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

User:Hasteur, AFC, and "I didn't hear that"

User:Hasteur has thrice reverted the undoing of his closure at two AFCs, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections. After being told that his closes were not based on Wikipedia guidelines (see edit summaries here and here), s/he has replied with a very WP:OWNy response: "Are you a contributor to AfC? I think not. Please do not mess with AfC project space pages". When invited to discuss, her/his reply was exactly the same, with a bit of ABF included: "You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring. The submissions are in AfC space and under the auspices of AfC. They're not the property of DYK." (note that a related article is currently at DYK, though I was checking the closes under the IP writer's request). Hasteur then reverted my reply; obviously discussion is pointless. Do we really want editors like this interacting with newbies? No wonder there is a retention problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a further note: Hasteur has since avoided reverts by providing an alternately worded refusal which is likewise not based in policy or guideline. There is no "ratio" of references to content; if a published list has all the winners in an extant list, we can use that list, as shown in several Featured Lists like List of works by Amir Hamzah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And what's different with your cherry picked example? There's a WP:LEAD which gives a synopsis of what makes the list up and some idea of how it's connected to it's parent article. Please let me know if you would like me to poke more holes in your argument. Hasteur (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your rationale was "insufficient content/reference ratio". I was addressing that. You are moving the goalposts, and implying that you had made such an argument regarding the article in question that you actually didn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• One last note: the IP editor who asked me to check this out also complained that edit summaries such as "An IP knows better than a Editor... NO" are overly rude. In the context of AFC, I tend to agree, as a lot of good editors get their start as IPs (or choose to edit continuously as IPs). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Get the Facts straight: For both pages the sequence was: Declined once, Undid by IP address, Undid by me, Re-undid by you, Re-re-declined by me, Re-re-re-undid by you missing the point AGAIN. So what did I do. I re-reviewed it citing exactly what problems there were were (No lead on the winners page explaining the connection, grossly under sourced for the amount of content on the "Selection members" page). Each Project is given general controll over articles in it's perview. I was exercising the rights granted to AfC. I dropped a notice on the DYK nomination page because the IP editor cited the DYK nomination as justification for overriding the AfC evaluation. No wonder we're loosing volunteers from the project when we have disruptive editors like you trying to protect editors who are patently not newbies and deserve to have a candid review of their submission. Would you rather the AfC submission process go around for 6 months while we string along the user with non-critical language only to finally decline the submission because of something that was patently obvious during the first review of the submission? Hasteur (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Last time I looked, submissions at WP:AFC (a place where unregistered users and other newbies are encouraged to create articles) were supposed to be judged against Wikipedia's generally applicable article guidelines and could be reviewed by any autoconfirmed user. There are no special qualifications for AFC submissions to be accepted and no rites of initiation or secret handshakes required to enter a secret fraternity of users who can review AFC submissions. Since User:Crisco 1492 is an administrator who has created many articles and has contributed to FAs and GAs, it appears to me that he is amply qualified to review AFCs. Maybe the late hour has clouded my judgment, and maybe the childish squabbling in the US Congress has reduced my patience for other squabbling, but Hasteur's insinuations that Crisco can't possibly understand how to review an AFC submission look to me like nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I may be somewhat out of touch, but I seem to recall certain wiki projects being given carte blanche with respect to pages in their purview (WP:USROADS and WP:NRHP). As such I would have assumed that the same yielding of acceptance would have been extended to the page in AfC space and wouldn't have editors outside of the project interfering with the operations of the project. I would have assumed that when a less experienced editor would go to an admin, that the admin would take all aspects of the situation in and review the applicable policies before taking a hostile action. I would have assumed that an admin would be more scrupulous in following WP:BRD and would have reached out to the AfC project. But I guess all these assumptions are what I get for trying to assume the best in people and having to apply clue-bat to others repeatedly. Crisco 1492 is invited to reach out via appropriate DR mechanisms (such as WP:DRN, opening a discussion at WT:AFC, or talking to annother editor involved with AfC), but running to ANI without trying other less agressive and disruptive forms of DR only serves to make me further question my involvment and commitment with Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely out-of-touch, and has never been formal. Unfortunately, some projects have taken that idea as a mantra, which goes against the goals of Wikipedia as a whole. Please don't try to use a failed idea of ownership-by-project as a defense - you're brighter than that Hasteur ES&L 12:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is no policy supporting a complete blacklist of non-project members editing any article or Wikipedia page, and if someone were to try and make one they would rightfully be scorned. If AFC does truly believe, as both a first line of defense and introduction to the community rolled into one, that it is to be outside of the purview of editors who are not members (I note that membership does not require any proof of qualification), then an RFC should be conducted.

"Try the proper mechanisms". I did try: your talk page. I posted, if I'm not mistaken, after your first revert of my edit. You unceremoniously booted me from said talk page. If your seventh trip to ANI shines a bad light on you, it is your own fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a question: if you were trying to discuss content, why would you go to their page directly? Content discussions should always take place on the article talkpage so that all interested parties may partake in the discussion. I typically remove content discussions from my talkpage too ES&L 12:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco's initial post on Hasteur's talk page was not about content. It was about communication: diff. Moreover, none of the subsequent discussion on that talk page was about content: Hasteur diff, Crisco diff. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In fairness, since this is an AFC draft, the content is on the talk page and it can be confusing as to where discussions about it should go. However, with that being said, an administrator like Crisco should know how to use the opposing space of the draft as a talk page and I'm fairly certain that Hasteur knows this., yet Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections still show as redlinks for me. I say trout you both! Now, what I'm really curious about is why these non-article draft submissions have anything to do with DYK, I've seen it mentioned a few times in various pages and am baffled because I wouldn't call any AfC submission "stable" enough for any kind of DYK line... Also, if there is a mainspace article that there is a DYK for, and it has been spun out into AfC, then I wouldn't consider that article stable enough for DYK either as it has important information in an unstable location. Finally, why was an article spun out into AfC, as this doesn't seem like normal protocol to me. Technical 13 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical13: If you're curious, you could do some research into what actually happened, instead of guessing.

Another article initially created at AFC by the same IP user is at DYK as a nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival. The two articles in question here (which are actually at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners) are prominent red links in the nominated article. As you can read from the DYK nomination page, the nomination has been on hold for a month waiting for resolution of the situation with the two articles at AFC. Crisco 1492 was trying to resolve that situation. Hasteur says Crisco doesn't have any right to get involved with the AFC review process. You will find some discussion history at both the AFC pages and the DYK nomination page. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially the same as Orlady has already replied. As for "using the other space", please show me where that is in the documentation, exactly. You're saying what you think should be instinctive, yet I don't see such an alternative presented at the AFC documentation. There being no way to discuss nominations was exactly why DYK's nomination templates were moved to Template (from Template talk), so "post on the other page" obviously isn't as instinctive or intuitive as you claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC) - Edit23:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now that I've had ample time to cogitate on this in the light of day, it's time to recommend some solutions. Both parties to this dispute are good and productive contributors to Wikipedia, who shouldn't be warring.

As I see it, User:Crisco 1492 wants to help an IP user get a couple of pages moved into article space so they will no longer be redlinks. He became concerned that the pages were rejected at AFC for reasons that didn't provide useful advice to the contributor, and he reverted the rejections. Meanwhile, User:Hasteur is concerned with maintaining the proper operation of the process that has been established at WP:AFC, and got upset because Crisco's edits violated the protocols there. Specifically, the standard protocol at AFC is for "rejected" pages to be "resubmitted" for review by the submitter (and placed at the end of the review queue) after being revised, but Crisco's reverts short-circuited that standard protocol, messing up the queue. Crisco's error in not following protocol deserved a response in the form of friendly communication about the AFC protocol, the response it received ("You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring.") was entirely unwarranted.

Hasteur is hereby WP:TROUTed (with a particularly large, wet trout) for failing to assume good faith, failing to communicate effectively with the IP user regarding the concerns about the articles, failing to communicate effectively with Crisco about the protocols at AFC, for asserting ownership of the AFC process that is supposed to serve Wikipedia as a whole (not just the active volunteers), and for overall incivility. Crisco is hereby advised to study up on the AFC process so he doesn't mess up its queue again by reverting AFC rejections.

Next step is for the parties to figure out how to help this IP user improve the pages so they will be acceptable in main space (or fix the issues yourself) and get them moved to main space. With cleanup, the pages would be credible candidates for article space (they would not qualify for speedy deletion), but if Hasteur thinks the pages should be deleted, take them to AFD after the move to main space. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Orlady I accept the trouting, however turn the scenario around. If a member of an outside project had gone into DYK and started undoing declines (or petitions for more information) would the players involved have reacted the same way? I sincerely doubt that it would, however I would hope that the IP address and Crisco now have a greater appreciation for the work that AfC volunteers do. I would also point out that it's not just one rogue editor who is on a vendetta, as Zach Vega has endorsed the decline reason (as indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Hasteur) Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, an argument over an AFC decline. Anyways, the reason I supported Hasteur's decline was because nearly all of the sources were primary, and that doesn't go well here in AFC. Hasteur was rather ostracizing after his edits were reverted, and didn't act in a very civil manner. We could've resolved this easily if he had actually attempted to converse with his (current) adversaries, for lack of a better term. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "nearly all of the sources were primary," - Again, that is not what Hasteur was saying in his closes (love how everyone is putting words in his/her mouth... the diffs are right there, people, and "primary sources" was not mentioned in the refusing rationale). I didn't disagree with his rejection, but his rationale. You're not going to help make new editors by giving them rejections not based in policy or guidelines. A simple close like "Rejected: the article depends too heavily on primary sources, and thus its notability cannot be adequately established. Please add more reliable, independent sources."

@Orlady: I will read up more on their processes, but again please note I did not disagree with it being rejected, just the (non-policy or guideline) rationale given. "The source/content ratio is too low" is most certainly not policy based. A close such as the one I've written above would have been much more helpful and avoided the "drama", as it is clearly both based in policy and guidelines and points to the appropriate ones.

I also feel heavily that AFC closers have to be prepared to discuss, just like an admin who closes an AFD. If another editor (registered or not) contests the closure or the closing rationale, the AFC closer should be ready to discuss, defend, and if necessary amend their rationale. It's common courtesy, and it's a lot more of an effective way to get new contributors to stick than just "close, revert, revert, ignore". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that this issue is actually here at ANI. These are things than IMO can and should be resolved within the scope of talk at AfC project, and I doubt that any admin action would be warranted. However, AfC regulars should be cautious about assuming that the project is a closed shop, while any experienced editors should prefereably be familiar with the general ways AfC submissions are handled. The main problems of AfC are trying to find ways of educating the totally inexperienced editors who review submissions, and those who bltantly abuse the systems for their own ends. Proposals for a complete overhaul of the AfC system are coming up that will ensure that all reviewers are exercising equity and to make the process somewhat easier in its implementation. I suggest we call it a day at that and wait for the new proposals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the AFC issues, I agree with your point. However, the seeming lack of willingness to communicate on behalf of the reviewer (even when questioned directly at his/her talk page) is concerning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have also, on occasion, reverted an AfC rejection. I don't see the big deal. If an editor agrees with another editor's decision and an article comes out of it, what's the harm? Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong again

Coming off the last ANI about Ryulong's abusive behavior, he seems to have gotten worse and is now attacking me and accusing me of gaming the system by attempting to improve MOSAM. He breaks 3RR and swears continuously while making bad faith accusations.[1] He attacks my improvement as "gaming the system" because he can't revert it after breaching 4RR on a completely unrelated section.[2] He thinks self-reverting after part of his 4RR was reverted makes it okay, it does not.[3] Then he says he "fucked up" and retreats from his gaming the system accusation, but this is meaningless as evidenced by the recent ANI on Ryulong.[4] I'm really getting tired of dealing with Ryulong's hostility coupled with a string of bad faith accusations and mass reverting of hundreds of different editor's contributions. Ryulong must himself agree with the change or he will revert and insult the editors until his preferred version is reinstated. Also, Ryulong had just said three days ago he would "curb" his language to be more approachable after the last ANI.[5] Since then Ryulong has continued to yell in all caps at editors as if he was screaming at them.[6] And even did another improper use of rollback, a major point of the last ANI.[7] Ryulong has a long history of edit warring and ownership issues. Typically, requesting full page protection after you break 3RR shows more spite than restraint and I think Ryulong needs to know his abusive behavior towards other editors will not be tolerated. This has gone on for months and years, Ryulong's behavior has not changed after the ANI so I think Ryulong should be on 1RR for a duration of a month. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a total aside: why would anyone want to spend time and energy on the unverified fancruft found in Kousoku Sentai Turboranger? Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I realized my errors regarding the accusations of WP:GAME and retracted them and apologized. The edit on Talk:Attack on Titan was preceeded by this one. The revert on Kousoku Sentai Turboranger is to a long term disruptive editor who constantly hops IPs and who I've come to this board in the past to request assistance in dealing with. If you look in the history of the article you will see this is a recurring problem going back several years and it is not just limited to just that one article [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. And all of these pages are in dire need of cleaning up as well, but I digress. Just as ChrisGualtieri is tired of dealing with me, I too am at my last ropes with him. After I had reverted Adam Cuerden's modification of WP:MOSAM as it had not been discussed, and as a discussion on the talk page was being made about it, ChrisGualtieri reverted me, and after I had undone that change, again, he began to further modify the project page without discussion, which at the time confounded me. I don't see why requesting protection, particularly when the page is at what would be considered the m:wrong version from my point of view, is disruptive either. I still fully apologize for my statements towards Adam Cuerden this afternoon, and I hope that my attempts to explain my other edits that ChrisGualtieri cherrypicked for this are sufficient.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To me this is simple, you said you would watch your offensive language and be more approachable and not abuse rollback. I'm not "tired" of dealing with you, because I welcome your positive contributions and maintenance of pages that are generally problematic. This is why I may disagree with your behavior, but found your argument to make sense in both policy, it took me over an hour of researching to prove at DRN that your argument was indeed correct on the Death Note matter. Behavior and content matters are two different things for me. And I also owe some thanks to you for fixing that template at Anime. I'd like it if you could communicate better about these situations and not commit to edit warring to breaking 3RR over the issue. People can be BOLD and add or make good faith changes and many are constantly reverted by you resulting in little to no improvement over years; interestingly you removed a large chunk containing two sources as "UNIMPORTANT TRIVIA" (yes, in all caps) on the MMPR page.[21] While one part about "breaking boards" is useless trivia, we have two sources that dealt with opposition to Saban's reuniting, including a source noting the death of Trang. The removal is just one of many that negatively impacts Wikipedia and I believe abiding by a 1RR would help foster communication and growth with editors who think differently than you do. As said at the last ANI, your intentions are good, but the execution could certainly be better and this could go a long way to resolving the issues. It is also hard for people to work on the page given your dominance and reverting of almost every edit on these topics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You used the word "tired" though in your post here. Perhaps "unimportant trivia" was the wrong phrase, because are Huffpo and TMZ really the best sources for possibly controversial BLP statements? But I really do not think 1RR is necessary. I mostly deal with IP ediors who rarely if ever touch a talk page so it will only prevent me from cleaning up after the handful of uncommunicative long term problem editors I've had to deal with over the past 7 years of editing this niche set of pages ranging from an editor who would blank articles with lengthy screeds against the producer or completely whitewashing pages of the existence of his works; an editor who would remove every single reference, hidden comment, and piped link; an editor who changes Japanese TV show casts to have Bollywood actors; an editor who would unnecessarily append color names to items; an editor who for some reason would remove fictional characters' nicknames when they're used in the work of fiction; an editor who replaced pages wholesale with his fanfiction; an editor who made up whole seasons of Philippine TV shows; and of course the one who I posted like 15 diffs for above. I honestly cannot be expected to communicate with editors like these (even though only one is still active) under a one-revert restriction, but how am I supposed to deal with editors who do not adhere to BRD when I expect them to and request them to? That's what happened with Despatche and his edits to Pokémon Platinum, Pokémon Stadium, and Pokémon Stadium 2, and I can think of many other instances where I've reverted someone and gone to their user talk page or someone else's user talk page only for them to engage in discussion and then revert back to their preferred version or cease communicating with me on one page and begin a discussion on another as if the previous one never existed. How is 1RR going to help? I'd rather be allowed more time to adjust my behavior instead of it being expected of me to happen overnight, which is exactly why I was upset with how the RFC and RFAr happened to me several years ago. I was given no chance to attempt to change my behavior for the better before having the RFAR thrown at me. I would like to voluntarily be given more than 48 hours to adjust my behavior in this case rather than having a "community" backed editing restriction over my head.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ryulong wouldn't be the first positive contributor to benefit from a 1R limit. If incivility and tit-for-tat editing follow a series of back and forth reverts (no matter who's right and who's wrong), then 1R nips that in the bud. I haven't looked at what you said to Adam, though I'll take your word that your apology was sincere--but when in the same breath you use the word "cherrypick" to describe Chris's selection of edits I do wonder if you ran out of contrition already: "cherrypick" is a loaded term and serves only rhetorical purposes; of course there's picking since Chris can hardly point at all your edits to make his case. That's by-the-by, but it should show you (Ryulong) that it is important to get away from an adversarial mindset, if that's what's guiding your word choice. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, give him a chance, a little longer before you 1rr him. He is a good contributor in an area you couldn't pay me to touch, and, unlike most trouble makers here at ANI, using the term trouble in its lightest sense, he is admitting he is wrong and needs to change. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

