocracy". An example of the uncooperative mentality of this editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry is a long-time POV-pushing editor with a serious COI concerning Dr. John B. Carpenter and the local church he is the pastor of. Articles he created on those topics have been deleted at AfD over Yeoberry's vociferous objections. Discussion at RSN determined that the source Yeoberry is inserting is not reliable, not' peer-reviewed, and not notable, yet Yeoberry continues in his campaign to insert the POV he favors into these articles using this unreliable source. History indicates that Yeoberry will continue to actively press this campaign, despite the reasonable policy-based objections raised by multiple editors in multiple places, and will not stop until he is blocked. A topic ban seems quite reasonable, considering the ongoing behavior and clear agenda of this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Yeoberry is so determined to impose his personal views across a wide set of articles I believe he has passed all the reasonable thresholds for taking admin action. I recommend an indefinite block, to be followed if necessary by an unblock discussion in which he will hopefully agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

He has also developed a penchant of attacking other editors through use of edit-summaries. Here he accuses Doug Weller of stalking both in the edit-summary and the text: Revision as of 19:26, 4 April 2013 Yeoberry with edit summary: (answer to false accusations of "edit warring" and Doug Weller's stalking). He takes Doug's sage advice and guidance as "stalking". This is unacceptable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest an immediate topic ban for Yeoberry on the work of John Carpenter and Eastern Orthodoxy with a stong warning that continuing this sort of behavior anywhere on WP will result in an indefinite block. LadyofShalott 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Has the editor ever edited constructively anywhere else? It looks like the account is trying to POV push elsewhere, like this edit warring at Southern Poverty Law Center last month (as highlighted by the initial post): [88][89][90][91][92][93]. A limited topic ban won't prevent that disruption, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he understands what he is doing. On top of the personal attacks he said (please see above): answer to false accusations of "edit warring" . That's the only thing he has been doing even as an IP, yet he does not accept doing it. This is unbelievable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry is neither stupid nor uneducated, and he understands exactly what he is doing and is doing it deliberately. The short answer to IRWolfie's question is, "No." Looking at his edit history (I have had no involvement personally with the editor until a RSN question was posed a couple of days ago) it appears that Yeoberry has never edited at any article at Wikipedia where he has not (i) used Wikipedia to push his POV and (ii) if questioned about his edits, has done anything other than edit-war, engage in personal attacks, and adamantly refuse to work collaboratively with other editors. Fladrif (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• This morning at COIN, I stated that the editor was very clearly NOTHERE and was blatantly engaged in self-promotion and POV pushing across multiple articles, and that a more diplomatic editor than myself should try to explain to him the nature of the project and what is, and is not, allowed here. St. Anselm was kind enough to oblige. However, I was dismayed that the editor simply deleted St. Anselm's overtures without comment, and continued to edit-war, still insisting against consensus that his source was reliable, and accusing those opposed to his additions of being part of and "idiocracy". It is indeed probable that the editor genuinely does not understand the nature of the project and of his transgression.

However, because of his IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, his combativeness, his disregard or even disdain for consensus and policies, and his continued edit-warring and self-promotion, it is highly unlikely that anything other than an indefinite ban will get through to him. If he can convince an adminitrator that he understands the nature of the project, and promises that he will no longer engage in self-promotion, POV pushing or using WP as an extension of his pastor's pulpit, he can be unblocked, preferably with a requirement that he be mentored. Without such reassurances, however, the editor is a detriment to the project.

If there were any other way of obtaining such assurances without an indefinite block, I would be all for it, but in light of his behavior today, I cannot say that I am at all optimistic. He hasn't provided any indication that he intends to use WP for anything but promotion of himself, his intimates, and his own religious beliefs. That's a shame, because he probably does have a high level of familiarity with religious scholarship, which could be useful to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The material added is from different articles - this edit is relevant, and from a reputable journal. But it's a COI edit, and adding it seemed to me to be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, so I removed it. I would support the removal of all John B. Carpenter references, and a topic ban for Yeoberry on John B. Carpenter. I have no opinion about a topic ban on Eastern Orthodoxy. StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• I've had some unpleasant encounters with Yeoberry and have found his edits to be problematic. For example, making accusations of bias at Family Research Institute and editing against consensus at List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups and Southern Poverty Law Center. His edit warring at all of these articles resulted in a block. He also made some sharp accusations on my talk page [94]. He also made a borderline personal attach at the Family Research Institute talk page: "That you seriously used "The Advocate" as a source suggest you are deeply emotionally invested in a particular POV.".

The pattern seems be that he tries to shape articles to his preferred POV, argues against consensus, edit wars against consensus and violates WP:NPA. The COI is also a concern, suggesting that he is probably NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. I would be opposed to a the limited topic bans that have been proposed, and would favor something broader and more likely to have a lasting effect. - MrX 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In his pattern of personal attacks it is also clear that he tries to subdue the spirit of his perceived opponents. He checked my userboxes and other information which I have on my userpages, gave me a spurious tit-for-tat 3RR warning, and told me: Given your images and symbols here, there may be a COI on your part.. In other words, due solely to my userpage identifiers he divined that I have an automatic COI. This is an unfair personal attack which is based only on my pictures and userboxes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Now he is harassing LoveMonkey based on his religion

Now I Understand So, you're Eastern Orthodox and are using your position as a wikipedia editor to suppress historical evidence that may make your religious institution look bad. It makes sense now. Now, that's a real "COI". In the future, just be upfront about that.User talk:Yeoberry 04:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Per LoS and StAnselm, I propose an immediate topic ban on anything related to John B. Carpenter, broadly construed with a 1RR provision in articles he has established himself. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) WIthdrawn in favor of indef. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Broadly construed", I assume? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban should have a provision of 1RR in any article given that he has established himself as a longterm and prolific edit-warrior across many articles who uses also an IP to evade scrutiny. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given these f*ck you posts today from Yeoberry at WP:COIN[95] and another editor's talkpage [96], it is clear that Yeoberry is far too intelligent, erudite and educated to be forced to muck around in the ignorance and stupidity of mere mortal Wikipedia editors. It would be a service to both him and us to sever the link permanantly. A topic ban will not suffice. An indefinite block, after which, if he deigns to grace us with reasons why his erudition should be shared with we peons, and he might then be allowed to soil his shoes walking among the unwashed heathens of Wikipedia, is the only reasonable solution. Fladrif (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Scratch that. I'd go back to indef. This person is WP:NOTHERE to cooperate with other editors. See his harassment of LoveMonkey for which I added a report just above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite Block

This user is NOTHERE to collaborate on building an encyclopedia, so blocking him until he can convince the community that he understands the purpose and goals of the project, and can work harmoniously with others, would be in everyone's best interest.