• I don't think you're reading my comments correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing is that repeated attempts have been made and they resulted in numerous editors showing evidence of hostility and bad faith and abuse of rollback. Perhaps it hasn't been a long enough period of time, but all caps yelling at an editor for correcting a typo in a talk page header mere days after recognizing the problem is not promising. If one says they will modify their behavior and one doesn't and continues right after the last ANI, business as usual, what weight do the words carry? Given the RFC and the ArbCom matter and the dozens of issues raised throughout the months from my meeting of Ryulong; perhaps Ryulong isn't capable of changing his behavior. Anyways - resolving our long standing content issue may help ease his tension and a week or two should be given to show Ryulong is capable of modifying his behavior. I'd like to see such restraint employed going forward and not being "gradual", while and no one is perfect, I think Ryulong acknowledges the issue. Next time, I'll request 1RR, but unless someone is opposed to closing this ANI - I think it has served its purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A Pox on both (or all) your houses ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and another editor who has been previously sanctioned (with respect to the other 2) have constantly been bickering back and forth across multiple venues (DRN,AN*,VP*). At this time I consider the net good you may have as been completely overshadowed by the eruptions of drama-bickering that require well trained (and thick skinned) volunteers to take their time way from productive ventures to extricate the combatants. I seem to recall that the riot act has been read in relation to these editors before, so I assumed that they would have behaved themselves. I guess I was wrong. I am deliberately being obtuse regarding the third editor because I don't want to inject any further drama into the issue by giving notice to them and opening the door for them to comment here. If others disagree, please feel free to notify the user in question Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Say what you will, I don't think any "riot act" has been read to me. I work 20+ hours a week in researching anime and manga topics; I am studying Japanese and can read and correct errors in translation, including one that Ryulong had edit warred to revert to an incorrect translation. All my GANs have passed and I have many more active, I expected our differences to be resolved when I showed that these pages do not need to be deleted and improvement is easy if only done properly. Since the matter, I've had to protest a deletion campaign advocated by 3 A&M editors and others which think LOCALCONSENSUS is acceptable. MOSAM is not official and has ruined dozens of pages; enforcing its LOCALCONSENSUS which was a major part of my issue with those two editors. Those willing to do the work on Wikipedia should be allowed that chance; to save an article from deletion or to have an article that meets N/GNG to not be reverted out as "no consensus to split". Sorry, if I am of different mindset; I know far more about anime and manga than what is on Wikipedia and as a scholar, I have a genuine appreciation of the art form and get a bit defensive when accused of being malicious, committing to some conspiracy and or worse. Especially when Ryulong's comments are taken word for word and thrown at me when I am sensitive about the situation. I've begged these two editors to work together; and while I have issues with the behavior and repeated personal attacks; I can still say I respect Ryulong for much of the work he does. You don't praise your "enemy" and spend over an hour to prove his argument and defend his changes at DRN or on talk pages and thank them for fixing things or telling you how to operate a weird template. I like Ryulong; but not some of his behavior; and that is why the mediation should go forward and the differences solved. I wish we could just bury the axe and work together; and any suggestion otherwise would be injecting more bad faith into the situation. Because Ryulong would not ask my input if he truly hated me, we bump heads, but I think we understand that we both want Wikipedia to be better than it is now. Sorry, Hasteur, I disagree with your assessment, but I understand how this problem appears from the outside. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you can puff up your credentials all day, but I think both you and Ryulong are at fault here. LOCALCONSENSUS is indeed acceptable when it makes sense in context. You can say all you want about how "it is consensus" or "no, it isn't", and other trivial remarks, but at the end of the day such consensus issues are best solved individually for each article, instead of trying to create a blanket template as you have been doing at WT:MOS-AM . That aside, you guys need to resolve any longstanding disputes between you and leave it at that. Wikipedia's volunteers should not have to waste their time separating you two once again when that time could be better spent elsewhere. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 01:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like dispute resolution would be a good move if all parties agree to it. It's clear how much you all have invested in the subject. But, sometimes, someone completely outside the topical area can look at a situation with fresh eyes and be able to offer some editing practices that would both acknowledge everyone's contributions and help you mediate when differences of opinion emerge. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of dispute resolution, everyone commenting here should take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 and at Wikipedia:AN#Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban. We can't start mediation between ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong and Lucia Black until this discussion is over, and the mediation might touch on some of the issues being raised. However, mediation won't deal with conduct issues, so if people think that there are any conduct issues that need dealing with, then those should be dealt with first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Ryulong just needs to WP:STAYCALM and realize that he doesn't WP:OWN articles. He thinks he is always right, and will revert blindly to anything that opposes his opinion, even if it starts a WP:WAR. Then he gets very heated in discussions, trying to bend the will of others to his view. It really isn't worth it. WP:NOW doesn't apply do everything. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has very clearly made WP:POINTy edits in his splitting of an article after I offered an opposition to his proposal when it was already under contention in the discussion. He very clearly stated he would go through with it anyway, and demanded that I not edit the page. I reverted it, expecting a discussion to begin per WP:BRD as he so desperately wants me to do and attempted to start one but he reverted me and is continuing to build up the page despite the opposition to his proposals. What am I supposed to do now? Sit back and let him act against consensus because I'm the only one who noticed?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualteri has also been warned about ownership and WP:NOEDIT Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He is also now on the defensive, claiming that because I made these four subsequent edits to the article [22] [23] [24] [25] that I've somehow WP:GAMEd him into possibly breaking WP:3RR with his next edit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this. Whatever, I am locked out of improving a page that I had an "in use" template on and I can't edit it lest I break 3RR. Konveyor Belt is a misguided editor who advocates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it seems and makes dramatic rhetoric, but I can't edit the article and the courtesy template said I was in the middle of working on a page I had just created. Not even NPP is to act in such a way by reverting a brand new page out of existance without discussion, especially when I said doing so would be edit warring. I've never seen such a disregard for the process that an editor will say "meeting N/GNG does not allow you to create an article because I oppose it!" This says a lot about how far Ryulong will go to get his way - he won't even work together when begged. The articles are being deliberately kept subpar and poor because of such actions and no one cares enough about the premise or the esoteric subject matter. The result has been terrible coverage and a self defeating policy by a handful of editors who are so reactionary that they'll cut their noses off to spite their face. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not locked out. I have not been reverting the page to what would be my preferred version (a redirect) and in fact have been collaborating with you to make it look presentable, even if I do not believe the page should be retained. You are just drama mongering. I cannot tell how you are interpretting WP:3RR but if two people edit the page at the same time and there are no reverts performed that's not a 3RR vio.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Even though my opinions may be a minority, there's no reason to bully and push me about to make it look like you are the only sensible one. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that the editors that have been involved with Chris so far include: Lucia Black, Ryulong, Konveyor Belt, and Folken de Fanel [26] all from wikiproject anima and manga. Now I don't know if there is a connection or not but I do see it as problematic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, there's a simple reason for that: Chris keeps screwing up anime and manga articles and then reacting extraordinarily inappropriately when others disagree with his edits. Go read his userpage if you want a laugh, he describes it like some sort of glorious otaku crusade. --erachima talk 03:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the same could be said of many of the combinations of the people you just listed... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

True but being all from one project creates a problem, I tried in the past to intervene in the problems but did not have much success. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But some of the Wikiproject's editors are the problem because they believe in a local consensus that allows for edit warring to remove pages with invalid rationales. You cannot preclude the creation of an article that meets N/GNG as Ryulong did.[27] During discussion, Erachima also did this citing CFORK incorrectly.[28] Two major violations per WP:BLAR, considering the page was brand new, in use and Ryulong's good faith improvements put me to 3RR. These editors simply cannot do this, but do so repeatedly, thinking that several of them saying "don't make this page" is valid or with "MOSAM" to supercede N/GNG. It is not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And just to clarify, it is not the entire Wikiproject, but a very active minority that has taken to preventing me from improving the most important and notable subjects. Much of this likely falls under WP:HARASSMENT because they are trying to get me to stop editing and make insults about my academic interest in the subject. This is unacceptable behavior that should be condemned on sight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just replied on Chris's talkpage suggesting him to take his proposals for the wikiproject anime/manga to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga in an RFC. If disruptive editing continues there then it can be brought back here, but it sounds like we need an official consensus on the matter and not editors just saying we have one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga sounds like a good idea. As annoyed as these Editors are with each other, I'm sure there are plenty of more casual Editors who might want to comment on proposals for cooperative editing who would never come over to AN/I to comment. This is such a popular subject on WP, there must be dozens of active Editors...try to come to a consensus on WikiProject since it seems like attempts to prod y'all to DR haven't succeeded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be as good a place as any, though Chris's willingness to engage A&M may be less than ideal given his, uh, iffy opinion of the project's legitimacy. --erachima talk 21:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I request the closure of this thread. It has gone off topic, no admin action is necessary. Also, this needs to be closed for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal

On article UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying is non stop vandalized by IP address 92.237.230.122 for putting nations such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan & Vatican City. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan are members of AFC but not UEFA. Vatican City is not member of UEFA any FIFA. --188.47.101.66 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, typically you ought to report this at WP:AIV, but an admin won't do anything until they see that the matter is clearly indicated as vandalism or disruption, and I see only one single warning on that talk page, and it's not yours. If you report it here you need to notify the editor. But more importantly, their last edit to that article is from 22 September, so I see no reason to do anything at all right now. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Denisarona

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

---

Awards stars to anyone doing her work for the user on user page, and employs police like tactics with other users to subdue any dissident, the meritocratic system infringes the "free" in encyclopedia. We do not have stars like sheriffs for doing Denisaronas sort of justice we are there to educate what your opinion is to people remember SOPA?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subranadan88888 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reporting account has a very limited editing history, and created a userpage with "Black list: Denisarona. For the treachery of editing and policing." It is most likely the same user as 79.65.75.155. I can't see any action being taken against anybody other than the reporter. James^x12345 19:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OP blocked per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NOTHERE. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a new user named Suuran88 has recently appeared and committed minor vandalism on Denisarona's userpage. The user has also vandalized a couple of articles, which is how he or she came to my attention. DoorsAjar (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And that has been blocked for quacking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}}

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

Request interaction ban

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

---

Nearly a year ago, I had a content dispute with User:Ihardlythinkso over which Unicode characters to use in chess notation. Things got ugly rather quickly, and I have been avoiding interaction with him ever since. See
User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 27#Interaction Ban? and
User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 8#Macon.

I did reply to someone else on a different topic many months later without noticing that Ihardlythinkso was involved. Dumb mistake. As soon as I realized it I went silent.

I was hoping that he would move on, but it appears that this is not the case. See this comment:[29] I can dig up more examples if needed.

BTW, I have no idea what he is talking about. Here is my one and only post to User talk:Tony1:[30]

To avoid any future problems, I would like to request an interaction ban.

There shouldn't be any problems with compliance; Ihardlythinkso primarily edits in the area of chess, and I usually edit engineering articles, with little or no overlap. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Talk, my mistake. [31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak-a-Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak-a-mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whac_a_Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak_a_Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whac_a_mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak_a_mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wac-A-Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wak-A-Mole&action=history

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Are you claiming that Guy Macon creating a bunch of redirects for alternate spellings of Whac a mole is "derogatory", "uncivil" and "violent" towards you? If so, I endorse his desire to be quit of you and support a mutual topic ban. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said his reference to "mole" and "whack" in reference to me in the context he made it, was offensive, uncivil, derogatory, and even connotes violence (i.e. "whack"). It was totally inappropriate and he should simply apologize (and I suggest too, his favorite insult tool, all those redirects and use of that article for insults, should be stopped). p.s. I am not the one who opened this ANI, he did. Please quit shoving meaning in my mouth that I didn't say, and trying to make me responsible for same. I'm a serious editor and I do not deserve insults from either him or you. I opened up no dialogue with Macon, my remarks were to user Tony1. I userfied the reference because I thought that is what is desired on the Pedia, as opposed to mentioning someone without their knowing. As usual, Macon opens this ANI, as he has done in the past for retaliatory and intimidation value, and wastes the community's time & attention. The best thing as long as he has opened this unnecessary ANI, if for him to simply make a quick apology and learn something from this. He credibility walks toward zero as soon as one would follow any of the dialogues he has smattered here. Good day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "Whack a mole" is used colloquially to refer to a problem that is dealt with in one place but pops up again in another. I do not think Guy Macon is calling you a mole, or advocates actually whacking you on the head, as you seem to think. I don't see where either he or I have insulted you. As far as I can see, Guy Macon has left you alone for months but you continue to complain about him in unrelated discussions. Why don't you respect his request to leave him out of it? Reyk _YO! 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, you mentioned what Guy Macon said more than a year ago in today's discussion on the chess project talk. You brought up Guy Macon's name, not vice versa. He seems to have been voluntarily avoiding you, but you are not avoiding him. I see the case for a two-way interaction ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I was supposed to forget that insult? It was unaddressed when he made it; I was struggling with the content issue and wanted no behavioral side-issues as distractions. He was stalking my edits then and his involvement w/ Tony1 was obviously to obstruct my efforts with Tony1, and to smear me. His kind of under-the-radar slights s/b inexcusable on the Pedia. The memory came up by virtue of the same chess issue back then, of which he had no part of except to harass me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it wasn't my intent to involve Macon, the remark was to Tony1 (who'd partnered w/ Macon in that unsavory content obstruction effort). How about asking me to apologize to Macon? (Something positive.) My only stipulation is that he apolgize first for the "Whack-a-Mole" reference, and promise in addition to discontinue using it to refer to users or their editing work. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The alleged "unsavory content obstruction effort" may be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation, where I opened up a conversation regarding whether MOS should specify what Unicode characters to use for chess notation and where Tony1 had some insightful input.

Whac-A-Mole is a popular arcade redemption game invented in 1976. Like many others on Wikipedia, I use "Let's not play Whac-A-Mole" as a verbal shortcut for "Let us not have the exact same conversation on many different talk pages, but rather let us see if we can get consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, document it, and refer to MOS whenever it comes up on another page." It has nothing to do with "Whac"ing anyone or calling anyone a "Mole", and even if it did, someone who responds to a required ANI notice with "Fuck Off"[32] is in a poor position to complain about supposedly being called a "mole".

I will go farther and say that I am fairly confident that Ihardlythinkso is not made of exactly 6.02214179(30)×10²³ atoms, is not a massive stone structure between places separated by water, not a sauce used in Mexican cuisine, and is definitely not a Soviet Beriev Be-8 amphibian aircraft. I hope that this clears up any confusion on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note Interaction bans are normally discussed at WP:AN, not here, so I've left a note at WP:AN asking people to come here to participate in this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Improving the instructions at the top of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I think Ihardlythinkso needs to take a step back and drop the issue. What guy said was a harmless expression that I can only imagine a non-native english speaker taking offense to. Now that the expression has been explained to you, I think you are carrying this grudge too far; especially with that reversion of Guy's notice. You both make good contributions but I think it isn't Guy who is the problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.72.12 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok ... can we let User:Ihardlythinkso munch on some rather poor-tasting crow, and walk away with dignity. IMHO, I'd actually prefer them to close this thread as an acknowledgement that they understood they may have wholly misread, and are moving on without additional comments from the crowd, or from them ... please let them choose the positive way out ES&L 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur, completely. There is nothing about Guy, moles or whacking here that has anything to be done here, all that's needed is some ketchup for that crow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, it might be helpful to note that "eating crow" means "having been proved wrong after taking a strong position" and has nothing to do with munching on birds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I find that snide and patronizing. And if you want to be sure about correct understanding and definition of a word, I'd suggest to you to look up "proved" instead of "crow" since you don't seem to have a grasp of "proof" versus perspective. (The fact is in the link I provided contaiing the "mole" ref, Macon had also in that same post attempted to smear & mad-mouth me to Tony1 by his repetitive quotation of an admin who had blocked me in the past. (Macon had earlier plastered in numerous places that he could, the same material in attempt to defame me. That kind of attempted character assasination s/n be tolerated on the Wiki, but apparently it is. Now you see also below, he does a similar thing.) Plus the fact Macon was never involved at all with that or any other chess notation issue, and only followed my edits to Tony1's User as a part of stalking and intentional obstruction and desire to irritate. My perspective re the "mole whacking" came out of the context of those additional facts, which neither you nor the other commentators here have taken into account. So your perspectives are a little shallower, aren't they, and obviously different from mine. So there is no "proof" here, and the "crow" comments are equally inappropriate from my view. (And BTW, did you or any other commentor do any research regarding how Macon has used the mole-whacking reference vis-a-vis other users besides me in the past? No!?) Macon opened this ANI, not me; I have made a simple suggestion here that he apologize and stop using the "mole" reference where it could be considered offensive. I did not open this thread to ask for approval of that idea, it was only a suggestion while I was here. If you like to reject that idea, that is fine. I think it is obvious to anyone based on Macon's re-attempts here to smear me, that he needs some guidance on proper use of the WP and to be reeled in, and especially ANI. But that has never occurred, which seems to have just emboldened him, when he has more appropriately warranted warnings and sanctions. But that isn't the topic here, and again I'm not here opening an ANI with any proposal. (In fact it is true I'll never open a thread here under any circumstance, ever.) I also don't like being here responding to comments from the gallery, and I'm reconsidering whether I will even come here again to defend myself against any spurious future ANI. [It is too-often mud-slinging here, nothing the WP should be proud of.]) Thx for listening. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(Cleans coffee off of keyboard...) :)

It looks like he has stopped responding. I am inclined to close this and come back only if the problem continues. Given his history, I want to totally disengage. He has had recent nasty fights with Bbb[33], Basalisk[34], Bwilkins[35], Ched[36], Cullen[37], Drmies[38], Kudpung[39], Rschen7754[40] and Yunshui[41]. (He does, however, love Malleus. He thinks Malleus should be in charge and WP:CIVIL deleted.[42] Of course he does.) On the other hand, I really don't want to come back later. Given his opinions of ANI and admins in general...

"Everyone knows I think ANI reputatino stinks and I will never go there, ever, for any reason, for good reason, and that I am not alone in this view"[43]

"The fact is that hypocisy and politically-minded Admins fill the Wiki"[44]

"You are heavily invested in the normal political Admin-network-Oh-I-gotta-keep-my-tools-and-backup-my-fellow-Admins-at-all-costs"[45]

"Thanks for putting your nose in uninvited, to stir up drama, to spit on me, to hussle to backup your Admin buddies, or whatever the H you think you're doing. Because we all know you Admins don't hang in groups, with your "for-life" billy clubs, and think WP is just so you can roam and keep the puling masses silent."[46]

"Are you two proud? Because both your stances have been very bad IMO, for the reputation of the integrity of the Admin corps, especially those editors who are already convinced there is Admin corruption pervasive here."[47]

"I'm not a believer in the system ... I have experienced and witnessed too much corruption here, to possibly be a believer, like when I first signed up and read the vanilla documentation, erroneously thinking this was a pretty cool place. It is filled with abuse, hostility, hypocrisy. And "flexibility" is just a cover for those Admins who hold grudges. The WP needs strutural change. The top content editors should be put in charge."[48]

"No one cares, because it isn't them publicly falsely accused on the board. It isn't them with their username in the ANI thread title accusing them falsely of misdeed. It isn't them feeling this. So they don't care. So when there is apathy, there is also inaction. No call to act. So the thread stays open, because it takes work to close it. And humans are generally "lazy" - it is the prime motivator in our world."[49]

...I don't want to get invoked in that fight either. So is closing better, or is an interaction ban better? I just want whatever will leave me out of the drama. I know myself, and I know that I can easily get sucked in. (Which is another phrase not to be taken literally.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact you are permitted without obstruction to turn your ANI thread into an attack page intended to discredit and defame, just supports my view what a cesspool ANI is. (And why I'd never open an ANI thread under any circumstance whatever.) That aside, I do have to thank you for giving free "advertisement" to the idea, that the top WP content editors should be "put in charge" of the Pedia maintenance, future growth, direction (strategy), and policy. I feel that if the top 10-15 content contributors, elected by the community, would be put in charge, it would be a wonderful way forward for the Pedia to get out of its current doldrums and dysfunctions. (Why? Look at WP:CIV for e.g. and the confusion/inconsistency/complaints about it. Let the top 10-15 content contributors solve that, whatever their solution may end up to be. And so on.) The top 10-15 writers here know what the problems are, and their huge stake in the WP of time and heart, would disallow them from making any decisions which would be detrimental to the Pedia. (The group of 10-15 would essentially be a beehive of high intelligence, and with their shared commitment and combined vast experience, there's no way that anything but a positive way forward could ensue. Sure there would be disagreements, but they would not resort to egotistic battles, because they are too intelligent for that. They would eventually work out all problems, for positive solutions and ways forward.) The fact the idea implies a radical structural change to how the WP currently is, isn't a slam against me. The fact the WP has sported an abusive & hostile editing environment (an e.g. is perhaps what you've done w/ your thread here), is a culture long in place before I signed up, and a continued source of confusion and disagreement, over both poor precept what "civil" means and so on, and a radical restructure like this idea would do the job to take care of it and associated dysfunctions. (I don't know what would come out of such a group of 10-15, and surely everyone wouldn't be happy with the path they may cut forward, but there's no way that group would harm the Pedia, and in fact there's no way the result wouldn't be an intelligent best way forward for both readers & editors. By definition they already know what's best for articles and the encyclopedia, and they remain an amazing resource that goes untapped!) Put 'em in charge and watch the WP reach its true potential greatness. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to think about writing up an essay with your idea that the top WP content editors should be put in charge. Serious Suggestion. Getting back to the point, you attacked me while I was doing my level best to have nothing to do with you. Are you now willing to voluntarily agree to leave me alone so I can go back to ignoring you? The alternative is to ask an administrator to force you to do so. Please make your answer clear; "Yes" and "No" are good choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack. But I know you have done your level best to be non-interfacing with me, and I appreciate that. I can at least promise to do the same, so there you go. (What you've tried to do in this ANI was inexcusable though, and UNDUE. Please be careful using WAC-A-MOLE where it could be insulting to a user. [Remember the WP:UNEDUCABLE and other WP:IDHT redirects you created? Those were inherently insulting and were removed.]) Try and be nicer. I will try & be nice to you, too. Promise. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Editor needs to be stopped (quickly if possible)

User:Nasnema needs to be be blocked or sanctioned or have huggle turned off or something quickly. I started viewing diffs because this bad revert was pointed out. The first two I looked at [50] and [51] were very clearly not vandalism. Nasnema is clearly misusing huggle. Ryan Vesey 02:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's some more inappropriate reverts [52], this one could be fixed, but it's certainly not vandalism, two bad reverts here, same issue here, this is just within the past 14 or so reverts. Ryan Vesey 02:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose we shouldn't forget this little gem where he breaks into NPA land. Ryan Vesey 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To add my 2cents to this: I posted this message (which I thought was polite) on User:Nasnema‎'s talk page concerning this revert made by the user with HUGGLE. I got this response. I don't need to look up what "FO" means. While I did leave a snarky reply, it is clear that Nasnema is using HUGGLE waaay too quickly and not owning up to mistakes. Mistakes made while using HUGGLE (like TWINKLE) can cost the person their access to that program.

Further HUGGLE misuse can be found here (with warning issued), here (warning issued), here. Those are three during the span of a minute (22:12 UTC), all mentioned by Ryan above.

After I left a message on User:Drmies talk page (as I am to do in situations like this), Nasnema responded with "Well you are a lier" and when he corrected the misspelling he added "spelling for this worthless troll" as an edit summary. I was working with an admin on IRC (not Drmies, who appeared offline and was, he was at the store) when Nasnema reverted several edits from the WXLK page, including a reference to the FCC, a US Government organization (highly reliable). They were reverted as "WP:OR", though Nasnema's revert added OR back to the page.

While still trying to work out the situation with an admin on IRC, Nasnema replied with this post on his talk page called me a "fucking idiot" and stating he doesn't "care if someone removes [his] huggle privilages". He further stated that he was "only here preventing idiots like [me] from updating Wiki without proof". Seconds after that post, I received this one on my talk page, which again had the "FO" abbreviation (in case you are wondering, it means "fuck off").

User:Huon warned Nasnema about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, only to also be told to "FO".

It is clear the user is not interested in editing Wikipedia constructively or communicating with editors and admin in a way that is within the rules and policies of Wikipedia. At no time were either myself or Huon rude with Nasnema and nothing we said should have caused a response like what has been received. Since there is a clear, repeated and blantant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I am asking that Nasnema be blocked until they can calm down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to your request, I don't think Nasnema necessarily needs to be blocked; although, that's certainly an option. I believe I've established it well that there are issues with nasnema's use of the tools (particularly in relation to IP editors) and I just ask that an administrator takes whatever action they think will best stop it from happening again. I oftentimes think it silly to block an editor for incivility performed before the issue is brought to ANI, because there isn't time to figure out if the ANI discussion itself will solve that issue. The frequency of their reverts has also slowed, so I don't think a block is necessary to stop the reverts in the short term as I did when I posted this. Ryan Vesey 02:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course the admins can do what they like, I was just saying what I would like to see done. I believe a block may be necessary for the personal attacks though. You are right, though, that the reverts (and all edits) have stopped as of 22:12 UTC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Hello, I have not posted here before so I hope I'm not making a mistake and it's for admins only? The first revert Ryan Vesey mentions was to my edit. I don't know what the procedure is but I had just left a note on the Huggle page here saying I was worried about the way they are using it/talking to people, before seeing that you had posted here. Thanks. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Anyone can post here, so no worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at Nasnema's recent editing history, I have to ask whether Nasnema should be editing Wikipedia at all. This revert [53] for instance is entirely unjustified - it took me only a few seconds to verify that the edit was correct, and that the person named was indeed a Nobel laureate, and I can see no logic in the revert whatsoever. Behaviour like this can achieve nothing beyond driving good contributors away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• [ec with Andy] Sorry, I was in Publix while all this excitement was going on. I don't think "fuck off" is (immediately) blockable (sorry Homer--I don't), but Ryan Vesey and I probably agree on this one. Funny, Homer didn't start this; he just stuck his neck out for an IP editor. Nasnema strikes me as one of the patrollers who like to shoot from the hip. This is funny, given the user's user boxen, but it's edit summary is of course unacceptable.

  I've pulled rollback; that seems to me to be the least I should do. I'll let another admin decide if there's anything else. And to pre-empt the usual "well fuck you no wonder no one cares about Wikipedia since you're chasing away the good editors who blah blah"--well, the behavior pointed at in this thread (and there's more on the user's talk page) is sufficient evidence of very bitey behavior and uncaring rollbacking, and that's bad for business. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• At this moment, I don't think (Andy) that we should show this user the door. But this blind reverting obviously needs to stop, as does the (rather silly) namecalling. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd say this is an open admission that Nasnema will continue to insult editors when "challenged". That attitude is not acceptable to me, especially when Nasnema is likely to deal with new and inexperienced editors (or those Nasnema thinks so). Huon (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: No worries on "'fuck off' [not being] (immediately) blockable", 'tis cool. At least he has eyes on him now, so that will keep him from doing this again.

@Huon: What is interesting about this post is I haven't "only been around 2 minutes", but more like 7 years (geez, has it been that long?). That shows how little Nasnema was paying attention when reverting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've quickly perused this user's archive. This is purely speculation, but something strikes me as odd. This recent behavior seems completely out of character. There responsiveness. I would be inclined to throw out WP:GOTHACKED, or that this user was editing under some sort of influence, not drugs or alcohol necessary. Just a quick food for thought.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [ec with Cyberpower] You had that feeling too? They've written four very decent articles as well. I didn't think it so much out of character as greatly amplified from normal, if that makes sense. Huon, the editor has 14000 edits and a clean log; any troubles to appear to be recent; but perhaps deeper digging will reveal more. I'm not going to dig any deeper; I'm satisfied with having pulled rollback and I think this thread supplies a Final Warning of sorts. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'll also add that this user has a clean block log, and has possessed rollback since 2011, which reinforces my suspicions that something about this user account is out of the ordinary. I feel this should be investigated more thoroughly. Perhaps a CU look to see if the account is under control from a different user?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not thinking he was hacked at all, this is old but see this discussion and this edit (interestingly, Drmies took part there too). It's the same person. Ryan Vesey 03:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nice sleuthing, Ryan. You know, Ukexpat caught on to one pattern of mine the other day (wanting to nap); I suppose here is another: no action taken. So much for totally abusive adminship! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• At the same time all this was going on, an anon editor (User:72.86.14.105‎) was editing articles for radio stations in the Roanoke, Virginia area. Nasnema reverted a couple of my edit for a station (WXLK) in the Roanoke area. One that I had just edited on. The anon user was having an issue (which I think I cleared up) about a certain station (WLNI), blah blah, long story short, it is the same station Nasnema removed from the WXLK page. If the anon was running the Nasnema account, that could be the connection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked for one day based on the personal attacks. I made the block before I saw Drmies most recent edits, didn't mean to override his judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. Drmies only pawn in game of life. :) Drmies (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • A pawn, eh? I figured you for more of a rook than a pawn. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider extending the block to something much lengthier if he continues to make personal attacks and bad reverts. Shii (tock) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

One day, maybe I'll understand why Admins treat copyright violations more seriously than cases when Editors tell each other to "Fuck off!" A copyright violation can be addressed and changed but you can't take back hostile words that are spoken. It creates an unfriendly environment and can be the beginning of grudges between Editors.
I'm no prude off-line but I know, with certainty, that there are decent Editors who will just leave Wikipedia if someone here told them, out of the blue, to "Fuck off!" They don't view it as salty language, they view it as toxic and unwelcoming.
And, if you don't care about alienating more sensitive or religious Editors, please realize that profanity really undermines Wikipedia's aims to be objective and professional (in the sense of professional standards, not written by professionals). It's a sign of immaturity and I'm sure that's not the image WP is trying to project. </soapbox> Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. But, saying "fuck off" to someone is not a personal attack, and although it creates a toxic environment, it's not immediately blockable. Saying "you're a fucking asshole" is, and is therefore block-worthy ES&L 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the panda say "fuck off and look it up"? To Liz: there are more insidious and serious violations of acceptable behavior than "fuck off" that don't involve a single bad word. Sure, a positive working environment is important, but absence of profanity does not equate to good working environment. I don't know if I'm the admin you're pointing at, but I'll cop to that, at least to some extent. I'm not going to block someone for getting angry once, or even twice. I will block someone for willful disruption, for instance, as a pattern of behavior. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz - A serious enough copyright violation could mean Wikipedia gets shut down = no one edits. Rude behavior = some people don't edit. There are legal issues that require us to treat copyright violations very very seriously and there is little wiggle room. Language, on the other hand, has many different cultural meanings with the 'turn of prases' and 'similies' and 'colloquial expressions' as well as just plain ol' differences in meaning. There are also many linguistic technicalities. As described above, calling someone a name and telling someone to do something, while both using the word "fuck" and both being toxic, are not equal nor treated the same. In short, copyright is a matter of law and language is a matter of culture. That's why one gets treated more seriously than the other.--v/r - TP 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WP is not going to get shut down for a copyright violation -- first of all there's legal harbor provided by DMCA and secondly there's the politics of it -- what company would want the crappy publicity from taking those crazy-write-an-encyclopedia-for-free-Wikipedians to court? Plus, once you get into fair use, the real answer is no one knows until the lawsuit and appeals are over. The real answer is copyright is irrelevant to civility, and the civility problem is, for years, Wikipedia has had some vague notion that we should be civil but no consensus on what that means in practice. The pillar says Editors should treat each other with respect and civility -- which "fuck off" clearly isn't, but if we ban "fuck off", what about "screw off", "go away" ... etc. So, unfortunately the periodic "fuck off" must be tolerated, not because it's appropriate (or necessary or helpful) but the alternative would a a draconian politically correct speech code that folks would game and argue about and be worse than the "fuck off." NE Ent 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As TParis pointed out: it's because copyright violations attract lawyers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate all of your patience and taking the time to address my concerns and explaining why copyright is so much more serious than profanity. I guess I just assumed, as far as images/files go, that there are a lot of unintentional copyright violations because I see warnings about them on almost every User Talk Page I visit (especially new editors). So, I imagine, at any moment in time (past, present and future) there will be some images where the copyright terms weren't set properly (or at all).