• Support as nominator. - MrX 01:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Anyone who harasses other users based on their religion is WP:NOTHERE to build anything. His disruption is relentless, uncommunicative, unresponsive, unapologetic, aggressive, and damaging to the encyclopedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per POV, NPA, NOTHERE, IDHT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per NOTHERE most of all, with too much NPA and POV thrown in. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support (assuming non-admins are allowed to "vote" here) for all of the above reasons, compounded as Yeoberry keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole with every post. Fladrif (talk)
• Support because it is clear this editor is here to promote the viewpoint of a single author, rather than to help build a neutral encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• I had hoped a topic ban would be sufficient, but in light of the further developments today, I have to move to support an indefinite block. Religious harassment of other editors is not acceptable behavior. LadyofShalott 02:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Yeoberrie's disruptive behavior has evidently escalated far beyond the sanctions of a topic ban. Proposal withdrawn. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - It's unlikely this editor has any interest in following our policies. Negotiation would be fruitless. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Beyond My Ken and Someguy1221's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Claiming that others have a COI because of their religion while not accepting that he has a COI is unacceptable and insulting (it's also foolish, does he really think we are that stupid that we don't know he has a COI?}. He's a COI edit-warrior with disdain for what other editors have told him, and as EdJohnston has said, negotiation would be fruitless. The fact that he's managed to get so many editors wanting to block him speaks for itself.Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW  Done reference — Ched :  ?  06:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:GermanDude100

User:GermanDude100 (Talk-Contributions) keeps on edit warring, adding some unsourced stuff about the alternative versions of several Kidz Bop compilations, see Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop (album). He was asked several times to provide a source for these additions by me and by User:The Banner, AGF he has been made ​​aware of how Wikipedia works and he was even warned about his conduct, but his final reply to the related discussion was " If you keep changing the page I just gonna keep changing it. I'm right and most of the Wiki pages don't have references. GO BOTHER ANOTHER PAGE!" [97]. I'm concerned if he is just a troll or just a newbie that refuse to take the point, but surely his behaviour is becoming disruptive. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• After being notified, the above user reported myself and The Banner at WP:AIV. [98] Cavarrone (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

1, 2 (WP:BROTHER), 3, 4 (WP:HARASS). I'm sure there's more. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked 3 days for edit warring and left GermanDude100 a note about about referencing and civility. His very first discussion with Materialscientist didn't look good, to begin with, so let's see if this temporary block works. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For those with OTRS access, please note 2013040510010984. Mike V • Talk 03:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume (if someone with OTRS can confirm) that this was his version of an unblock request? "Well I just talked to the Wikipedia I will be unblocked soon," <-- from his talkpage. I think there's a bigger WP:IDHT issue here, as he shows no indication of stopping his quest for lack of a better term. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog on behalf of the OTRS team has made it clear that this is none of their business. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow

Despite being blocked for such behavior in the past and warned multiple times, User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert edits into BLP articles without reliable sources. He has inserted that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen without any reliable sources stating so, going as so far as to rudely challenging me on my talk page when I reverted his edit. This user has since re-inserted the edit, again without a reliable source. This is nothing new and has been part of a troubling pattern. This user was blocked before for multiple violations of WP:BLP after multiple warnings so it's not like this is new. In fact, this user has just finished serving a 3 month ban for an unrelated violation and already has multiple warnings for violations of WP:BLP on his talk page unrelated to the Gegard Mousasi edit. In the past, administrators had floated the idea of a topic ban from WP:BLP articles but refrained with the assumption that he would review the policy and learn from his mistakes. Based on the continuation of this, I don't think this has occurred. Although, TheShadowCrow has shown some productivity in his edits, I believe the damage far outweighs the good at this point, and if you can't learn to abide by Wikipedia's policies after 6 blocks in a 1 year period, it's time some type of permanent sanction is imposed. A topic ban may now be appropriate. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I showed a link where the person in question calls an Iranian "my country man" so the debate was over and solved. Bear man has a serious problem of always pointing out my block log multiple times whenever we are on the same page. Most of the time he is practicly insulting and taunting me. He seems to think that he is in a position of power and that he is some how superior to me. In fact, he forgot all about the BLP in question and just started typing paragraphs about my block log. I think he is the one who needs discipline now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• They were blocked for three months for socking, one month for ARBAA2 infractions, one month for socking, two weeks for ARBAA2 infractions, 72 hours for BLP violations, 24 hours for personal attacks. They've been unblocked for a couple of weeks now and what I see is personal attacks, a battleground mentality, and BLP violations. I don't see much of a reason to not block for really, really long, but I'd like to hear what, for instance, Giant Snowman thinks--they've had a set of run-ins with them. [Also: edit conflict. ShadowCrow, I think you should try and keep quiet, since you're arguing for the opposition. Your BLP evidence is lousy and unacceptable.] Drmies (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. I was not trying to start a conflict. Bear man is being very hostile to me and I think this is being very overlooked. And my edits with GiantSnowman have actually been peaceful and constructive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I see three twitter links, not reliable sources, just saying. Not going to comment on blocks or anything, but just fyi, sourcing the person for claims is almost always not appropriate. I can go start the twitter account "carieunderwood" with name "Carrie Underwood" and claim to be her saying whatever I want. But that doesn't make it reliable. BearMan looks right to have removed it as unsourced. Also, now that Drmies has said everything I was thinking, pending Giant Snowman changing my mind, Support an indef block until this user tells us honestly they will refrain from editing BLP articles, and a 3 (at least) month topic ban from BLPs to start if and/or when the block is lifted. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is definitly the real twitter account of Gegard Mousasi. He uploads amateur photos of himself and has talked to the UFC President and had contact with many other MMA noteworthies on twitter with that account. I have seen twitter be used as a source before and don't see why it shouldn't be now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• What is the specific source being challenged? If sanctions is what ye seek, ANI is thataway.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 'ahem' This is ANI? The source being challenged is twitter by the way. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • My bad, I could have sworn I saw this at RSN, Twitter is crap, unless the account has been verified.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Hi, as stated above, I have had recent run-ins with this editor, who I feel has numerous problems. They fail to understand - or if they understand them, accept - WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - and there is a recent (still live) thread at BLPN which might be of interest. Other than their failure to understand BLP, RS and V, they also exhibit other concerning traits, such as (admitted!) WikiHounding - check who the previous editor was on each of these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4) - as well as disruptive and POINTy editing (AKA removal of masses of content with no rationale provided, while trying to prove some pro-English bias that simply does not exist) at 1, 2, 3, 4. They also seem to display OWNership issues, especially on anything related to Armenia. So in summary, TheShadowCrow has a slight attitude problem, and also displays a troublesome lack of competency in, or respect for, key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given this recent behaviour, as well as the historical issues, I would propose a topic ban related to Armenian topics and/or BLPs (both broadly construed) - recent discussion with this editor leads me to think there is some small glimmer of hope, and I would not want to indef them when there is potential to turn this around. I am just about to go to be (1am UK time) but saw this and thought I'd leave a quick message, and I'll pick up the thread again tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• No one is paying attention to Bearman's hostility or that our edit conflict (a natural, unavoidable part of life on Wikipedia) was solved when I provided a source for what Bear wanted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You'd do well to heed the advice that you stop replying here. You just proved you have a lack of competency in understanding our reliable sources policy. A twitter post (even 3) is not a reliable source for any statement, much less one like nationality. Your edit conflict (term not used right btw) was not ever resolved, because you never provided a reliable source. To GS, based on this post, would you support an indef (indefinite =/= infinite) until this user tells us they will re-read and adhere to all policies, and then a 3 month topic ban from BLPs and Armenia related articles broadly construed? gwickwire^talk_editing 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If I don't reply I'm going to be blocked! The reliable source page says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It also says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;", which there always is with Twitter. How can you prove that he made those statements? You can't. It also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;", exceptional claim is basically a big claim. You're claiming this user is of a certain nationality, based on something that looks like they *may* have said it themselves, even then it's almost a bit synthesisey. More quotes, since you seem to need them: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." " This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Basically, twitter is never a reliable source, because you can't verify its authenticity. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
        • How was I supposed to think all that through? The rules say there can be an exception to twitter, and you say there is no exception to twitter. I honestly thought I was adhering to the rules of Wikipedia. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'm really sorry that I did. I'm just trying my hardest to contribute like everyone else. Since my sources are faulty, I'm putting Bear's version back and won't be changing it without a proper source. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • It should be added that you made the edit without any sources and didn't come back with the Twitter reference (which doesn't really prove that he is indeed a citizen) until after the fact. And this is not the first time either. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I would also like to add that while I appreciate the apology, we have seen this before here and here only for you to revert back to your old ways shortly there after. In fact, after your second apology, you immediately took pot shots at other editors and an admin as seen here. As GiantSnowman mentioned, I too am support of a topic ban of Armenian related topics but would add BLPs as well as nearly all the issues are limited to these two categories. BearMan998 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • • • • Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS? If not, this is a non starter and the account can't be use for pretty much any purpose here.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer  02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • That's when they have the light blue star, right? No, it doesn't have that. However, a source has recognized this as his official account (HMTTT is a thing where they post tweets of fighters on their website to show whats new in the twitter world. Mousasi's account is in the edition I linked). Although I think the source is credible because it's one of the most famous and popular MMA news websites, I'm not going to take the risk and say it is.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry--what are we trying to find out? Whether some tweet has a fucking blue star? This is an encyclopedia, where we should be writing articles that we wouldn't be embarrassed to publish in print. There isn't a damn thing on Twitter that we could accept as a reliable source, and I don't give a fuck whether someone acknowledges something as their official Twitter or not. RS is the name of the game, not what someone typed in on their cell phone. Also, will someone point this user to the MMA restrictions, with all this stuff about disruption and consequent blocks? Drmies (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Also, Bloody Elbow is not a reliable source. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• What I'm reading "User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert in the Gegard Mousasi MMA article that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen under the claim that a twitter post supported this, therefore he should be topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of 3 months." This discussion has stalled becauase the remedy requests do not match the provided evidence, which also lacks sufficient diffs directed towards supporting both evidence and remedy. BearMan998, if you want TheShadowCrow warned/topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics or from all BLP articles, you should focus on what you want and provided evidence with diffs to support that request. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. Here is the first revert without any reliable sourcing. Here is a second revert using Twitter posts as a basis. Now this wouldn't be egregious if it wasn't for the fact that this is a continuing pattern with this user who was blocked before for multiple BLP violations, so ignorance of policy shouldn't be an excuse now. GiantSnowman has had several run-ins with this user concerning BLP articles and you can see his evidence in his fist post in this thread, and the evidence that GiantSnowman should present a clear picture. It's this recent behavior fresh off a block plus historical issues which leads credence to such a move at this point. BearMan998 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also note that TheShadowCrow was given a clear and explicit warning for persistent violations of BLP articles on June 2012 here and here. Specifically, this was for adding content with no source or poorly sourced material and edit warring to retain such content in the article to such an extent that WP:BLPSE was considered at the time. Based on the edits I mentioned above and the edits that GiantSnowman brought up, I think these violations of adding content with no or poor sources and edit warring in an attempt to retain them have continued despite multiple warnings. This is why I think formal topic ban is needed as warnings have little effect. BearMan998 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would ask right now, if the user will submit to following the WP:COI guidelines, as the user apparently has an interest in inserting the information into these articles. Also, The user should understand that Twitter may not be considered a reliable source unless the information can be backed up by another RS. Finally, the user should consider that the WP:Consensus is against adding this information from this source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Per recent developments, no longer reasonable. gwickwiretalkediting 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal: WP:ROPE This is dropped with a stern warning that the next BLP violation, or anything that looks remotely like one will earn them a stern and long block with little chance of an unblock. Basically WP:ROPE, we can hash out the length/etc. in the discussion below. gwickwiretalkediting 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Support as proposer gwickwiretalkediting 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose - we need a formal topic ban, as below. GiantSnowman 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban

I propose that TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of, say, 3 months.

• Support as proposer. GiantSnowman 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support as this has gone on long enough and this user has been given enough chances already. BearMan998 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I weakly support such a topic ban, though I wonder if the present thread hasn't already put the editor on notice. Their recent edits (which are in a different field) seem unproblematic. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to bring this back up again as it appears that this discussion had failed to put the editor on notice that further BLP violations would result in some form of sanction. TheShadowCrow has inserted content in the Karo Parisyan article that is not supported by reliable sources and is again edit warring in an attempt to keep it in the article. This was the first edit which lacked a reliable source, specifically, the second part which states "and nearly submitted him in a kimura twice" A kimura for those of you who do not know is a joint lock which can break an opponent's arm. I removed this part as it was unsourced and a very subjective statement. TheShadowCrow inserted again here but this time with a source. However, upon reading the source, the source clearly states that Parisyan only attempted two kimuras with none of them threatening his opponent and both were never locked in so it's not even worth mentioning. I directed TheShadowCrow to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE as this is an obvious and blatant violation of this. However, instead of doing so, TheShadowCrow has since reverted it again here and also left me a message here stating his intent keep this material despite lacking a source. This is making it very obvious that the user will not adhere to policy in regards to BLP articles and is making clear the WP:COI connection that Sephiroth storm brought up above as there appears to be an obvious attempt to insert content in order to slant towards a certain view point. BearMan998 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The content is supported by a reliable sources but Bear doesn't like it. There really isn't much more to say, just see for yourself.

I think this proves that he has lots of personal feelings, no good faith, and a superiority complex. Hopfully the Admins will see this and actually research the situation this time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with mentorship given the user's limited understanding of Wikipedia policy (WP: RS, WP: BLP, WP: STYLE, and WP: BATTLEGROUND to name a few), I think mentorship would help them become a better editor during the course of the IB. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS: Is anyone claiming Sherdog.com isn't a relible source?

WP:BLP: Unspecified

WP:STYLE: What grammer mistake did I make?

WP:BATTLEGROUND: Bearman is the true violator of this rule. He is constantly hostile with all of my edits, has no good faith or civilly, is harassful, and is eager to bring every single edit I make here, even though they are too minor.

If my edit cannot be proven unconstructive, there is no reason for any type of punishment. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Shadowcrow:

• WP: RS: Nobody has said that "Sherdog.com" was unreliable. Twitter is definitely not reliable however. See above comments by Drmies, lgr and giantSnowman
• WP: BLP: See above comments by Bearman, gwickwire and GiantSnowman
• WP: STYLE: Again, see above comments (also, "harrassful" is not a word).
• WP: BATTLEGROUND: Your description speaks for itself. See WP: CIVIL. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1. We have been over twitter already. RS gives an acception for tweets if it is made by the topic article.

2-3. There are plenty of comments. Be specific.

4. Bearman is extremely hostile and uncivil towards me and you and the other Admins turn a blind eye to this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Cue In regards to twitter being a reliable source see WP:UGC I myself prefer (and I think most wikipedians do too) WP:UGC's view on twitter "whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." compared to WP:RS but I do agree that the policies/guidelines are somewhat confusing in regards to twitter as a reliable source
• In reference to number four your accusations makes it seem at though you are not Assuming Good Faith

--Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

ShadowCrow, I'm going to sum up here, since it seems unclear to you:

1. Your Sherdog link does not say he "nearly submitted him," it says quote "Parysian immediately went for the same exact kimura he won his initial UFC match with but St. Pierre defended it and got the top position and held it the rest of the round." He never even successfully performed the move. You can't call that "near submission" any more than you could say "Mike Tyson nearly defeated Boxer X by TKO" if Tyson never knocked out Boxer X even once.