So, copyright infringements seem like a frequent and common problem while coarse, aggressive language is actually quite uncommon among registered Editors (in my experience on Wikipedia) and seems limited to a small group of users. I don't see a difference between "Fuck off" and "You're a fucking asshole", they seem equally hostile to me. But those are the kinds of distinction that Admins are called to make, that's why you make the big bucks </irony>.

Sorry for the tangent. I believe you were discussing User:Nasnema before I interrupted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Something has happened and I am not sure what. Is someone able to verify the IP the edits I am supposed to have made came from? I have changed my password now. Nasnema  Chat  10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Obvious sock, needs obvious Block

46.20.98.50 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of MyVoiceIsHeard who is just coming off a block for the exact same edits. Can an admin please step in and block them again? Werieth (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for 60 hours, and MVIH's block extended for an equal period of time. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Werieth (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• 91.232.101.32 (talk · contribs) QUACK again. Werieth (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just semi'd most of this guy's targets. Let me know if any more need to be done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Johnmaroun (talk · contribs) is another, can an admin step in and mass revert/delete please? Werieth (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Help dealing with a new editor from another encyclopedia project with different rules

There is an incident brewing at Patriotic Nigras that needs external help. The article is about a troll/griefer group that engage in shock-related antics like inserting millions of penises into popular online games and similar stunts. The article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion and after the last AfD I went out of my way to clean it up and find appropriate RSes that actually covered the material. The article sat quietly for months until it was discovered by the principal author of the Patriotic Nigras article at Encyclopedia Dramatica. He is now trying to convert the Wikipedia article into the Encyclopedia Dramatica version which includes references to homosexuals as "faggots," furry fans as "furfags" and Muslims as "derkaderps." The editor is working in tandem with a sock- or meatpuppet IP account they are extremely hard to communicate with - usually only using the edit summary to comment along with a reversion back to their unencyclopedic version. I've dealt with problems like this before, but I'm finding this one to be quite difficult to handle.

My first thought was to ask WP:TPP for page protection but the request was denied and it was recommended that I try WP:3RR. At 3RR the page was protected and I was cautioned against edit warring. I've tried removing the offensive content as well as tagging it for cleanup but all of my efforts are reverted. I really don't want to get blocked over this issue and I'm not really interested in getting the Encyclopedia Dramatica editors blocked either, but it's difficult to sit on my hands and allow articles to remain as they are when they refer to Muslims as "derkaderps" and network broadcasters as "media Jews." If these editors have an interest in (and unique insights into) the topic then perhaps they can provide good reliable sources but they need to understand that Wikipedia is not the kind of place where we use racism and homophobia for humorous reasons. At this point these editors view me as the enemy so I need a third party to help talk to them. I've tried starting discussions with them on both user talk pages ([54] and [55]) and the article talk page ([56]) and they are either blanked ([57], [58], [59]) or simply ignored. I warned them that if this kept up I'd try AN/I so here I am now. Again I'm not interested in driving them away. I just want them to understand how Wikipedia works. At this point I think they're just seriously misguided. I don't think they mean harm to the article. If you can't help, please advise me how to proceed. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I've made boomerangs available by accidentally violating 3RR a week or so ago (this was what I was warned for at WP:3RR). Please be gentle. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If these comments are in fact being repeatedly inserted into the article it's IMHO vandalism and should be treated as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You should very much be interested in driving them away, as nobody from Encyclopedia Dramatica is merely "misguided". These people ("EDiots" and "/b/-tards") are malicious, often sociopathic trolls of the sort that we really don't need on the encyclopedia. While I know that it's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, that doesn't apply to people from troll organizations.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems like an overbroad generalization. The reason I started this thread was to get extra attention paid to the events that are unfolding here (hopefully as insurance against sanctions against me) and to get a neutral third party to talk to this editor. I don't think this is textbook vandalism. The information that was added may well be true. The bigotry-and-internet-slang-filled language is clearly inappropriate as are the juvenile attempts at humor. That much is obvious, but this is an editor with fewer than 50 edits under his belt. He is behaving very poorly, but there are signs that he may be willing to abide by the rules. I hadn't noticed this when I posted here first, but he had once redacted several of the most offensive terms in response to my criticism. It wouldn't hurt for a few neutral third parties to contact him and try to set him straight. There is always time to block him if he ignores this as well. -Thibbs (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that nothing was getting accomplished here so I cross-posted to the Teahouse. I'm hoping they will make more of an effort than this board has. If nobody is willing to try to talk to this new editor, then I guess I'll continue restoring the page to the encyclopedic version under the theory that it's vandalism. Does this make sense? Should I still be cautious about 3RR? How should I proceed if problems erupt again? -Thibbs (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment on Turkish people

The article Turkish people has had major problems for awhile now. It is currently under the status of GA and a reassessment page has opened up. Please see the reassessment page here. There's no one in the reassessment page that believes it should remain a GA. The article is too unstable, has too many copyvio violations of photographs and text, a POV tag has been there for weeks, undue weight issues, and claims are not in line with sources. Hence, involved and Uninvolved editors have all expressed their opinion that the content of the article is not in line with GA criteria in the reassessment page. Recently, I removed its GA status along with other subsequent removals in the talk page. Cavann (talk · contribs) has reverted me twice already. There's no rule that says "involved" editors may not delist GA status articles, hence, after reading the regulations over and over again, I proceeded with the action. There needs to be oversight on this. If not, I will have to continue to procedure for the betterment of Wikipedia. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What "Uninvolved editors"? Wizardman expressed concern about remnants of possible plagiarism by a previous editor,[60] which was fixed [61] [62]. The only other uninvolved editor who commented, User:Hchc2009, said he supported a reassessment, not a unilateral revocation.

The GA reassessment was filed during an edit war and some of it consists of personal attacks against me. I do not think it is appropriate an editor such as yourself, who was also heavily involved in the edit war, can revoke the GA status unilaterally. In fact, Proudbolsahye was told that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"(see here). It should also be noted that some of the issues are now in dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people)

Also, what are the "too many copyvio violations of photographs and text"? It does make your unilateral actions more suspect when you come up with outright inaccuracies. Cavann (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the original review(er) ...the topic has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:QatarStarsLeague -- Moxy (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note: "There needs to be oversight on this. If not, I will have to continue to procedure for the betterment of Wikipedia" - actually, you don't; things won't fall to pieces if you step back. And if people are reverting you then declaring an intent to continue regardless could be taken as somewhat WP:POINTy... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, let us not confuse this as though it's just another dispute. This is about fulfilling criteria, it isn't a content dispute. Clearly, the user who reviewed the GA has not reviewed it properly and his history of reviewing GA articles is concerning (see here). The article shouldn't have been in the GAR since the article shouldn't have been a GA in the first place. I feel, along with others, that the GA status needs to be removed ASAP for the mentioned reasons. There's no debate here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If the aritcle "shouldn't have been a GA in the first place", that is exactly what a GAR is for. Repeatedly attempting to strip the GA status yourself instead of waiting for the GAR to conclude, and declaring that you will continue to do so, is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There is no rush, unless it's an absolute emergency, to delist the article - instead allow the process to play out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, as you can see from the link aforementioned by me, the user who reviewed the article under GA criteria did not conduct a review properly (link again). Therefore, the issue is more than just lack of criteria fulfillment, the review in itself is problematic. In fact, the user who reviewed it is now about to be topic-banned. Due to this, the article has now become a haven for edit-warring and POV issues. It has been under article protection twice in the past two weeks. There's reverts happening as we speak. In fact, it could go under article protection again if requested. So yes, this IS an emergency. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not it is not an emergency. The article appears not to have been reviewed properly, but the nominator accepted the review as valid. The nominator has a "history" of such reviews, but also has numerous barnstars and messages of thanks on his talkpages by nominators who "appear to like" such light-weight reviews. A community WP:GAR was opened on this article on 22 September and it is still in progress (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Turkish people/1). A edit war and this incident seems to have be caused by a well-intended bypass of the review / assessment process by an editor unilaterally removing the {{star}} from the article, on I think on 8 October. The article was never "delisted", despite what is being claimed above. There is a process for delisting and that is WP:GAR. Editor Proudbolsahye could have delisted the article by means of a personal GAR, but did not do so; and, as I stated above, there is already a community GAR in progress. Furthermore, I suggested that the reviewer be topic banned yesterday and one other editor has expressed supported, but it is premature to suggest that a topic ban is imminent (I can't impose an topic ban). The proper course is to allow the community GAR to continue: that may well result in a "delisting", but it if the article is not too non-complaint it could result in a "hold" result and if the problems are fixed promptly the article might keep its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk · contribs), thank you for your clarifications. By all means, what I did was not a unilateral act when I acted in accordance to the comments at the GAR. The problem also needs to be clarified. The nominator along with other users have not made a single effort to resolve the issues presented at GAR. The nominator in fact insists on retaining the status quo. In some cases, s/he is in denial that problems in the article exist. For example, s/he claims that there are no copyright photographs when clearly, Gazi Yasargil, a file removed from commons for copyright violations, has been removed (and still is removed) because of that reason. I am then accused of "outright inaccuracies" when mentioning the copyright status of the photographs. This article is getting nowhere fast. I highly suggest outside mediation to resolve the status of GA once and for all. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"By all means, what I did was not a unilateral act when I acted in accordance to the comments at the GAR." - if the GAR was still open, then "short-circuiting" it by going ahead and "delisting" the article is disruptive whether the action is correct or not. If the GAR has closed, WP:SNOW or otherwise, with a result of delist, then delisting is appropriate. If it has not, then it is not, no matter how many editors have urged relisting or how strong their arguments for it are. Allow the discussion to play out instead of being a tiger loose in the zoo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is more problematic because Proudbolsahye almost exclusively edits/adds "Turkey-negative" content such Armenian Genocide related articles, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, etc Wiki checker link. Everybody has their own interests; that is fine obviously. However, it is a matter of concern when POV-pushing and being disruptive becomes a pattern. Articles that are almost exclusively edited by Proudbolsahye, such as Racism and discrimination in Turkey, exemplify this lack of NPOV approach. Almost half of the article is about Armenians, whereas discrimination in Turkey today includes sexism, heterosexism, etc. And there are giant quotes in the lead about the opinions of a person in 1800s (an obvious UNDUE issue).

I should also note that there may be two relevant ARBCOM rulings, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (Balkans), since these are broad rulings and Turkey is in either region. Kevin ^(talk) 00:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)(Cavann, just changed my signature).

If you want to criticize my work on Wikipedia, please feel free to ping me on my talk page or at the talk pages of corresponding articles. As for the GAR, I appealed to this board for a reason. I was hoping that the GAR can also be resolved through the broader participation of admins and other experienced users. It seems to have worked so we'll have to await further action. As for the article, copyrighted material seems to be all over the place. Just recently, another photograph was deleted from the article due to a copyright violation (see here). But this is an issue that must be present at the GAR. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresenting issues is a part of what I consider to be your disruptive pattern. And your response above is just another example of this. That image you linked had a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence in Commons,[63] which turned out to be false. But that hardly means "copyrighted material seems to be all over the place." Kevin ^(talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if it is actually under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" license, you need to find the website that allows you to use the picture under that specific license. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. I didn't put that pic into Commons or into the article. I simply did not remove it cause it had CC license, which turned out false. My problem is with your misrepresentations ("copyrighted material seems to be all over the place"), disruptive pattern (eg: unilaterally removing GA status), edit-warring in this article or other articles, even when your own article, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey -which passed GAR-, was found to contain "extensive close paraphrasing", as pointed by another editor here [64] (and that text was written by you). Kevin ^(talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're saying that the article didn't have any copyright violations when in fact it did, which is only part of the bigger issue. In addition to this, the issues presented in the GAR have not been addressed. Instead, edit-warring has occurred where serious attempts have been made by you to retain the status quo. As a result, the article went into temporary protection twice and a POV tag has been placed. And apart from this, pointing out issues that other articles have, whether they were done by me or other users, will not resolve the issue we have at hand here. Let's not forget that there needs to be serious work done in Turkish people. I hope we can work on this together. The removal of copyrighted material is a good step. Reaching consensus at the talk page should be our main goal. I hope we can sort this out and move forward. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

New user needs some guidance

We have a bit of a problem with new user Purple 16 Worlds creating articles that seem to be nonsense. I am asking for help here as I have to go and dont have time to keep up with all the articles being created nor the time to engage the editor in a proper fashion. -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• He's already been warned several times about creating pages on his homemade comics. People have been plenty polite with him and he hasn't stopped. I've given a level 4 warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Which he has now blanked, along with everything else on his user and talk pages; it frankly looks like a flounce. Also I'm not quite sure what to make of this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, first of all it's not nonsense. It's "original" fiction. Second, they're clearly not here to further anything that we're supposed to be furthering. That they have chosen not to respond to any of the messages means, in my opinion, that they simply don't understand what Wikipedia is and what's going on here. Unless I hear good arguments to the contrary, I am considering indeffing this editor per WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The user's parent(s) responded here. Definitely NOTHERE. Woodroar (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This is definitely someone who should be blocked indefinitely, as they are clearly only here to promote their homemade comics and have zero interest in furthering the encyclopedia.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Purple 16 Worlds has asked a question at the Teahouse which I have answered. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at the links, blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. This clinched it; it's either allowing others to use his account or pretending that they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Passive-Aggressive Harassment from User:Jeremy112233