2. The Twitter account is not verified, meaning anyone could be posting on it. Impostors are all over Twitter, so you can't just quote a tweet and call it a reliable source.

3. You cannot interpret the phrase "my country man" as proof this person is Iranian. He could be mistaken on the other person's nationality, just expressing friendship, and so forth. We need a solid third party source, or a verified, unambiguous statement from him before we could add that.

4. BearMan998 is obviously frustrated, and I can understand why. I believe you're editing in good faith, but instead of asking "Is this a valid source?" you're plowing ahead and putting more stuff on that page that doesn't meet criteria.

You need to slow down and listen to people explaining the rules. Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to statements about living persons. And you can't re-interpret a source ("near submission"). If you'll take some time and get second opinions on these citations, things will go much smoother. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And here we go again. Today TheShadowCrow made this edit with a very misleading edit summary stating "no flags." However the edit not only removed flags which I am okay with, but also restored unsourced POV content into the article. This involves the statement "The judges may have given the fight to Lawal because he was on top of Mousasi for most of the fight and because of a point deduction given to Mousasi following an illegal up-kick" which is not found in the cited source. This was unsourced POV commentary that was removed from the article yet TheShadowCrow chose to restore it with other edits and not mention it in the edit summary. I would fully support a topic ban for 3 months as this discussion has failed to lead to any improvement in the understanding of policy. BearMan998 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: block IP 190.242.54.93

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

---

Today I cleaned up vandalism on [Economy of Romania] from user 190.242.54.93. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Romania&diff=548855452&oldid=546939168

It seems this user has a long history of vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.242.54.93

In fact I did not find any serious edit on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.242.54.93

This user has been warned many times before and even has been blocked once. As I am not very active on the English version of Wikipedia I leave it to this community to think about blocking this IP address again (forever?). Bfwelter (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a very new editor. First, this isn't the right place to report garden variety vandalism. Use WP:AIV (but read the instructions). Second, when you post something here, you must notify the editor, although in this case it probably is of little value. In any event, I've done so for you. Third, although the editor has an extensive history of vandalism and their latest edit is obvious vandalism, it's the only vandalism in quite some time, so it probably doesn't warrant a block unless they do more.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Fram directly copy-pasting entire articles with no inline-footnotes, single trailing disclaimer

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

---

I thought that the bad old days of wanton expropriation of out-of-copyright text at Wikipedia had vanished shortly after 2003. Back in the day it was regarded as perfectly fine to copy-paste huge chunks of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a new "Wikipedia article" so long as a disclaimer notice was attached as a footer, acknowledging the hijacking of the text. Of course, this resulted in a huge mess when over the course of subsequent months editors came and went, adding sourced information, changing the prose, removing the non-inline-footnoted original facts. Sometime by 2005, I had thought, this sort of crude, grossly undercredited, copy-paste snitching of out of copyright material had vanished from WP.

As the late User:Franamax, author of the first version of the WP Plagiarism guideline wrote in 2008:

"Large portions of articles have been directly copied from PD sources in the past. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 was used as a source to build many articles in 2002. These articles were noted by use of the { {1911} } template.

"At a certain point in the development of Wikipedia, we welcomed new content no matter what the source. This is no longer the case. As a mature encyclopedia, we now insist that all contributions are properly attributed. (shaky ground here, just putting it out there)

"It is quite likely that many other articles consist of text directly copied from other sources. If you find examples of this and they are not attributed to the source, do something - either attribute the text, change it or flag it with the xxx-template so others can deal with it." Source: Franamax, "Wikipedia: Plagiarism," version of June 21, 2008, 00:37.

Much to my surprise and chagrin, I learned yesterday that User:Fram — a leading volunteer at Contributor Copyright Investigations, it should be noted — is making use of the same discredited and unacceptable editing technique, directly copy-pasting prose from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers: Volume 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1903) with only a single trailing disclaimer to note the expropriation. See ROBERT GARDELLE (Bryan's vol. 2, pg. 215) — which should have been inline footnoted like THIS. That's a short stub, pretty minor in the scheme of things, but you can see the very real problem here, JOSÉ GARCIA HIDALGO (Bryan's vol. 2, pg. 215), which leaves a huge mass of unfootnoted, hijacked prose that will be a god damned mess for the next real content creator attempting to add material.

I asked Fram, who should know better than anyone that this sort of underattributed hijacking of the work of others is ethically sketchy at best, to knock off this sort of editing methodology (GARDELLE, HIDALGO). Fram, predictably, went straight into Wolverine Mode, accusing me of plagiarism for not sufficiently paraphrasing the footnoted material which he straight ripped HERE. He further contends with a combative edit summary that this sort of 2003 Vintage editing technique remains perfectly acceptable at WP HERE.

What I seek is the following: (1) An immediate halt brought to Fram's unacceptable underfootnoted copy-paste content creation methods. (2) A formal consensus here that this sort of editing is contrary to Wikipedia's standards and practices. Fram will be notified of this thread momentarily. Thanks. —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a policy that prevents this appropriation and reference? If not, this would not be the place to enact one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

See this statement and the instructions under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Franamax's obiter dicta may be a good idea, but I do not think they represent policy. Suggest getting consensus to make them policy before demanding Fram be told not to violate it. Choess (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking if there's a policy against plagiarism? Don't you know? Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear whom you are asking but the practice, as it has been done, appears to be at: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. So, the point of the question is to find out what the OP had in mind by way of policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was asking you, but an edit conflict intervened. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I find this report very interesting in the context of this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How does this require administrator intervention? Fram's practices may be outdated and even ill-advised, but they are not contrary to current policies or guidelines. If you want to establish consensus for the (un)acceptability of this sort of editing, the Village pump, RfC, or even Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism would be better venues. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the only way to remove Fram's autopatrolled user right is to desysop him. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How is this a matter of autopatrolling? Even if Fram's article's would have to be patrolled, I doubt that a new page patroller would be able to find something contrary to current policy. There's no tag for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it has been suggested above by several users that discussions related to a desired change of policy should not be held at this board. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how Fram's autopatrolled flag is germane to this issue. Are you suggesting NPP would curb this sort of behavior? That's a tall order wrapped in high hopes, especially as there is no policy or guideline rationale for it at the moment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As a CCI volunteer, Fram apparently knows quite well that things published before 1923 are fair game for PD-US, so he's not committing copyright infringement, and he also knows enough to place a sufficient attribution tag, {{Bryan|article=GARDELLE, Robert}}. He's doing nothing wrong, so calling for his head is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Circassians in Syria vandalism question

There has been persistent vandalism at the Circassians in Syria page by various IPs within the range of 178.35 (178.35.253.49, 178.35.228.18, 178.34.215.46, 178.35.243.236). I've been reverting the IPs' edits each time, but it's getting to the point where the edits are occurring on a daily basis. Because a different IP is used each time (assuming this a concerted efforts of sorts), I did not issue any warnings. The edits in question center on adding "Paganism" as a practiced religion and the removal of "Sunni" from "Sunni Muslim." Multiple sources in the article specifically state that Syrian Circassians are Sunni Muslim, none say paganism. Where do we go from here? Personally, I think the best option for now is add no-edit protection to the article for non-autoconfirmed users, but because of my direct involvement in (I started the page) it's probably best I don't take it upon myself to make this move. We could also block the range for a temporary period, but that might not be necessary at this point. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP for persistent IP disruption. Blackmane (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Warned for 'attack', without explanation

I was warned by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) for attacking other editors [99].