User being reported

Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jeremy112233 has not only been adding unreferenced tags to every single article I've created (which are stubs that typically consist entirely of plot summaries and films are their own sources), but has now resorted to placing speedy deletion tags for notability on articles for very clearly notable subjects like the Kon Ichikawa film Princess from the Moon. The fact that he referred to the Xbox Live Arcade video game 0-D Beat Drop as a "film" in his tag merely reinforces that he is not even looking at the articles and is doing this maliciously. Why? Because he had previously been blocked for violating 3RR on another article that I created and what he's doing right now is quite obviously a "revenge" move. This kind of behavior is malicious harassment that really shouldn't be tolerated here.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply following protocols. I have spent months patrolling articles and those that are not referenced can be very much improved with the improvement tag stating that the article has not references and that more could improve the article--as I did with the user's prior article that I added references to. But I don't have time to reference all of them. I acquiesce that those that have external links that exhibit media coverage aren't good candidates for deletion as anyone can go on and add the references in those external links to the page. But those with no external links to references or references whatsoever don't show any reason they should be on Wikipedia. Of course, if those speedies are declined after my search into references for each page, then I definitely missed something. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that I was not notified of this on my talk page; but for the notifications that show when my username is mentioned somewhere. Also, no discussion was had with me beforehand regarding my posting of these improvement tags. If the articles need no improvement, I'm happy to hear the reason why the other user believes so. The other user was also blocked in the same incident they are speaking of. I'm not sure why we're here, I'm completely open to speaking to them directly about how to improve their articles or to allow others to do so. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags are for articles that are blatantly non-notable, like someone's personal YouTube account or random fanfiction. Adding a speedy deletion tag for notability to something obviously notable like an Xbox Live Arcade game is extremely reckless and makes it very clear that you are targeting me. You have demonstrated in the past that you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppeting after attempting to have me "investigated" for "sockpuppeting" with IP addresses and are now demonstrating that you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. You are not "following protocols" as I have checked your contributions and you have only done this to articles which I have created. The thought of someone actually digging through my history to get "revenge" on my by placing speedy deletion tags on clearly notable subjects is more than a little creepy and certainly against the spirit of the site.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion articles with no references and, well, no external links showing references do not show notability. Please feel free to add references to any article if they're there, as that would obviously show notability as you believe exists on said articles. I have asked for speedy deletion on dozens of articles you did not create and have placed improvement tags on dozens more. I have simply noticed that you do not cite any references for your articles generally. Any article which does would never be tagged. Any any article that cites articles would obviously not need said improvement. Please don't take this personally! It's merely about the lack of sources in the articles you're talking about.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what, I'll compromise here :) I'll replace the speedies with deletion nominations so that there is more oversight to the process if you believe all are notable. No use in throwing out good work! Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Every article that I created cites other articles and includes external links. For example, the article for that "film" 0-D Beat Drop includes links to Xbox.com, MobyGames, and Metacritic along with mentioning that it was developed by Aksys Games and Arc System Works and released on Xbox Live Arcade. Absolutely nobody who knew what they were doing (and didn't have a vendetta against me) would have added a speedy deletion tag to an article like that. The fact that you nominated it - and several other blatantly notable articles that I created - for speedy deletion proves that you either do not understand the criteria for speedy deletion or are simply doing this to "get back" at me; possibly both.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Links to other Wikipedia articles are not references; those are wikilinks. (And, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if I ask a question ... why are you saying that references are the same thing as wikilinks to other pages? References to third-party articles is not the same thing as un-orphaning your page to other Wikipedia pages, but maybe I misunderstood you? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that wikilinks are not references, but Jeremy here seems to think that they are, so I was merely reassuring him that the articles he so carelessly tagged with speedy deletion requests do, in fact, have wikilinks *and* other relevant links that aren't to Wikipedia articles.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Simply repeat behaviour by the OP. IIRC, they had recently created a horrible, unreferenced stub instead of a userspace draft. I think I either CSD'd or PROD'd it, or tagged it for what it was: unreferenced ... they seemed to be of the bizarre belief that because it existed, or because invisible (i.e. non-existent at the time) references said it was notable, that I - a random person - would know it was notable. I was then accused of being passive-aggressive, and ridiculous bullshit. Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain - they do little but cry wolf, and take offense at their shadow ES&L 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Without having looked too deeply into this, and without bringing motivation into the equation, both of those are pretty terrible speedy delete candidates. One is a Toshiro Mifune movie currently part of the Criterion Collection, while the other is a video game that has apparently has a healthy amount of coverage based on its Metacritic page. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, feature films and commercial video games aren't generally speedy deletion candidates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, neither are speedied--both are AFDed. Regardless, I've heard nothing about the other non-referenced tags I posted, which were the real source of complaint. All seem settled, until somebody complies with protocols and adds actual references. I only AFDed those with no hint whatsoever of sources on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• A Gun for Jennifer made no explicit claim to importance, but Ilsa, the Wicked Warden did: I don't think that this version should have been nominated for speedy deletion. Jeremy, "unreferenced" is not a valid argument. The movie has a notable director and a notable actor in it, apparently. The fourth paragraph of Wikipedia:Speedy deletion urges you to "consider whether it could be improved" (a variety of WP:BEFORE), and I cannot see that you did that: a quick Google Books search (hope you can read this) shows that this is obviously notable. (For all these movies, I hope MichaelQSchmidt comes by quickly.) In other words, you are (or were, in that case at least), much too quick on the draw. That's not harassment, but it is bothersome and it does not improve the project. You should exercise much more caution. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A very valid point. Thank you Drmies for the explanation for that article. Luckily now the article is not speedied, I simply wish to have the debate about non-referenced articles being assumed to be notable without evidence being provided to the average reader. I tend to think of them rather than the more intricate reviewer's perspective. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But that's not protocol you're following. I was looking to see if you kept a CSD log (apparently that's an easy thing to do) so you yourself could see your success rate (there may well be a tool for that also). Besides, no one is saying that unreferenced articles are assumed to be on a notable topic, but we are saying that it's entirely possible that an unreferenced article is on a notable topic. Lack of references is often a giveaway, but before you click the button you should see the content of the article, maybe do a little snooping, and then decide on the basis of that content if CSD is appropriate. Often it is not. I've seen articles with nothing but an infobox, and the infobox made a claim to importance, and for A7 (which is what I assume you were shooting for here, a credible claim of importance is all that is required. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just bear in mind in the future that "unreferenced" is not a speedy deletion criterion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing, but you got it :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not confusing: from the A7 section, which says it in bold: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, GNG only means sources could be found, not that they're used, I get it :) I assume the unreferenced improvement tags for unreferenced pages is still valid though, even though references could exist? Just want to clarify... Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But, finding references and improving the article is better. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, so yes on the improvement tags being valid, and yes on the continuing to improve articles when I have time to do it instead of tag. I still disagree with unreferenced articles being valid additions in late 2013 when almost every actor or director is clamouring to get whatever they can onto this site to improve their next audition, but I don't mind others vehemently disagreeing with that. After all, I vehemently disagree other kinds of articles need to be here where others believe they clearly don't--go judges! Sorry, got a bit off track there... Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It took practically no time to add references to On the Ice and Consuming Spirits. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, if it's both unreferenced (imdb doesn't count as a ref) AND fails to have a credible claim of notability, go ahead and tag it - I know I do. ES&L 09:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ES&L, what do you see as a "a credible claim of notability"? That seems like a subjective judgment and one on which well-intentioned Editors might completely disagree. And,

"The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." WP:NRVE

The guidelines for notability are very fuzzy and I'm sure you could pull out quotes that would contradict the one I just posted. There is plenty of room for debate but, unless it is clearly just junk, it should go to AfD, not CSD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's subjective judgement. "Movie X was the highest-grossing film in Indonesia for the year 2003", even without a source, is at least a potential credible claim of notability. "Movie X is best-known for the number of high school students in Middle-of-nowhere, Idaho who have seen it at least twice" is most definitely not a credible claim of notability - even with a source. Your quote from WP:N is a red-herring - I was quite clear that if it's both unreferenced and with no clear/reasonable assertion of notability, it can and should be CSD'd. There' no editor who should ever press SAVE on a stub without at least 1 incredibly strong source, or 2 medium strength ones. There's a reason why CSD is a 2 step process, typically - the person who sees it as CSD'able, and the admin who reviews it and agrees. ES&L 16:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been considerable debate on A7, but pretty much everyone agrees tha tit is a LOWER bar than notability. That is, there are articles which would be deleted at AfD as non-notable, but which no sensible admin would speedy-delete under A7. A standard I have used is "Any claim or statement which might reasonably be true (even if a bit implausible) and which, if found to be true and if supported by reliable sources, would persuade some significant fraction of commentators at a typical AfD not to delete the article is a claim of significance." DES ^(talk) 21:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A question. Right now the nominator for this ANI is engaged in an edit war on my talk page, trying to force several things on there and reverting my deletions of their efforts. I just want to verify that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to those posting on my talk page, and, what the best thing to do would be--as I really have no interest in escalating this situation if at all possible. It's tough to "discuss it on the talk page" when the talk page is my talk page :) Just a query.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Two administrators have left comments on his talk page about that conduct. So I'd say that yes, WP:BLANKING is a listed exception in WP:3RRNO (#2, edits in your own user space). I'd also say you can safely walk away from that aspect of the situation and leave it to us admins. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, as I said, I have no interest in escalating this and very much appreciate the feedback received above about how to make AFD or CSD tagging decisions in the future. I do take it to heart!Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Despite the possibility of a polite WP:TROUT, and though a simple withdraw would have sufficed, User:Jeremy112233 did grant improvements over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Gun for Jennifer and courteously changed his opinion to keep. While granting that the series of recent nominations may have showed a lack of WP:BEFORE and a possible misunderstanding (or an unknowing) of WP:NRVE, in the AFD lacking anyone else opining a delete and per the equivalence of a withdraw, I closed the AFD as a SNOW keep. I urge Jeremy112233 to study WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE and be just a little slower on the trigger. Not every new article is trash and, if found through a diligent WP:BEFORE, an article's lacking use of available sources does not make an arguably notable topic somehow and automatically in non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Implied legal threat + Trouble at "The Washington Post"; BLP violations

CBernsteinJournalismFoundation (contibs) has made edits to Washington Post related pages. In those edits, they have made reference to federal law violations (specifically 1 and 2). Given how serious WP takes legal threats, I thought it best to report it here. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

first a new editor WWin2013 on Oct 8 started adding long poorly-sourced allegations of illegal behavior against Jeff Bezos recent purchase of the Washington Post. It's based on OR using self-published letters from a losing bidder. Those edits were reverted and now we have a new account that is reposting the same BLP attacks AND suggesting legal action against Wikipedia. The latest edit summary by USER:CBernsteinJournalismFoundation says: "removing factual government reports and/or erasing, attempting to erase, or trying to conceal Whistleblower identifying information such as TCR1379105599018 may violate Federal statue" see this log of his edits Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:EW, WP:NLT - and from the WP:DUCK, WP:SOCK with an apparently WP:MADEUP 'journalism foundation' that from its name adds WP:U (WP:ROLE) to the WP:BINGO. WP:NOTHERE and, therefore, WP:BLOCKED (both of them). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! EEng (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the shortcuts on that page are my favorite thing on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Ansh666 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User 65.24.105.132

Please see Special:Contributions/65.24.105.132, this user has asked 3 different questions (changed and then changed again without stating he/she is changing it) in the last hour on the Humanities Ref Desk, undone 2 hattings for the question and then started using language of Personal Attack and INCIVILITY. I am requesting a block for a period of time to minimize disruption/edit warring and question-answer Gaslighting at the ref desk. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously? Where's the personal attack? Or, why answer a serious (if wordy) question about prostitution with "Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood"? That's misguided, and opening up an ANI thread is...well... Drmies (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• And they're not bragging they found the answer--they announced it as good news. I reverted your blanking of the section: "what have societies done in the past to help combat this issue" was a valid question, and they went to other sources to find the answers. Pity we couldn't help them. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies, I refer you to gaslighting, then more edit abuse/gaslighting. It is acceptable to change the actual question (not add further details but actually change the OP substantially after getting an answer) then boast how "useless" this place is (that would be the personal attack since Wikipedia isn't here w/o us & in this instance myself & another editor attempting to answer a moving question) while you already had the answer?
  • Oh, please don't take me out of context, I provided 2 links to the "useless"(?) wikipedia right after that to support my reply, you already realize that Ref Desks exist to assist the Encyclopedia so a WP:CIVIL discussion on those 2 wikipedia articles is the opposite of misguided. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • (Edit Conflict after Drmies addition) Who said "bragging"? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [65] [this was struck at 10:18 Oct. 9 UTC, reply below was left 5 hours 57 mins after Marketdiamond striking & 10 hours 50 mins after contribution. Note that MarketDiamond did not ghost an edit nor radically change an edit after a user replied directly to that edit & then did not leave comments that might require deletion/hatting]. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You said "boast" and "brag". And am I the only one who finds this answer completely inappropriate? This is before the question was tweaked--but that doesn't affect the answer. Q: "is there anything that people can do to help these girls get better jobs"? A: "Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood." Say what? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yet accept an extremely detailed & ranting question about saving prostitutes (as I accepted it) followed by OP's "useless", "WTF", "You Understand?", "Dude" (thoughts this ANI also initially produced, yet somehow I didn't bring down the conversation with them) all that UNCIVIL & edit tricking is somehow more appropriate than a reply of saving marriages in a concise & Wikilinked manner? I left my views on your activities on this ANI at your talk page & yet "a valid question, and they went to other sources to find the answers. Pity we couldn't help them." ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Unresolved
      see above. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

      The edits you linked are definitely not examples of gaslighting. They could perhaps be gaslighting under very special circumstances that would include unusual, extreme sensitivity by the victim (you?) as well as relevant knowledge on the side of the perpetrator. But you have presented nothing that would suggest such circumstances and they seem extremely unlikely. ANI is the least likely place to help you.

      Lots of people tweak their comments after they made them, for perfectly harmless reasons. I sometimes do this myself, and a former Arbcom member was famous for making people irate by doing it all the time. It's just a bad habit. Hans Adler 06:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

      PS: The user behind the IP has a history of tweaking even other people's comments, even when they clearly didn't want it. That was a serious problem. Now in the first edit you linked they tweaked a question after you answered it, in such a way that your answer was less on-topic. That's still rude and a problem, but does happen occasionally. The usual way of dealing with it is to edit your response. Just add "[Question was edited after this response was given.]" or something similar, and maybe complain on the user's talk page. (Although the latter will probably not be very helpful in this case, based on the user's past performance.) Hans Adler 06:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation on your "PS" contribution Hans Adler, I think that solves it. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have BOLDly removed the entire section from the reference desk, has absiolutely nothing to do with anything Wikipedia related. We do not have the authority/ability to answer those types of questions. GiantSnowman 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the IP ahs a history of asking these kind of broad questions. If you want answers to life, the universe, and everything, simply go to the pub like everybody else. GiantSnowman 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It was no worse than the "discussion" under "Who transforms gold scraps into gold bars, if at all?" or the hypothesizing under "French-Speaking Black/Sub-Saharan African Countries Being More Pro-Homosexuality Than Their (African) Neighbors" or the off-topic bantering under "Shakespeare in French literature". Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the question "what have societies done in the past to help combat [prostitution]" is perfectly suited and answerable on the reference desk (just as any librarian would not hesitate to address it), by citing ample sources on the topic. Yes, the preamble to the question was a distraction and the less than ideal conduct by the IP and some responders contributed to poisoning the well - so I don't object to removing the question now - but the question itself was well within the refdesk's ability. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Abecedare, ample sources were not cited in the responses the user received. And I disagree with your statement that:

"...the question itself was well within the refdesk's ability."

The question was valid for the Reference Desks but I believe, right now, that it went beyond the ability of the well-intentioned Editors manning the Reference Desk's to answer. Like Drmies suggests, the discussions at the Desks are often more "shoot from the hip" than answers a librarian would provide. Check out Why do Jewish people look white? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Which question are you speaking of Liz? The only question to have responses from "well intentioned editors" offered 2 wikilinks that concerned the original question of " is there anything that people can do to help."

Despite assurances by multiple editors that there can't be any 'IP/OP didn't ask that' misunderstandings, the misunderstandings continue. An ANI might be a good place for an editor to share that concern before it gets out of hand with 'ghost diffs' & IP/OP forgetting Refdesk Guidelines. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue (CrossFit) needs review

The entire CrossFit article has been removed and flagged as a copyright violation. The whole article has been down for 11 days at this point without any review. Could an administrator please take a look? The evidence supporting the allegation doesn't seem to hold up, and would only point to one paragraph. No evidence has been provided about the rest of the article. Warpwoof (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold on while I take a look. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked a lot of different pieces of text, as well as reading through the two pages (article, source page) manually, and I can't find any copied text. Have I overlooked something? Should it have been tagged as a copyvio of another page? Some other issue? I'll let AfadsBad, the tagger, know about this; since it's already languished so long, a little more won't hurt, especially if the tagging turns out to be a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Then they've changed the source article (articles as I recall). There is no trick to finding copy vios you know, and five sentences, ten-twenty words, in quotes. Google search = copy vio. And, yes, you corporate sock puppets, I distinguished between your copying your own press releases and materials and the re-release of this corporate crap. As successful as CrossFit is right now, just pay someone to write a decent article instead of throwing up your press releases for free advertising onto Wikipedia. If CrossFit has print materials, this crap will still be a copy vio, though. The article needs gutted, and CrossFit needs to find a member who can write a Wikipedia articlle.