There was no diff given, but I have to assume it was due to this - in which I said a statement was stupid, and that I thought NYB was good for Wikipedia; there's no attack there.

I asked about it on my own talk page [100] and let Bbb23 know I'd enquired [101]. Their response was to undo that, edit summary read on your talk page - don't expect a response [102].

This isn't a massive deal, but it's annoying because I really wanted to add that to my previous comment, so that it was totally clear I was not criticizing NYB. Note the next comment on AN was someone thinking just that [103] - but I think I cleared that up by talking to that user directly [104].

I'm annoyed by the warning and the 'undo'. If it was invalid, I'd like the addendum reinserted. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have hurt Bbb23 to have responded, but he is under no obligation to respond. Considering your edit history, it seems you are either on a new ip address or have edited using an account before. Or you are a really fast learner. That might have something to do with his terse reply.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a cousin to 88.104.27.2 (talk · contribs)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not impossible - the same apparent lack of interest in actually contributing to the encyclopedia, and an interest in copyright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well sure, that's all fine; if it was an erroneous warning, perhaps someone can just undo it and put the text back, then we're done here? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right that he is concerned about my edit history, because he's said I'm "crawling out of the woodwork" too [105]. And this is the user accusing me of a "Personal attack directed at a specific editor". 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your problem, 88.104. If there is an admin esprit de corps, I will now proceed to violate it: I don't see why Bbb23 warned you, and for him/her to refuse to explain is hardly in accord with WP:ADMIN. ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.") But your post above doesn't have enough information; unfortunately I think you pasted the wrong diff when you meant to link to the statement you assume you were warned for. Please fix, as it makes it harder for readers to take stock of your complaint. (I believe you have the correct diff on your talkpage.) Bishonen | talk 23:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC).

Gah, sorry; fixed the link. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Bbb23 is under obligation to respond per WP:ADMINACCT NE Ent 01:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment restored; as indicated in the edit summary, a comment on a contribution is not a personal attack. NE Ent 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd suggest waiting a while longer for Bbb23 to give his side of the story, and if there's no response, someone else could strike through the warning and note that it was mistaken. And if 88.104 used a more moderate tone when discussing others' ideas, the likelihood of such warnings would be less. Saying a statement is "fucking stupid" could be seen as lacking civility. Something more like "that statement is completely wrong, because..." with the reasons it's wrong puts more emphasis on the statement itself. —rybec 00:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it change your attitude to the situation if I'd written "very stupid" instead of "fucking stupid"? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It'd help somewhat, but as an IP you're going to be treated poorly by a segment of the Wikipedia community. Rather than "fucking stupid" or "stupid" referring to the argument as straw man or the like would allow you to communicate your point with less drama. NE Ent 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that is a "cultural difference" thing. Please feel free to reinstate it with the word "fucking" changed to the word "very". Apart from that, sure, I will await a response. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To sum it up shortly, IP editors are praised as a whole for their useful edits, but the community is quick to punish any IP editor that does something even slightly wrong. The reason? IP editors are the most likely candidates for abuse, whether it be vandals, schoolkids that are bored, or sockpuppeteers who proxy and disrupt for the sake of disrupting. The only thing which I'd point out, in the exact same circumstances, you probably wouldn't have been warned. And warnings are able to be given out by anyone for anything... even if you don't agree with them. If anything, take your lump, register an account, make it known if you wish to be a part of whatever pages you are active in, and move on. I'm not an admin, but I've had quite a bit of experience here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As ChrisG reminds us, any editor can warn any other editor. This being the case, Bbb23's warning of the IP was not an administrative action, and therefore does not fall under WP:ADMINACCT. If he had warned that a block would be forthcoming if the behavior continued, that would be a different matter. In the best of all possible worlds, Bbb23 would explain the warning, but he's not under any policy obligation to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, is this editor here to help build an encyclopedia? My understanding is that building an encyclopedia is our only purpose here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up! No. They're here (based on my interactions with them multiple places) because they have a flawed understanding of copyright law and our policies, and won't listen when told the correct understanding (yes, there *is* a correct understanding of copyright, that's not a gre/ay area). Not sure what should be done, but.. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The reporting IP, currently 88.104.27.58 (but probably also 88.104.27.2) admits on the IP's talk page that he or she is an editor with an account, who is editing with an IP because of the "toxic environment" here [106] (neglecting, of course, to mention their own contributions to whatever toxicity exists). As such, the IP should be warned that editing with an IP when one has an account to avoid scrutiny of one's edits is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, and if the editor continues to edit with an IP (either these two or any other), the IP accounts should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

24.188.32.225 and Clan Davidson

The IP editor 24.188.32.225 has been edit warring on the Clan Davidson article for the last few weeks. Discussion started out reasonable;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clan_Davidson#Vandalism_by_IP_user:_24.188.32.225

But has now degenerated to personal attacks on any who ask him to stop warring and cite from sources.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuintusPetillius&diff=prev&oldid=549070599
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.188.32.225&diff=549075214&oldid=549074994
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.188.32.225&diff=546823659&oldid=546575005
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Escape_Orbit&diff=549075372&oldid=548647741

I've imposed a 31-hour vacation, both for cooling off (it's clear that the IP is very agitated) and for studying the rudiments of scholarly method (which seem missing). -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Unforgettableid reported by User:Yworo

I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates.

• First: Yworo edit 1; my response.
• Later: Yworo edit 2; my response.
• Even later: Yworo edit 3; Yworo edit 4; my two-part response. In my two-part response, {{uw-npa2}} is in response to Yworo edit 3.

Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [107] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies.

I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you?

About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor determined to insert his own original research

• L2j2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Formula for primes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prime number and Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jacob prime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:L2j2 seems determined to include his own original research on certain formulae involving prime numbers, particularly at Lhermite's models. This page was deleted after clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models where it became clear that it is original research by the user himself. Since then the material was added again at Prime number and Lhermite's models which was speedily deleted G4, and the user is currently edit warring to include it in the existing article Formula for primes: see [108] and [109]. The editor has been warned on numerous occasions formally and informally [110], [111], [112], [113]. Their last attempt to insert this material comes after all the warnings cited. The user in question has made no edits on other topics and is clearly here for the sole purpose of promoting their own personal research. Their persistence is becoming quite disruptive. Perhaps the time has come to restrict their editing privileges, maybe via a topic ban or a block until they agree to find some other topic to contribute to? Deltahedron (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional: since I posted this and notified the user, a notification they have seen [114], they have yet again tried to insert this material at Formula for primes: [115]. They seem to have no interest in engaging with the multiple editors who are trying to explain policy to them. This is getting rather disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And again on the edit warring [116], in addition to pointlessly copying the entire article to its own talk page [117]. This behaviour is seriously disruptive: please can this editor now be blocked? Deltahedron (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet again on the edit warring [118]. Help, please! Deltahedron (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Again again [119]. I make that 7RR now ... Deltahedron (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it isn't restricted to English Wikipedia (see [120]) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee beat me to the punch with the exact same block I was about to do. This is certainly disruptive. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to point them in the right direction, via WP:3RR and WP:OR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just based on experience, that won't work. In a few days, he will be back doing the same stuff. He's been pointed to those pages SO many times, and won't stop. We may wish to consider an indefinite extension until he assures us he will stop. gwickwire^talk_editing 16:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've warned him that it will be indef next time, and I'm watching the articles in question -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Gwickire, you might be right, but we try to give everyone a second chance if there is any possibility they will "get it". If it only works one time in ten, or even twenty, then it is worth the extra effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • True true, and now that they've been notified of the strong probability of an indef next time works for me. Now the only question is who speaks Haitian or French enough to take care of the messes there? gwickwire^talk_editing 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not our dept. Our admin bits stop at the gates of enwp. I have no idea what those other Wikis allow or don't allow, that is for them to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I know we can't do anything on the other wikis, but it may not be a bad idea to let them know. If their situation is as bad as enwp in terms of new patrollers etc., then they may not even know this exists. Regardless, all that's going to happen has happened for now, so this seems pretty well resolved. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone who helped out. Deltahedron (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Administrator note Cross-wiki vandals are dealt with by WP:STEWARDSs. You can contact them at Meta. If there is evidence this is going on across multiple WMF projects they would be the ones to do something about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Roman polytheistic reconstructionism and other Roman topics