But, I thank you for posting here, and I would like this to just stay open to not be archived soon to get as many eyes on the problem as possible. These articles where you have corporations creating sock puppets to throw up press releases onto Wikipedia need many eyes on them to convince the corporations that the millions of useful Wikipedia articles came about because of so many competent editors and admistrator assistants. Sock it to us! --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

• I think what's getting confused is backwards copying from wikipedia for "press releases" or the "re-release of this corporate crap." If it was copied, where is the original source, and did it exist prior to the Wikipedia article? AfadsBad does not seem amenable to a discussion on the issue... AfadsBad edited my ANI title from "Copyright issue needs review" to "Copyright issue needs review CrossFit sock army." Warpwoof (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, yes, I did; a bunch of single purpose accounts all in an uproar about an obvious copyright violation? The entire article is written as one really bad press release. Go ahead and change it to meat puppets if it is more than one of you. And stop posting CrossFit press releases to Wikipedia. They sound just like what they are: advertising for CrossFit. You think no one at Wikipedia has ever read a press release? Read WP:COI and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, especially the last part about objective and neutral style. You are not the first company in all the years of Wikipedia that has tried this. I have only been editing for a short time, and this idea from companies that they will sneak in an article and advertise and promote their company on Wikipedia and no one will ever suspect them is just weird. It's all over Wikipedia, companies coming here with their sock puppet army and creating a press release on Wikipedia full of dozens of links back to their website. Hire someone! I rewrote the article, you can pay me! --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

• And I have changed the title back to OP's original title. AfadsBad, you don't get to change headings except for clarification purposes, and "sock army" smacks of bad faith. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not engaging AfadsBad on this issue. I would just like some experienced administrators to review it. One person has effectively deleted an article without discussion for nearly 2 weeks. Warpwoof (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is how Wikipedia handles copyright violations. If you want an article on Wikipedia, stop using your promotional materials to create what sounds like a badly written corporate press release. No administrators can override copyrighted material. You can also, as an alternative, release the material to the public domain. By the way, putting it on Wikipedia does give it a copyright that allows others to use it, and, if this is CrossFit's intention, that can be done also. I do want lots of experience administrators to watch the article and the army of SPAs adding cruft to it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

I concur with Nyttend. I'm an experienced copyright clerk as well as an admin myself, and found no copyright violations, other than one paragraph, which I removed. User:AfadsBad put the copyvio back in in their haste to re-tag the article as a copyvio and hide it from view. In my opinion, AfadsBad has reached the stage of disrupting the project to make a point, and I suggest they find another article to worry about. —Darkwind (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Way to ignore the rewrite, ignore the copied phrases throughout the article, lie that I restored anything, accuse me bad faithily of "hiding the article from view," and then, on your talk page, point out that since you and Nyttend are admins, that means I'm wrong! No, this is copied from CrossFit press releases; the same ones they use in their magazines and their youtube videos. I rewrote it. You ignored the rewrite. And, no, guess what, just because you are an admin, doesn't mean your opinion on content to support a plea from a COI/SPA doesn't count more than another editor's. "TWO DIFFERENT ADMINS have told you the article is clean of copyvio, and you still restored the tag." All caps screaming in the original, bold added. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Have you considered that your friend's plagerism detector is probably hitting on Wikipedia itself or one of its billions of mirrors? I've run random sentences through Google searches and checked numerous results, there is no copyright violation here. These sites have, if anything, violated Wikipedia's content license by using our material without attribution. This can be proven by using Wikipedia's reversion history search. Your concern was noted, it's been investigated, found to not be substantial, corrected, and dismissed. We acknowledge your concern is good, but your behavior has been disruptive. I'm giving you one chance here, do not revert on that article again or you'll be blocked for disruptive editing.--v/r - TP 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you looked at the talk page, I explained that I got dates hits from before the phrases were inserted into the article. I have _not_ been revert warring; I reverted once and requested a talk page discussion, so, what exactly are you talking about, not revert again? Or is this just lame-ass defense of other admins, Darkwind who YELLED at me that TWO ADMINS trumps in a content dispute? Do not revert again? Do not be a Wikipedian because AN ADMIN has already yelled at me? WTF? --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

As I said, your intentions are good, but your behavior is not. You've been entirely combative with editors here and have thrown around a lot of bad faith. You reverted an editor (sysop or not isn't important) who has experience with CCI and determined no violation. As you've not offered to clear it yourself, he's done the legwork and you reverted him. You're being thanked for being cognizant of copyright violations, but you're also being asked to step away from this particular one.--v/r - TP 21:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft in addition. There are also a lot of BLPs of "CrossFit athletes" sourced only to crossfit.com and blogs. BLPs should not be used to promote a company, either, and these may require prodding after removing all non-reliable sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Vandalism on school article

Be aware of this vandalism that seems to be ongoing. Unfortunately, I haven't so far managed to find out exactly which article this vandalism is being done to, but keep an eye open for yellow grapes... Blue Elf (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not just one article, see [66]. I've posted to her website asking advice on stopping vandalism from schools and suggesting these webpages are likely to get schools blocked. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone with a database dump (or direct DB access) want to search for "mascot*=*grape*" (in your favorite regexp language)? DMacks (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

accounts exclusively (ab)used for self-promotion and likely sock-puppeting

Since its creation on July 1st, the account Anny Kusuma (talk · contribs) has been used exclusively to edit its own userpage and to plaster it with portrait images, most of which have been photoshopped to show all the same person and many of which are also copyviolating derivatives. Yesterday, likely the same person has created the obvious sock-puppet account Anny Kusuma kj (talk · contribs), which displays the same behaviour; see userpage User:Anny Kusuma kj. I recommend to indef-block both accounts, as they are evidently not here to do encyclopedic work. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Some minutes ago a third account was created Anny kusuma justmin (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed all three accounts. Túrelio, you may also want to file a mass deletion request for the obviously useless personal photos at Commons, e.g. File:Anny Kusuma Germany.2.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, will do. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUND, Imported conflict.

After a disagreement on the dutch wiki, User:Jeff5102 did me the honour of closely scrutenizing many contributions I've made on en.wiki. This is not a problem, as far as i'm concerned, were it not that a) he's importing a conflict and translating that into hounding and b) he's deleting valuable material from some pages (such as Drachenfels (Siebengebirge), translated from de.wiki and marked as such), re-adding nonsense i've deleted in others (Distinction of blue and green in various languages) and taking care to delete even tiny contributions such as this (me)-(Jeff5102) (IJ (digraph)). I have no desire to engage in edit wars, but he's quite prominent on my watchlist, so i'll ask the community to look into it. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not hounding. I'm just checking Kleuske's edits. When they are badly referenced (see WP:PROVEIT), I just say so or I delete them when they have few added value to the article AND I improved the references when present (which were deleted by Kleuske again). That is not hounding. That is improving Wikipedia. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: for the same reason I am checking the edits made by SamLowenstein (talk • contribs at the moment.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is customary required to notify that user. I've done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As to the 'improved reference' above: The source states that the "color" mentioned is "nondescript, usually ugly" instead of "Turquoise" as claimed. Removed again for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong on that one. It says: "nondescript color, usually ugly; also blue-green, so turqoise and petrol-green." Thus, your reason for making that removal was invalid. By the way, I am unaware of a rule that translated articles are not committed to the WP:RS-rule (as you implied here by removing that banner). If so, then I made a mistake, but I believe it is doubtful if such a rule exists. Even more, WP:RFT didn't mention anything about that. So again, I sincerely believe that I did the right thing by placing a REFIMPROVE-banner. Regards,11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources are to be found on the german wiki. My source for the translation is the german wiki, as mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Other wikipedia versions are not reliable sources. You'd need to link to the actual source ES&L 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see to it. Kleuske (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jeff5102, please ignore this user and their contributions. Somebody else who has no history of conflict with the user will check their contributions and take any appropriate actions. Do you agree, or will I need to scrutinize this more closely and possibly formalize a ban? Jehochman ^Talk 12:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a question: Jehochan, will you do it, or appoint someone to check the edits properly? Like I said, there are serious WP:RS-issues out there.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There are many editors of Wikipedia. If this one makes bad edits, somebody besides you will surely notice and report it. If you become extremely concerned about an edit, feel free to report it on the appropriate noticeboard with a neutral summary and diffs, and let somebody else decide what to do. Don't follow this editor around and create the appearance of harassment. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally canvassing this issue. [67]. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

D*mn! Just when I thought we were getting close to solve the conflict, Kleuske tries to stirr it up again. My message to Richardw was a limited posting (only one), it was written in a neutral tone, while Richard is (as far as I know) nonpartisan and my message to him happened in the open. I know Richard from a separated edit dispute on the Dutch Wiki, but you weren't involved in that one, Kleuske. Thus, my request from me to Richard "to look here" (what was all I asked him) was appropriate. Please remember WP:FAITH, will you? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeff5102, you don't need to respond to every post. This just creates a battle. Let it. Move on. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeff asked me to look and I have done so. I am not, and will not be, involved in this dispute. Richard 09:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring and ownership issues by User:Takaisi

I've come here to seek help in dealing with continuing problems of edit-warring and a total reluctance (inability?) to communicate by Takaisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The problems do seem to stem from an ability to communicate in English, but as efforts by myself and other editors to urge the user to join in discussions have all been ignored, we seem to be faced with a WP:COMPETENCE problem that is impeding work to improve articles.

Going into the specifics of just one recent case, about a month ago, one of many stub articles created by User:Takaisi, Nara Medical University College of Nursing, was considered to have insufficient notability and sourcing to justify its existence as a self-standing article, and so a merge discussion was started (here) to discuss moving the small amount of content into the Nara Medical University parent article. Three editors, including myself, all agreed that a merge was the best course of action, although the article creator himself unfortunately did not participate, despite being invited to join in (diff). After exactly one month, as no one had contested the proposal, the editor that had proposed the merge went ahead and merged the stub article leaving a redirect. Fine, so far. But then yesterday, User:Takaisi came along and restored the article, replacing the redirect without any comment (diff). I reverted this, and left an explanatory note (not a boilerplate template warning) on his talk page (diff), as it was clearly going against the consensus that had previously been reached, but the editor again reverted, again with no edit summary or comment (diff). So my question is: what are other editors supposed to do next? If I were to revert this again, it would just be edit-warring, but it doesn't seem right that someone can just charge in and overturn the result of a full discussion without any comment or explanation. As mentioned above, the editor has so far been unwilling or unable to communicate, so that doesn't appear to be a valid option, so where should I take this next? Should it be taken to the Edit Warring notice board, even though the editor has not actually broken the 3RR rule? --DAJF (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this require action?

are the edit summaries by

• 116.14.148.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of the level that require admin action?

note that the user is dynamic and also running the same line of comments via

• 116.14.146.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and

• 219.75.50.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (where they were blocked.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Revdeled and blocked both IPs. User:Antandrus observation #37 applies. Toddst1 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

and now they are back as 121.6.183.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I just checked this diff, and I'm confused: all the IP did was to change "JOnes" to "Jones", the only offensive thing was the edit summary, and Toddst1 removed the summary but not the text. I can see the change, but only because I'm an admin. Why does the software require admin tools to see the diff? Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the text of the edit was removed GiantSnowman 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I intended and I don't think that's what I did:

(del/undel) 12:06, 9 October 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom: edit summary hidden (RD2: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy) (diff | more...)}} 

Could an outside party take a look at the Talk:Alex Jones and see if it would be appropriate to speedy archive off the talk page (or maybe even just delete) as very unrelated to improving the article and merely creating a more toxic environment.

• Talk:Alex_Jones#Red_Pen_of_Doom.2C_why_do_you_say_that_Bob_Cesca_is_not_a_political_writer
• Talk:Alex_Jones#Request_of_neutral_mod_to_investigate_whether_Red_Pen_of_Doom_is_biased.

and this section too appears to have run its course and is no longer actually about what sources and content should be used for the article.

• Talk:Alex_Jones#descriptions_of_Alex_Jones

Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This diff is hidden to non-admins because the old revision has its text hidden. (Also, that revdel was incomplete, since this permalink shows the revdel'd contents. I explained the problem with revdel a while back to another admin. The problem is that it hides permalinks and not diffs, which often leads to unexpected behavior, as happened here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Duck sock

• 122.163.247.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Has signed their recent comments "PrakharVeedang",

• Prakharveedang (talk · contribs)

Part of the meat/sock puppets blocked under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution/Archive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

- That was on behalf of PrakharVeedang . He is is US and can't excess wiki at present . I'm his brother . Why would i write a note using my IP if i have an account . If i was prakharveedang , i would have loged into my account and left a message no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.247.88 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're a WP:MEATPUPPET rather than a sock - still blockable, which I have done. GiantSnowman 14:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories - Rupert Sheldrake

A fringe theorist, Craig Weiler (talk · contribs), has posted a conspiracy theory about the Rupert Sheldrake article on his blog [68]. This has attracted the article subject themselves [69] and some adherents who have joined the discussion. The editor Tumbleman (talk · contribs), who is mentioned as being supportive in the blog, had a message on his page about how he was trolling [70] which he has since removed, and has helped stoke this incident. Some attention on the article talk page from admins would be helpful to stop the conspiracy-mongering, trolling etc would be welcome. Note that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Fringe_squared:_fringe_theories_about_Wikipedia.27s_treatment_of_fringe_theories and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Fringe_theorists_on_the_Rupert_Sheldrake for more context, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not much of a conspiracy theory - it's actually based on the editors behaviors and agenda on the page. I think the reason editors are assuming that vzaak and others are apart of the GSM is because they appear to be editing with the exact same agenda as the GSM. It appears to many to be that the skeptical POV is more important than the NPOV, and that's a reasonable concern. Plus, clearly all the editors in question co-ordinate together like can be evidenced here. That the fact that the GSM is on wikipedia is of course not a conspiracy, they are quite open about it. So it's a reasonable association.

The GSM is not the problem with this editor, and this editor has no ideological agenda. what is the problem is when editors appear to edit a page, wiki lawyer WP policy to support a Skeptical POV above all else, avoid reaching consensus, avoid direct questions, bully and intimidate editors, and most importantly, absolutely fail to deliver verifiable sources based on facts and use personal opinions as reasoned arguments on a BLP. As for conspiracy theories, I would check this talk discussion and references to myself as a 'troll with a social media experiment who fosters global disturbance as his goal' as a good candidate for a proper debunking. Always a good policy to be skeptical about our own ridiculous ideas just as much as we are skeptical about anyone else's. Work reasonably here guys, I just want facts and reasoned arguments - if your not GSM, none of you seem to be contributing to the spirit of WP on that page regardless and if you are GSM, you're really making them look bad. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A careful review of all edits, including mine, to this article over the past month is in order. The level of incivility and unwillingness to collaborate is dreadful. Absolutism in championing WP:FRINGE over any application of WP:BLP. Absolutism in championing WP:BLP over any application WP:FRINGE. Denial that WP:FRINGE applies at all. There's bad behavior all around, although careful review will reveal that some have been worse actors than others. The Craig Weller stuff is just a sideshow. There's worse stuff here, predating the Weiller blogpost. A freeze may be in order, because things are degenerating. David in DC (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Tumbleman's complaint seems to be that a group of editors are editing the Rupert Sheldrake article in violation of WP:NPOV. Will you (or anyone) give diffs that show examples of these edits? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing at time. OK. That'll take some work, and multiple edits. To avoid edit conflicts, I'll be working piecemeal, over a bit of time. Let's start with the erroneous claim that Tumbleman has deleted the statements Wolfie complains of. Wolfie is wrong. I'm the one who berated Tumbleman about them. To see the whole exchange, see here, here, here and here. David in DC (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but those appear to be diffs of Talk and User page discussion. Are there diffs that show edits to the article itself that violate policy (WP:NPOV or other policies)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Now some diffs from a group of editors working from the POV that BLP is far less important than WP:FRINGE when dealing with a living person they view as a fringe theorist. Here are some admirably honest expression of this POV from the talk page. After a rest from this truly dispiriting review,, I'll put up some diffs from the article. But in truth, after reading these declarations, most any set of revert/re-reverts you see in the article history will suffice: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], An attempt to start anew, [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92].

As it happens, the most recent edits to the article are a microcosm of the sorts of edits in question. They clear elevate FRINGE over BLP. [93] David in DC (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are of the opinion that well sourced criticism should not be included often in BLPs, very good, but don't expect many others to agree with removing well sourced criticisms of fringe views just because it is a BLP, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that well-sourced criticism of fringe theories should be included in articles about fringe theories, without regard to WP:BLP. I am also of the opinion that well-sourced criticism of fringe theories should be handled with regard to WP:BLP (and WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV) in articles about living people. WP:FRINGE is not license to turn a BLP into an WP:ATTACK piece. There is a difference between the way good wikipedia editors handle fringe theories and the way they handle fringe theorists. It requires keener, more nuanced editorial judgment and good-faith collaboration. It is not a good area in which to apply binary, black/white, toggle-switch judgment. Living people are special. They are different. The editing of articles about them is rarely enhanced by the zealotry.