• Roman polytheistic reconstructionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:J Agathokles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Shelhabiron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Ragnii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:124.171.13.132 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Morning Ya'all. I've been dealing with the addition of spam links to Roman articles. It started with this article about a new movement in Roman mythology. I was drawn there by a discussion with User talk:King of Hearts's talk page discussing the scope of User:Humanpublic's topic ban of religion topics. I made a quip about allowing him to edit dead religions like Roman and Greek. Then I found out there were still practicing Romans. The article contained lists of spam links and spam references. I removed all of the external links per WP:ELNO, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Days later, Ragnii restored one of the links and I realized there were many more in the article that needed to be removed per WP:UGC "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Since there, Shelhabiron and J Agathokles have both been reverting these spam links back in. Ragnii also started a WP:DRN discussion that went nowhere (while accusing me of a Christian POV) and I've been called by 124.171.13.132 a bully (again accusing me of a Christian POV). The irony of Christian persecution of Romans is kinda funny by itself. I'm at the limit on what I can do alone. Need admin action here. Semi-protection won't work, two of the users are auto confirmed.--v/r - TP 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The appearance of a brand new account (J Agathokles) reverting back to that version sealed the deal; I have fully protected the article for a month without the linkspam. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Well, that's automatically excluding jut about every single resource on the modern Roman religion, or any religion really. Off course all resources on this religion are going to be published by practitioners, and off course practitioners of the religion are going to be the most common contributors to a page about their own religion. Following your logic you'd have to remove pretty much all information on pretty much all religions. J_Agathokles 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs)

Comment. Yes, we have a pretty intractable conflict in areas of paganism between the notability and verifiability policies and the objective of avoiding entrenched bias and broadening our coverage accordingly. Unless some way can be found to accommodate religions that do not have centralized doctrinal authorities, the best advice for editors is to make as much use as possible of reports published by reputable presses, even though they almost always represent outsider points of view and as a result tend to be out of date or otherwise inaccurate. Notability within (neo)paganism is hard to establish by the criteria the project generally applies, so many spokespeople recognised within the community can't be cited as authorities. I do think editors need to recognize their own biases in such areas—many people are unaware neopaganism even exists, and others are unaware of the reconstructionist traditions—but the project can't and won't suspend its requirements; we have to work with them on a case by case basis. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There's another problem with Roman polytheistic reconstructionism - so far as I can see, none of the sources are about the subject of the article but about ancient Roman religion. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it's reconstructionism, the cultores don't just make stuff up, they base themselves firmly in ancient practices. So scholarly sources on the ancient religion are just as relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Any "reconstruction" is going to be selective in what it adapts, that's just of nature of things when history gets recycyled. Because of this, you need to cite specific sources about the reconstruction, not just about the original culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The book "Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions" by James R. Lewis, ABC-Clio, 1999, contains in the lengthy introduction a section on "Greco-Roman neopaganism." That source certainly meets RS standards. A number of other reference books relating to New religious movements might contain material as well. On that basis I tend to think that the best way to go, at least initially, would be to consult existing reference works and other more or less academic sources which might discuss the topic, and maybe add any items they include in their bibliographies in some "bibliography" section. Granted, "Greco-Roman neopaganism" could conceivably, like wicca, cover a lot of territory, and possibly not the particular territory this editor is most interested in, but it is at least a place to start. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• What should be done about all of the non-reconstructionalism articles?--v/r - TP 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2011-2013 Iranian protests

Resolved

Irānshahr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2011-2013 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (caught in the middle, links provided for convenience) Irānshahr made a series of major edits, removing content and asserting the protests to have been only in 2011, moving the page. Silver seren reverted, claiming the removal was POV. Irānshahr reverted that, asking for an explanation, which SS re-reverted, seeking a discussion on the talkpage. Irānshahr reverted, stating s/he had, at which point HistoryofIran came in and reverted, restoring the material. HistoryofIran was blocked for 3RR a few weeks ago, on a different article. Irānshahr and HistoryofIran have warned each other on their talkpages, brought discussion to User talk:Arctic Kangaroo, removed each others' comments, and reported each other to AIV. This is way way out of my normal area of expertise or interest, and I am having a hard time making heads or tails of who has done what, so am bringing this here. I considered WP:ANEW but was surprised and put out by how focused that page is on 3RR only and not edit-warring in general; please move it there if you feel it more appropriate as I will be leaving shortly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC) So we are going to discuss here if i am right? just wanted to tell you that i need to go from the computer in some time, i'll be right back, then we can discuss, with respect. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I made only two reverts - which is my personally-set limit. I then wrote this on the talk page (which I'd already been using for discussion since the first revert): "I've made two reverts today, I will not make another. Instead, I'll give you time to put forward a counter-argument to my points." I've set out a position on the talk page. Anyone is free to present a counter-position in respect of the points I've raised. HistoryofIran seems to be incapable of doing so. Please see Talk:2011-2013 Iranian protests. This was posted to my talk page by HistoryofIran upon first seeing my edits at 2011-2013 Iranian protests: "Oh come on, no need to remove it all, this would show how the Iranian people actually feel so there would be more people finding out that their regime is corrupt :(" Thereby declaring non-neutrality, conflict of interest, and inciting me to edit with a political bias. HistoryofIran went and immediately reverted everything (disruptively; without due discussion) when he jumped to the conclusion that 'I support Iran's government', on the basis of this reply where I simply stated a fact. Irānshahr (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Ok now i am back, and yes, i was blocked some time ago because i broke the three revert rule, i didn't know about during that time, but now i do, if i knew it before i got blocked i wouldn't have done that and never would have got blocked, i am not looking for trouble. And he isn't so neutral at he says he is, this was what he wrote to me: "You want to see what's happening in Syria happen in Iran? What an Iranian patriot. There are millions of hardcore government loyalists in Iran who will go to war to defend the Islamic Republic. Foreign-backed ethnic separatists will have a field day on the back of a civil war. But great work, patriot.". If English was your first language - as opposed to Danish - you'd be able to see that my statement there is neutral. It's a statement of fact; nothing more, nothing less. I'm not declaring support, I'm warning you of the ugly consequences of civil war in Iran. Irānshahr (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC) English may not be my first language, but i can still see what you wrote is not neutral, and by the way, it's not a fact. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Not neutral? Have a go at explaining why then. Why does it suggest I support the Iranian government, as opposed to the well-being of Iran and its people. You've already been labelled a troll by a senior anti-vandal user earlier. You're just trolling out of boredom it seems. What points have you actually got to make here? Put forward a position or go home and stop wasting everyone's time. Irānshahr (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC) No i am not trolling and calm down, no need to insult me by calling me a troll, i am treating you with respect so please do that too, and user that said i was trolling later found out that i was not, so please stop lying, and plus you still have no reason to remove almost everything from the Iranian protests page. And it's hard to explain about what you said, you know yourself that English is not my first language, and if you don't want to waste time just accept what you removed was wrong. Seriously, i don't know why you see me as a troll, is there something wrong with the way i write? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC) It was a senior anti-vandal Wikipedian that called you a troll, I only reminded you of it. Wasting my time is not treating me with respect. This is my last word here, you're postings are nothing but childish bickering. You have no position. I've said what I need to say, the onus is on you to put forward a counter-position, and you've been given ample time to do so. If I come back tomorrow or in two days or whenever and you haven't rendered a proper refutation of my points, with reliable references to support your position, I will revert the article. Irānshahr (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Uninvolved comment I have neither the time nor the will to go through the name calling. However, the actions of Irānshahr are clearly troubling. A quick look at the user's edits show that only today, Iranshahr has probably deleted more content than most users do during a lifetime on Wikipedia. While some removals may have been justified, many others include removing sourced content from neutral, reliable sources. I must confess to seldom having seen a user go on such a rampart deletion-crusade, and it's particularly worrying that it's in a troublesome area. What is more, Iranshahr seems to remove sources simply based on the country where the source is, another clear violation of policies. In any more was needed, Iranshahr also breaks WP:NPA repeatedly. Based on what I can see, Iranshahr definitely needs a break from editing, both the user's actions and behavior are completely out of line.Jeppiz (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Additional comment Both HistoryofIran and Iranshahr should preferably stop posting in this discussion. This is for others to discuss the issue, not for continued fighting between you two.Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Actually, nothing has been deleted, because it was all reverted. I laid out reasoning for all my edits and made it clear that I was willing to discuss them on their merits and concede if a proper case is made. The talk page should demonstrate to any neutral and intelligent person that my position on the article is in the right, and that I've argued for nothing other than the truth to be presented. Anyway, this is not my battle. Do what you want with it. Irānshahr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, others restored what you deleted, true. That has not mean you did not delete it. And yes, you gave "reasons" but frankly, those reasons were appalling. One reason was that the source was "Israeli", one that the source was "Saudi" and so on. What is more, in your comment above at 19:15, you claim you will continue edit-warring if your deletions are reverted. In short, you're violating at least WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:OWN and WP:POV. And that's just today. I won't comment further as I have no wish to get involved, I simply restate that Iranshahr's actions are troubling.Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Are you familiar with Middle Eastern politics? The Saudi and Israeli regimes are staunchly anti-Iran. Their news agencies are not NPOV in regards to reporting on Iran. We don't use North Korean news sources for American matters. As I said; this is not my problem, not my battle. I withdraw my involvement in that article. I do not normally even edit political articles. I edit cultural articles. I just got carried away fighting for honesty, but of course that is a battle one will not win in this environment. Irānshahr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Iranshahr, if you were familiar with Middle eastern politics then you would also know that many other Iranian televisions say the same as the other countries do, there is no anti-Iran about this, and sorry for posting when you said we should stop, this is my last post in this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I really don't want to deal with POV activists for either side, so this is just annoying in general. Iranshahr seems to believe that any information that isn't directly about a protest specifically isn't relevant to the article, even though one of the main reasons for the protests were the house arrests of the opposition leaders, which the article covers. Furthermore, it is meant to be a more broad discussion of protests that occurred during this time frame, as there were several all at once, with different groups involved, but pretty much all instigated by each other and by related Arab Spring events. I can certainly agree that there is information that has been added by other users over time into the article that doesn't belong there and there are definitely some sources that should be switched out for more neutral ones, but it's pretty hard to have a discussion about that when one side removes all the information in the article completely after a certain date with no regard for content or sourcing. SilverserenC 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Keep it the way it was. In fact: make it worse for all I care. It's not my problem. Good luck. Irānshahr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy-vio, socking, rm. tags, recreation of deleted article, etc.

Need some admin's attention at Eylül Esme Bölücek. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

+ the BLP article is unsourced.TMCk (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's not a copyvio anymore. It also has an interview, although under "External Links" that means it can't be sticky/BLPPRODed. I slapped a normal prod on it therefore. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On another look, this person isn't here to cooperate, and the interview is so mediocre a source I've BLPproded it. If need be, this can be taken to AfD. Someone needs to explain to the accounts involved they are not to remove any more CSD or BLPPROD tags without reasoning. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they moved the English part of her biography just now which doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a copy-vio. Also the text can still be found on the very same FB page, left side down under "Eylül Esme Bölücek" March 12 [121].TMCk (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to go re-tag it, I forgot that I have like every beta thing on facebook possible enabled, so I'm not seeing all of anything (at first glance I didn't see any english to be a copyvio, but it wouldn't load the rest). Leave the BLPprod and tag for {{db-copyvio}} :) Someone still warn/block these people for removing tags tho :) gwickwire^talk_editing 18:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2 and a history of inappropriate edits

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

---

• Bamler2 (talk · contribs)

User's edits are reverted with disconcerting frequency; this may be the third time they've been the subject of a report here in the last month. Recently blocked for warring and disruptive edits. Reacts to disagreements and loss of consensus discussions by trolling and claiming mob rule; the equations of consensus with the Holocaust indicates a lack of perspective and sensitivity to anyone's viewpoint but their own, and that's putting it nicely. Pre block examples: [122], [123], [124], [125]; post block today: [126], [127], [128], [129], [130]. Wikipedia is a patient community, but there's a soapbox and subtext to these edits that is inappropriate here. JNW (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for repeadedly introducing nonsense into a policy page ([131], [132]).  Sandstein  17:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:Babel category User mus needs attention

Category:User mus is a category for Wikipedians who have some knowledge of the Creek/Muskogee language, spoken by a few thousand Creek people and Seminole people in the United States. The "mus" code is in the standards ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 but it appears not to be included among the languages processed for WP:Babel. The category has been empty for as long as I have been trying to use it, i.e. since about 2010.

Babel boxes for this language formerly used the incorrect code mvs instead of the correct mus. Yesterday I moved the boxes and edited the category names. I also added a description of the User mus category. I cannot tell whether I am the only Wikipedian in any of these categories because they all remain empty. I am concerned about correcting this, and incidentally with preventing the deletion of these categories because they are unpopulated. Admins, please help! — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what administrative action is requested here? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For userbox-level to work, you need a subcategory according to the language levels for each of them, and the babelboxes must have a parameter | usercategory = . These were are all missing, so I've created a few categories for the langauge levels and updated the boxes. It may take a while for the categorisation to take effect, but you can try to remove the userbox from your user page and then add it again. This test worked for me with {{user mus-0}} De728631 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

178.61.14.156

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

---

178.61.14.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing. The most recent block was for six months; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Resumed disruptive editing by 178.61.14.156. The user came off the block a few weeks ago and has resumed the same behaviour (unexplained blanking of sections, removal of content, breaking formatting and markup, inserting unhelpful or incomprehensible material, etc.). Several other editors have warned the user and asked them to desist but they have never communicated.