Mind-reading is psuedo-science. So any sentence that starts with "You are of the opinion..." is suspect. Doubly so when what follows is inaccurate. Triply so when the two parties have engaged in this conversation before. "You are of the opinion that well sourced criticism should not be included often in BLPs...." is false. Whether the mis-statement is intentional or negligent, I cannot know. Assuming good faith, it's negligent. Please take special care to avoid such negligence in characterizing my arguments in the future. Assumptions are, eventually, rebuttable. David in DC (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe they know what your opinions are via mind reading??? EEng (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I know what his opinions are because he keeps telling everyone them. When someone says "in my view" one expects what they say is in fact in their view. "At some point, and in my view the Null article as I first found it had reached and exceeded that point, the "piling on" of sourced derogatory information turns a BLP into an WP:ATTACK piece." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive185#Further_discussion_on_the_Gary_Null_talkpage. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Humorless people are so very tiresome. EEng (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"You are of the opinion that well sourced criticism should not be included often in BLPs..." is not an accurate restatement of the prior statement you've now provided. I'll try one last time and then give up on explaining. In a BLP, the sourced derogatory information should be carefully calibrated, so as not to turn a biography into an indictment. This does not mean it should be left out often. Rather, it means it should be included judiciously, with BLP in mind. BLP and FRINGE are in tension on biographies of living fringe theorists. There is more leeway to pile up the derogatory sourced info on a page about fringe theories than on one about living FRINGE theorists.David in DC (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so this is a Talk Page dispute rather than any policy violations to the article itself, and in any case, Talk page discussion is not subject to WP:NPOV. From what I see, there is a large amount of disruption, personal attacks, accusations of conspiracy, WP:MEAT, and some baiting that is ongoing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Please re-read the sentence introducing the diffs and the edit summary for introduction of the diffs.David in DC (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, back to diffs in answer to Louie's request for diffs showing "...that a group of editors are editing the Rupert Sheldrake article in violation of WP:NPOV." The POV here is a disregard for WP:BLP or elevation of WP:FRINGE over WP:BLP not in line with policy: [94], [95], [96], (conscientious editer reverting POV edit, [97], [98], [99], [100] and where edit protection was added, for darned good reason. After protection, the behaviour gets a bit better, but the see-sawing continues and the talk page starts really exposing the POV in question. I AM NOT opposed to WP:FRINGE. But the overwhelming sense that one gets reading through these diffs, and the talk page ones, is that a lot of skeptics are treating fringe theorists as if they are beneath the protection WP:BLP should be affording them. This POV is detrimental to the project we all hold dear. David in DC (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling me a "Fringe Theorist" is completely over the top. This isn't some vague conspiracy. The Guerrilla Skepticism Organization is quite real. They have a website: Guerrilla Skepticism. They have a training/recruiting video. In the video they lay out their tactics and provide examples of sites that they've targeted. They claim to have 90 editors working in 17 languages. They are doing this in direct violation of Wikipedia policy.

They have the support of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, (here) a national organization, and JREF, also a national organization. (here). As far as Sheldrake's bio, there is clear evidence of a skeptical attack on his page. I have these sources in my blog post on the subject. It would be amazing if they DIDN'T target Sheldrake's bio.Craig Weiler (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@David in DC, you suggest that Absolutism in championing WP:BLP over any application WP:FRINGE. Denial that WP:FRINGE applies at all as a problem on the board that needs review. Indeed it does. This isn't a fair review of the arguments and perhaps a little misleading to someone who has to read this for ANI.

My specific argument, which actually is more of a question which the title of my Sheldrake's talk sections clearly shows, was proper sourcing and references to support a WP:FRINGE/PS application in a way that harms a NPOV on a BLP. Editors were sourcing opinions and original research to justify editing the page to a skeptical POV, which to this editor not only appears as a clear violation of WP:NOT, it's also just sloppy referencing. I asked this numerous times in TALK directly to a few editors. It was never addressed, the question was either avoided or reasoned discussion for a rational consensus was. All this editor got in return was having his user page under scrutiny, having editors post my IP address and personal information about me, calling me a troll because of some link they have from 2005, etc etc in some sort of bizarre wikilawyered ad hom to my questions. I could have brought this into ANI weeks ago, however I choose to make my case in talk using sourced references and reasoned arguments, to build a new consensus. I have not even edited the page yet!

When my questions were addressed with a reference, the references were poorly sourced, showed evidence of OR to this editor, personal interpretations, etc etc. Honestly to me it looked like a team of editors with an agenda stacked a 'house of cards' case to support the viewpoint they wanted on the page and when reasonably challenged, they resorted to what you are reading right now, this is the third attempt to get me banned from the page and to this editor it just looks like this is the last resort they have to maintain using horrible sourcing to support their POV.

The talk section in exchange with this editor clearly reflects this and I invite ANI to review talk sections 'Request for a new consensus', 'SHeldrake is a parapsychologist, references?', 'is WP:FRINGE being applied unnecessarily to Sheldrake's page?' and 'new edit'. Or any other section. I made a very sincere commitment to make this page better under the guidelines and spirit of WP, so I trust my integrity with my work here so far.

IRWolfie-, I think it's fair to say that this case you are making here is not a real problem and is serving more like a strawman or a ruse to avoid a new consensus. What IS a real problem is there is NOT a rational consensus amongst editors regarding sourcing and reasoned arguments. I still don't see how this action will help build consensus on the page. That's what we are supposed to do to make the page better. I think a review of the edits is in order as well. (I personally have not made any edits to the page, except one minor one more than 30 days ago that I also retracted because I was mistaken about the source. But more in order is a review of the behaviors on the talk page.

Also, it's absolutely fair to say that working with David in DC on this issue on the board is workable, I do think his intentions as an editor are genuine and I hold him exempt from the behaviors on the board. There is no reason why he and I cannot find or build a rational consensus together.

So, we can try this again? If I am such the problem that this crowd is claiming, wouldnt it be more in the spirit of consensus and WP to actually engage in reasoned arguments with an editor with a genuine concern of violations of BLP and WP at large? I think your case will be better made for ANI if you simply respond to my reasoned and good spirited questioning instead of trying to get me banned off the page for something you don't understand that happened in 2005 just looks like I am getting WP:HOUNDED and I welcome a review but prefer a consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A certain group of editors, has taken objection to WP:FRINGE applying to the article and want a less critical explanation, which the sources don't support. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney It's true Barney that your sources do not support what I have challenged, that is the problem, your sources are not even supporting what you're challenging either. I think it's more productive to explain with some consistency on the talk page instead of wasting some WP admin's time to support some ideological edit war. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: (1) "Fringe theorist" is a pejorative term, and I don't think you should be calling a fellow editor one, in contravention of WP:CIVIL. (2) You also appear to have retrieved personal information, allegedly from his own blog, in contravention of WP:PRIVACY --Iantresman (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ian, Craig has commented about his blog himself. Where are you going with that? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fringe theorist" is an insult, but I've taken so much abuse by skeptics over the years that it hardly matters to me anymore. IRWolfie is right about my blog. I've mentioned it myself. It's fair game.Craig Weiler (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the blog, with apologies to IRWolfie- --Iantresman (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie I am not sure your role here, but you appear to take a reasonable concern. YES there is a violation of NPOV on the lead section of the page. The reason the TALK section is relevant to the NPOV on the page is because there is commentary like this below is being used to support editing decisions with horrible sourcing: Quote below -

I think we need to find a way to fit the sentence "Sheldrakes ideas are regarded as batshit insane by most scientists" into the lede somewhere. All the scientists I know believe this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that acceptable around here? Is it consensus building to have a page controlled by 4 or 5 editors who share a bias and a agenda to promote a skeptical POV over a NPOV? And then to provide no appropriate sourcing or bully other editors off the page? Does that foster consensus? ever? This is not REDDIT, right? The people who participate in reasoned arguments with commentary like this are the ones that want to get me banned from the page and refuse to engage me because I am 'trolling'. oh the irony is not lost on me either. The Tumbleman (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My "role" is merely as an editor. I have been around here a while and have in the past seen a number of episodes very similar to this one occur at articles dealing with fringe topics. Prolonged talk page strife accompanied by huge walls of text containing radically differing interpretations of policy, strident accusations of bias and censorship, and massive incivility and insults peppered with repeated declarations of personal neutrality. This is usually followed by a period of frantic editing of the article from all sides, resulting in a very ugly POV quilt of tortured sentences and awkwardly constructed sections featuring the mainstream view rebutted by fringe view rebutted by mainstream view, etc. Several people get dragged to AN/I and perhaps one or two highly emotional arbitrations ensue. Editors on both sides of the conflict are sanctioned, a few people quit or get banned, and everyone's left exhausted and drained. The article remains ugly and unreadable for some period of time, be it months, or even years. Eventually new editors without any old scores to settle come along and work quietly together to straighten out the mess. So forgive me for not joining the party. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

All the scientist you know, are not most scientists, and your tone is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It is not disputed that Sheldrake has received criticisms. --Iantresman (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask that if User:Iantresman wants to comment on a post I made on the Sheldrake Talk Page (which he has every right to do), he should do it there, rather than in the middle of somebody else's post here. Isn't it bad form to split a comment in two halves that way? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 12:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise that your comment in bold, was a quote. My apologies for posting in the middle Tumbleman's post. --Iantresman (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem Iantresman - I just wanted to make it clear that I did not post that on this page, and that it is here out of context --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Confirming that Roxy the dog did NOT post this quote here, he posted it on the TALK page on Sheldrake. I just fixed the placement of Iantresman's comment and moved it under mine for clarity. However, this quote DOES have context here because I am addressing the clear bias of editors on the page whom are making editorial decisions, changes, and refusing to engage in a rational consensus. I am showing that my reactions and work as a WP editor on this page are not based on some crazy conspiracy theory or some need to let the world know my dog knows when I am coming home, but to confront a very serious problem happening on the page that is based on editors decisions and behaviors and putting WP in a conflict of interest on a BLP. Real Problem. Reasonable Concern. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

I've had a look through the talk page and a brief look through the history. There seems to be a few things here. Firstly, I think calls to topic ban User:Tumbleman over on WP:FTN are jumping the gun. It's my impression from the talk page that though some editors might be motivated by the blog posts put out by Sheldrake supporters, we should give them a fair hearing on BLP-related claims. The way to do that is to have some uninvolved editors from outside the circle of people who care about psi to have a look. There has been a bit of back and forth on the lede today on the article.

Now, the problem I'm seeing is the accusations and counter-accusations regarding membership in Guerilla Skeptics. I've known User:Sgerbic for a while and covered the forming of the Guerilla Skeptics for The Signpost back when I wrote for it. They do some good work, and they are a lot less scary than their rather combative name suggests. On the Sheldrake talk page, there are accusations flying back and forth of people being members of the Guerilla Skeptics or not and lots of huff and puff about this. This is unhelpful, and I think further speculation on Wikipedia talk pages as to whether or not people are part of Guerilla Skeptics is unhelpful. Play the ball not the man, as the saying goes.

My suggestion is this: an uninvolved admin goes through the talk page and hatnotes or removes personal attacks and sniping about who is or isn't a Sheldrake supporter or a Guerilla Skeptic. Give people a few days to carry on discussing and if things continue to be unproductive, then we can try fully protecting the article and trying a more formal approach to dealing with the suggested changes that people want to make: some kind of mini-RfC. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tom Morris, thanks for giving this a review. Just a few things for clarification

1.) I am not interested in promoting Sheldrakes theories, I am not a proponent of PSI. I am personally fascinated by Sheldrake philosophically, especially the history of the controversy, but that's because I love philosophy, not psychic pets. So I am truly agnostic when it comes to his research. I'm only promoting agnosticism :) Thanks for removing me from the 'fringe' claim - that would be really weird to apply that to me. Words like FRINGE and PSEUDOSCIENCE are being used as 'weasel words' on the page in a way that is really out of step with a purely NPOV.

2.)I am active on the page to promote a NPOV. Collective editing and building consensus is a big part of my life (I work in media and technology and am developing consensus based platforms). That's the only view I am interested in in this debate.

3.)I'm not sure I share you viewpoint regarding GSM, or at least 'GSM' type editing. Maybe I misunderstand you but are you suggesting that the Skeptical Point of View is primary OVER a Neutral Point of View? Because that is the problem I am encountering in the talk section, that skeptical opinions are being used to support violations of BLP in a way to demean a living person. <<<<< That - that's what irks me regardless of who it is, it turns WP into some kind of grudge and vendetta machine and that is quite harmful to any collective editing platform but more importantly an actual person. None of their edits seem interested in NPOV, they all seem interested in editing the page from the POV of making sheldrake look like a flake because that literally is what skeptics think of him. Is that what we are here to do? No GROUPTHINK on Wikipedia, please. if consensus is not rational, it's not consensus, it's groupthink.The Tumbleman (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom Morris, No one has been accused of being a member of the Guerrilla Skeptics. I have stated this explicitly on the talk page. The Tumbleman asked Vzaak and Barney whether they were members, but did not accuse them. There are no accusations and counter accusations. I don't know where you're getting that from but it is a complete misrepresentation of the discussion and I ask that you retract it.

I'm not sure why you think it's ok to have an ideologically motivated organization running amok on Wikipedia, but this is very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility.Craig Weiler (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Craig on your blog post [101] you wrote regarding the Guerrilla Skeptics "Since June, they have gone on the attack to seriously change Rupert’s Bio." It's true you have not directly accused anyone of being part of the Guerrilla Skeptics group on Wikipedia but you have made it clear in your posts that you believe a Guerrilla skeptic group are "attacking" Sheldrake's Wikipedia article. I have called you out on this twice, but you still list no names of these editors or any evidence. As I wrote already you are confused on this issue. The owner of the Guerrilla skeptics is Sgerbic (talk · contribs) but she appears to be currently inactive on Wikipedia, you keep saying she is breaking Wikipedia policies but she isn't. Wikipedia does not promote pseudoscience Craig, you seem to fail to understand this. Please check the edit history of the Sheldrake article and you would find that Sgerbic has not edited the article at all. You have spread disinformation about this user and her group, and really you should apologize (you have mislead Sheldrake himself with your conspiracy theory and disinformation).

BTW you also say above "No one has been accused of being a member of the Guerrilla Skeptics" but this isn't true because the user Tumbleman (talk · contribs) has accused myself and many other users on the Sheldrake talk page as being members (none of us are) but he continues to throw around those accusations (easy to find evidence of that). You have also been posting on forums stirring this issue up and asking other paranormal believers to help you edit the Sheldrake article and promoting conspiracy theories that Wikipedia is run by "materialists" [102], [103] and on this forum here you talk about setting up some kind of petition against Wikipedia [104]. Do you think your behavior is acceptable Craig? It seems you have a long history of stirring up trouble on the internet and trolling [105]. I believe you only joined Wikipedia to stir up trouble, nothing you have said is productive or has anything to do with improving the Sheldrake article. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So what? Dan skeptic I admit that I have been public about being *suspicious* that specific editors are working the agenda of the GSM and their leader SGerbic, but on their talk pages because they are co-ordinating on their talk pages about how to deal with the 'tumbleman' problem. Dan Skeptic's agenda is the same agenda as GSM, who cares if he is a card carrying member or not? I refer to the position of GSM editors on the page because it's the actual agenda of these editors on the page, voiced in their own words. Sorry, blame GSM for branding the style and creating the copy cats, not me. I am concerned that an ideological group, or individual, has an outside agenda other than make the page better and more neutral. I am questioning the actual agenda of those editors based on their behaviors on the page, not some ideology i have or they have. I WANT the skeptical POV on the page too, it's necessary. It just can't become the mainstream view of WP and dominate everything else. We can't have four or five of these editors on any page and control it and avoid consensus, it's going to destroy WP eventually. If this is the direction WP is going in, I'm out.