Though it's an IP account it's clear the same person has been editing with it for the past few years. The user is probably well-intentioned but incompetent and hasn't demonstrated any improvement in their editing ability or willingness to engage. Could I suggest another long-term block to prevent further damage? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Dominique Young Unique

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

---

I am making a request that User:Dominiqueyoungunique be blocked because of repeated creation of the same promotional article with slightly different names, including Dominiqueyoungunique,Dominique Young Unique, Dominique Young Unique wiki and Dominique Young Unique bio. Also this user gave me gave me a supposed "barnstar" on my talk page, This "barnstar" is another copy of this article and was given to me for marking these articles for deletion. Since the other pages were deleted, you can view the article there. Does User:Dominiqueyoungunique have a blocking history? ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

They've been blocked. Blackmane (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Bluerules

There is an ongoing problem with Bluerules (talk · contribs) regarding his edits with Film-related articles due to his disruptive editing. He chooses which credits he prefers depending on who is listed higher (either the film or poster) and is adamant that even though he is flip flopping between the sources if you can check his history, his way is correct and he adamantly edit wars over this fact to get his way. His actions at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, which involves Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs), eventually lead to a edit war report filed by Darkwarriorblake, resulting in a block for 48 hours. However, he has continued to push the same edit and claim he is correct at that film even when other editors have gone against him, and when BattleshipMan independently noted the same problem and posted on his talk page about it, BlueRules response has been to post on Battleship's talk page essentially threatening that he will get his way on Olympus Has Fallen no matter what ("I proved my order was correct over at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and I'll prove it's correct at Olympus Has Fallen if I have to."), and is repeating his actions at Burt Wonderstone. I think some serious intervention needs to be required here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Plus, Bluerules is falsely accusing user:Darkwarriorblake of being an immature user as well as a disruptive editor as well only he has been reverting edits due to the disruptive editing that Bluerules has been doing. He had essentially threatened me in this section of my talk page regarding my views of his disruptive editing when I saw one of his edits on Olympus Has Fallen, while in the way reverted that edit, and his edits on The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. He is becoming out of control and needs some serious intervention. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

His response to me posting on his talk about about an open discussion concerning his behavior was to open an alternate discussion to complain about me instead of responding to the issues raised about him. He did the same when asking to be unblocked for his edit warring ban, to which the admins correctly stated that blaming others does not explain why he should be unblocked. He now asserts if asked nicely he would stop, I assert that he was not treated poorly initially and still continued to edit war and push his "my way or the highway" style of editing. Today two other users independently became involved, one who reverted his edit at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone about the same issue, and another, BattleshipMan who complained about BlueRules editing style on another film. BlueRules response was to warn him about being involved with me when Ihaven't spoken to the user about the topic or recently, and threaten that he would prove his way was right as he has at Wonderstone. I offered him an opportunity to discuss at the FilmProject here as I am fully aware he is not an individual I can in any way deal with as an individual, he chose to not defend his actions but attack some of my own. I fully admit I lose my temper when I have to explain something multiple times over to a user clearly not interested in listening, this is not exclusive to my life on the internet, and this was not the best way to go about it, but this was not how any discussions opened, and the user was edit warring before he was even aware OF an open discussion by his own admission, and when I have asked him to just leave me alone he has continued to post on my talk page and continued to edit war at Wonderstone over this despite the opposition of editors other than myself, none of whom I have expressly asked for specific aid. The user is content to ignore warnings, violate guidelines and openly conflict with other users to get his way over minor issues such as cast ordering and larger intervention is required because a 2 ban was not enough to make him move on or accept the actions of multiple other editors regarding only a single article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already personally addressed Darkwarriorblake's allegations. Opening a discussion is not the same thing as appealing a block. I did not attack Darkwarriorblake on the discussion about him, I opened a discussion about him because I felt he needed to be controlled. The articles on Gettysburg and Chinatown are proof that I do not push my edits when the issue is handled maturely. I have not made any threats and I have not edited Olympus Has Fallen recently. Yes, I am guilty of causing edit wars, but I make the effort to be involved in discussion to prevent them from breaking out. I never ignore the points raised by other editors. I listen and I address them. If a consensus can be reached and it's done in a civil manner, I will move on. Bluerules (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You realize that people will check your edit history. You were linked to WP: BRD four times on a single article yes, you ignored each one, you actively and repeatedly have edit warred with myself and others over the same thing following a ban and refused to acknowledge points made in the discussion that didn't gel with you getting your way. And this is on a single article, just one, you are doing this across multiple articles and the only reason I can imagine that you haven't been brought here before is that no other user has challenged your edits through to the end before. You will move on with a consensus because four editors have actively challenged you and your comment on my talk page was "If two people think a tomato is a vegetable and one thinks a tomato is a fruit, does that mean a tomato is a vegetable? The number of people in favor of something means nothing." Reasonable people do not continue to add blocks of text to someones talk page when asked not to, and equate me to a nazi "Saying you're not wrong does not mean you're not wrong. The National Socialists sure got a lot of support in Germany; does that mean they were right?". You have actively made me feel depressed with your unrelenting actions and the way in which you conduct yourself and I asked you to leave me alone and you refused. You have only 'engaged in discussion about cast' AFTER your ban and you've done it once, pretending to be good when people are looking is not the same as being good. I've made numerous attempts to warn you before you got banned again, I opened a discussion at the film project and provided you with an opportunity to prove me wrong to an audience and you chose to be 'mature' about it by ignoring the discussion and going on a tirade. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know. Even now, you continue to sling mud at me and spread false allegations. I have never ignored points I don't agree with. I address them and explain why I don't agree with them. I actually opened a discussion over at Heat when the editors were disagreeing with my edits. I also opened one at G.I. Joe: Retaliation to discuss the status of the cast order and the starring section. I did not push my edits on Chinatown, Gettysburg, and The Dark Knight Rises because I was addressed in a mature manner. I did not equate you to a Nazi, I used National Socialism as an example of how people holding the same beliefs does not mean they are right. I did not post in your discussion because I had nothing to prove anymore. You were getting away with breaking the rules for far too long and something had to be done. Bluerules (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, both of you! Bluerules, sometimes we can't always get what we want in the consensus and such. Dividing cast credits in order in this site is not that important. This site can be a tough neighborhood online among editors and we can engage in edit wars and disputes. This issue is already gone into a full-blown edit war as is, mainly by you. Sure, there are many editors can lose their tempers over issues that can cause this kind of situation. That happened to me in the past when I was in a edit war and that was proven justified to a point. Blue, you have to understand my point. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sjones23, if you really look at my edit history, you can see that's not true. I always use the end credits for the cast order as long as they are by prominence. I stopped pushing my edits on Gettysburg because you addressed me in a mature manner. I did not threaten to get my way on BattleshipMan's talk page, I said I was going to prove my way was correct. That does not mean I'm going to push my edits, it means I'm going to explain why my edits are correct on the talk page. I even stopped pushing my edits on Olympus Has Fallen for the time being. I am willing to engage in a discussion to stop an edit war from taking place there. Bluerules (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's doesn't matter how the cast order should be listed. It's not that important how it should be in order. You just don't see it that way. There are cast sections that have many not-yet know actors who appear on that list and they can be further down to the list then what is listed in the end credits. There are also uncredited cameos on many actors in various movies that are not listed in the end credits and listed in the cast sections in various movies. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If the order is not important, why even bother editing it? Why even have a cast section? A cameo would not be placed high in the ending credits. Bluerules (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Procrastinator16 - Is there any hope?

Judging by the number of deletion notices on the talk page of User:Procrastinator16, it might appear that there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Since it seems that this user will keep creating articles about living people -- despite the fact that they keep getting deleted -- I would like to suggest that someone take on the task of explaining our rules about notability, sourcing, and biographies of living people. If that effort fails, or no one is willing to take that on, they should be blocked. Any takers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)