Maybe an admin or Tom Morris or SGerbic can clarify WP guidelines to me. It seems that any editor, or group, that has a direct agenda to make sure the Skeptical POV is represented on Wikipedia as their modus operandi is a violation of WP:NOT and is a conflict of interest with a NPOV. This is ok with WP? really? The Tumbleman (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is very simple: if there are people who are acting problematically, it doesn't matter whether they are affiliated with the Guerilla Skeptics. If there are particular editors with issues, let's discuss those. If appropriate, blocks or topic bans etc. can be doled out. If there aren't behavioural problems, speculation as to whether or not users are affiliated with some group of editors—or speculation about their motives—is unhelpful and serves only to distract editors from trying to find consensus on the talk page. My suggestion was simply that: we clear the behavioural back-and-forth off the talk page and invite wider participation from the Wikipedia community on the content changes. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman you have admitted you have no problem with some skeptical sources on the article (this is good) but then you want to make it "neutral" by adding fringe sources as well to giving Sheldrake a "fair unbiased" hearing. This doesn't work because the majority of sources criticize Sheldrake's ideas as pseudoscience, it is not possible for an entirely "neutral" balance when it comes to fringe and pseudoscience topics because the scientific community reject them. I have not come across a single scientific reference that has supported Sheldrake's work, only parapsychologists and fringe proponents do. It's dangerous to be promoting pseudoscience, and it has no place on Wikipedia which receives millions of views everyday. I'm no expert on all of Wikipedia policies (so do feel free to have a go at me If I have got it wrong) and am rather new here myself but what I do know is that Wikipedia does not support pseudoscience (that is 100% clear and something that "psychics" like Craig Weiler seem to constantly ignore). There is over-whelming reliable sources that have criticized Sheldrake's psychic ideas as pseudoscience and there is no reason they should be ignored, removed from the article or toned-down. The idea of a "balance" when 99% of the scientific references criticize Sheldrake's views as pseudoscience is indeed quite mad. There's no scientific evidence psychic powers exist and there's no reason why pseudoscience should be supported on Wikipedia. Weiler talks about SGerbic breaking Wikipedia policies but he's wrong it's himself breaking policies by inserting pseudoscience on Wikipedia and stirring up conspiracy theories. I personally don't want to get involved in debating this issue anymore. I will look into other articles and stay away from the Sheldrake one. Good luck with your editing and the outcome of all this. Dan skeptic (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic, I think some of the confusion is that this article is a biography, not an article elaborating his theories (which should have their own article, if they are notable). A BLP discusses their early life, education, early career, later career, major contributions to their field, possibly a list of their publications. If some of the subject's work is controversial, that can be noted. But a BLP is not the appropriate place to have a debate about science vs. pseudoscience.

It is, above all, a biography not an article about an idea, practice or theory. As far as I see it WP:FRINGE is only relevant when there is a discussion about the reception of Sheldrake's work (was it well-received, not well-received, what criticism did it face, etc.). This is a small section of a BLP. A BLP is mostly about the life and contributions of the person its about. So, I think WP:BLP and WP:NPOV hold sway here with WP:FRINGE only applying to a section devoted to criticism of his work.

This is not an unusual case. There are also sorts of controversial figures (justly or unfairly) on Wikipedia and BLP and NPOV applies to controversial journalists, scientists, bloggers, scholars, radio hosts, war criminals, celebrities, criminals, etc. It's only incidental that Sheldrake happens to work in an area that is judged by some to be "fringe". He should be treated fairly even if some Editors object to his ideas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the best explanation of this concept I've yet read. Skeptics, please read what Liz wrote. She's right. Thank you, Liz. David in DC (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

When an idea only has one significant proponent often it is not independently notable and it is placed in the biography. So no I disagree that Biographies don't cover theories, they clearly do, and the Sheldrake article clearly covers much about his "Morphic Resonance". Treating a viewpoint fairly means putting it into context with respect to the mainstream, and assigning weight via WP:NPOV etc. It means that we don't write Hagiographies. All biographies cover peoples work, and so does Sheldrakes. What the article does is put his views into context. There are no BLP violations in that article, and it can not be a BLP violation to say an idea is rejected or discredited if the sources do. I see no discernible efforts by anyone to put BLP violations into the article about Sheldrake, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tom Morris - here you and I have perfect agreement. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dan skeptic I suggest using fringe sources, really? Can you cite an example where I do this? Please go to my sandbox, look at my edit, and HELP me identify a fringe source because if there is one in there, I want it out too. Also, what is a 'fringe' source anyway? can you define it rationally here to the community so we understand what you mean?

As to sheldrake being a pseudoscientist. Well there are about two or three opinions that he is in the sources on the page that feel very passionately that he is. THOSE ARE OPINIONS, they are not facts. It is important to the page that we SHOW those opinions, YES, but not as fACTS. For it to be a fact, we have to have a source that is from a scientific journal that shows a scientific consensus, through the process of science, that MR is pseudoscience. There is no 'closure' on MR being pseudoscience. I am not seeing that reference. I DO see academic journals however talking about how sheldrake's ideas are treated by *some* scientists and question the issue of bias in those attacks. But there is also a sourced opinion of a prominent mainstream scientist who does not think it is pseudoscience. Actually there is a BOOK written by a prominent scientist in discussion with 12 other scientists about sheldrakes ideas. Some of them think MR is quite valid, some do not. [^ ^ Durr, Hans-Peter;, Gottwald, Franz-Leo (1999). Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion. Das Wagnis einer neuen Wissenschaft des Lebens [Gebundene Ausgabe]. Berlin: Fischer Scherz. ISBN 9783502191698.] How can we as wiki editors tell the difference? We should NOT EVEN TRY. We should not take sides. I believe very strongly in editing without bias, neutrality, and common sense. I ask that you join me in reaching a rational consensus. If my POV does not maintain consistency with your or any other editors rebuttals, then I will be the first to admit it. However if my argument maintains consistency, is based on common sense, is in the spirit of WP guidelines, then yes I expect a rational consensus to be based around rationality, logical consistency, a NPOV, and common sense. That seems like a reasonable approach, yes? The Tumbleman (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. As I recently mentioned on talk:sheldrake, it is worth comparing the tone of contentious articles between Wikipedia and encyclopaedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and articles on parapsychology and ESP. The difference is dramatic. Even the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (publ. 2000), has a more encyclopedic tone, even in its article on Sheldrake. --Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not surprising. Wikipedia allows anyone with an Internet connection to use this website to promote their pet pseudoscientific belief (per Rule #10). Britannica doesn't. Our articles on obscure fringe science (and fringe figures) are generally written as a tug-of-war between True Believers and determined skeptics. That polarization tends to drive away the sorts of people who would write good encyclopedic prose. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always sided with the "determined skeptics", which is as bad as "True Believers" pushing only their view. The idea of an article "promoting" any viewpoint is a abhorrent to many editors. --Iantresman (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Now, now. I think you're exaggerating. The True Believers catch a break every now and then. After all, you were unbanned. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As an atheist with a scientific background I find your label pejorative, and inappropriate per [[[WP:CIVIL]]. --Iantresman (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris: Protecting individual privacy

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

---

Resolved

 – Januaryth18th blocked indefinitely

I'm writing in relation to concerns about my privacy, particularly as the advocacy group presently WP:owning this article has a track record on Wiki for transgressing normal social boundaries around privacy. When I first started editing I didn't know this history and had been a bit cavalier about my privacy. I consider reporting this incident the best way to 'nip this in the bud'. At the very least now that it's reported, the identity involved - which I neither confirm nor deny to be my own - shouldn't get bad mouthed across the advocacy groups website, as that would obviously link them to this report. The incident is as follows:

1. Editor Januarythe18th stated that danh108 is a self-disclosed sevadhari (servant) of the religion

2. Knowing I have never made such a disclosure on Wikipedia I caution Januarythe18th about this: "January, you state I'm a self disclosed sevadhari. I have never made such a disclosure on Wiki. If you are relying on a LinkedIn profile as the source of your claim I would remind you of WP:Privacy, in particular: Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment."

3. In response to this Januarythe18th then states publicly how to search and find this linkedIn profile that he has been using to source comments on Wikipedia, in what reads like retribution for me mentioning the name of the advocacy groups ringleader (which was legitimate because it was in the context of that individual as a respondent in a domain name dispute, and fixing a mis-statement of the reference):

"As someone who has persistently attempting to speculate and identify me, published real names on both talk pages and the mainspace, and forced responsibility for others actions upon me, for which you have no evidence, you have no grounds to complain if information you have made public about yourself is referred to. (my emphasis) i.e. "because of what you did in the past, I'm allowed to break the rules" (my quote marks).

Then January Guides how others can find this identity: "For the record, I Googled "Brahma Kumari Sevadhari" to gain some references and your name comes up on the first page several times. You made it public domain."

This completely exposes this identity as only one profile comes up, with all personal information. Januarythe18th is experienced with IT and Wikipedia, and is fully aware of this.

In my view this is a surreptitious outing in retribution for a legitimate reference to the respondent in a domain name dispute who happens to be Januarythe18th's leader. I note the earlier admin finding that Januarythe18th is a follower/fan of the advocacy group.

There is also a raft of ongoing behavioural concerns [106][107]with this editor.

Thank you for your help. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for the Google comment?--v/r - TP 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff, thank you Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That diff has since been oversighted, along with a pile of other things. I don't think we can make a sensible decision when we can't see the evidence. However, oversighters can still see it, and we really should trust their judgement, so I've asked User:Daniel Case to come here and give his opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have viewed it and I would agree with danh108's characterization of it as indirect outing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I also saw the diff earlier today, and it was at least a threat of outing, it provided a specific Google search which, the poster claimed, yielded the name of an editor. Assuming the claim was correct, it was a form of outing IMO. I didn't have time to follow up properly earlier although i would have posted had I known oversight was in process, DES ^(talk) 01:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been working this case more of the evening and getting OS's opinion on the outing. I think given Januarythe18th's purposefully indirect outing and their combative behavior which Danh108 describes above but which only scratches the surface of Jan18th behavior, a block is warranted here.--v/r - TP 02:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on what's been said here, including the oversighter's opinion from just looking at it (not dismissing your memory, DES, but simple human forgetfulness makes me want someone who's looked at something eight minutes ago even when someone else has looked at it eight hours ago), I've indefinitely blocked Januarythe18th. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. TParis, you are spot on about this incident only scratching the surface, but now fully resolved. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:HolfordBot is malfunctioning

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

---

This bot has just notified me that I putted a spam external link on an article. When I saw the message, I said to myself that there is got to be some kind of mistake, I did not add a external link to anything, not even a spam one. I think something is wrong with this bot, and really needs to be fixed, because I felt offended when someone send me something like this when I didn't even do anything like that before, and never will. The worst part is that the bot didn't even tell me where I putted the "spam external link". --Blurred Lines 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked as an unauthorized/possibly fake bot. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it. They A7ed an AfD I'd just commented on. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, the account doesn't have the bot flag set. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Before you deleted the user page, it claimed to be a bot of User:Ryulong, User:Saolco claimed to be an alternate account, so probably the same vandal.Martin451 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me an excuse--I'm going to go and block Ryulong indefinitely, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Robertpattinsons (Persistent spam/promotion, referred here by AIV)

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

---

Referred to AN/I by AIV. Full AIV thread can be seen at [[108]]. I believe this should be AIV, but it was declined and I was referred here.

User:Robertpattinsons appears to be a spam/promotion only account. All contributions appear to follow a promotion pattern with three distinct periods of activity. The first period of activity, the user spent time adding Playstation store links to the External Links section of video game articles, all of which were reverted. In the second period of activity, the user spent time adding a personal blog that the user authored as a reliable source to video game articles. These were reverted by myself following a discussion at WP:VG/S. In the third period of activity, the user became involved in promoting health product sites, on various articles as well as the user's own page. The user's page contains many barn stars that do not appear legit, but I don't know if any policy or essay covers that.

This report is primarily meant to deal with the persistent pattern of promotion/spam, however as a secondary note the user may also have at least one sock, LissaCoffey, who's only contribution include usage of a similar userpage (Deleted by an admin as COPYVIO) and posting a barn star to the primary's talk page. At various points, the user claims LissaCoffey as their wife, but also claims to be the CNN iReporter by the same name [[109]]. An earlier userpage revision claimed to be a different iReporter. [[110]] -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the barnstars and userboxes on Robertpattinsons's user page seem to have been copied from the user page of Alphathon. Deor (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I suspected it was copied from somewhere but couldn't find the source user when I first looked into reporting. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say all the userpage shenanigans are to give the impression that he is a legitimate Wikipedian. That he is not. Take a look in the bottom right corner of reviews.contently.com -- it shows what this is really about. Might be worth a checkuser to see how many more of these fake Wikipedians there are. MER-C 11:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the next step? What needs done? -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pulled back from archive... -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You were advised to have a checkuser become involved ... unfortunately, that means WP:SPI ES&L 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've requested it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robertpattinsons. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the checkuser results, the pattern of spamming and the completely made-up user page of RP I've indef blocked both User:Robertpattinsons and User:LissaCoffey. See more explanation at the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:174.89.44.235

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

---

The user 174.89.44.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding unreferenced information on people's nationality (essentially, "X's parents were Jewish"), despite warnings. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

They've stopped now. I'll monitor the IP to ensure they don't start up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

They did indeed resume so I have blocked the IP for a short bit.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from User:The Real David Cage

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

---

See the edit summary here. Nymf (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Already blocked. GiantSnowman 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

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

"UK" in articles about British subjects

I don't want to involve other editors just yet because I'm not sure they are doing anything wrong, but is it now policy to remove the term "UK" from all British place names? For example, do we have to say "Dover, Kent, England" with "Dover, Kent, England, UK" being forbidden? I'm not sure where I could find the discussion that led to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with the editors involved? That's generally the best first step to take. If you have done so and are still not satisfied, you should probably name the other editors, because I believe there are some outstanding topic bans on making edits such as that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't discussed it with him yet but I think I will. The editor in question is a single-purpose editor, doing nothing but systematically removing "UK" from place names in England. He specifically ignores Scottish and Welsh place names, leaving the "UK" in place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nation-states should pretty much always be mentioned in intros or wherever a locality is mentioned. The UK is different, since "England", "Scotland", "Wales", and "Northern Ireland" are just as recognizable in English (and at least in the case of England, unfortunately interchangeable) as is "United Kingdom", so I'd suggest that we remove "UK" from your sample sentence. However, someone who removes it after "England" but not after "Scotland" might well be here for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia; you should still talk with that person, but don't be surprised if you find that he's causing problems. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page so we'll see what happens. He makes no other edits but to remove "UK" from everywhere, and only from English place names. These country names are recognisable to us, but there are certainly a lot of people in the world who don't know that England, Scotland etc are part of the UK. But I'm mostly concerned with the sheer number and extremely narrow scope of his edits. This kind of behaviour on Irish-related articles gets you a block toute-suite, so I'm not really sure why this should be any different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This was also raised at BLPN at the same time, why is Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs) FORUMSHOPPING? GiantSnowman 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I had to look that up, I had no idea it was discouraged. I simply wanted as many opinions as possible, and my question(s) are neutrally worded. I'm sure you are assuming good faith on my part, GiantSnowman (talk · contribs). You'll also note that I am not purveying any particular line, so "shopping around for the answers I want" hardly applies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that a veteran editor, such as yourself, was unaware of such an important policy. GiantSnowman 20:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you learn something new every day. I'm not someone who fraternises these boards very often, in fact it was my first time on BLPN. I'd appreciate your general opinion on single-purpose accounts with the editing style as I outlined above. I have discovered that there's no guideline on the actual content of the edits, so that bothers me less, and you've given me your take on the "UK" thing elsewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Any SPA who doesn't explain what they are doing raises eyebrows, of course it does. Have you tried engaging with this editor? GiantSnowman 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have, and he is perfectly civil. He didn't respond with much detail on why he was doing it though, so I have asked for more clarity. He doesn't have to answer that question, I guess, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I probably should have asked him before coming here, but I didn't really know if what he was doing was the result of a new directive or something and I didn't want to appear too accusatory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate discussions

Discussion has been started on two pages: this and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#UK in BLP articles. I suggest merging them and moving to somewhere more suitable, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Template:Infobox person. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with that, I didn't expect both to end up as full discussions, and I didn't know you weren't supposed to use two boards at once. Apologies for that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Summary violation and wrong editor Copperchloride blocked

(youtube videos cannot be provided as citations and photos of terrorists are not to be uploaded) this edit was rightly reverted by Copperchroide as Vandalism . Can such edit summary be removed as ths violates WP:BLP and WP:terrorist in the Seeman (director)|Seeman]] article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seeman_%28director%29&diff=576182396&oldid=576181823

Further a image removed without a proper edit summary stating it was copyright and was reverted and a user was blocked for it. Cut paste from the editor page. 1. I had only reverted his edits twice. And I have clearly explained why both stand justified. How does my case constitute edit warring for which I have been blocked?

2. The copyrighted image was on both Commons(and on another article Naam Tamilar Katchi for over a year or more since the last revision today), NOWHERE HAD I RE-INSERTED IT AFTER SOMEBODY LIKE User:SpacemanSpiff REMOVED IT AFTER DULY EXPLAINING EVERYTHING. Arlok simply blanked just about everything he pleased. It would be pretty much obvious to you. So the real reason of my block stands unclear.122.166.246.46 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

...you do realise that even if you have been wrongly blocked, evading it will only hurt, right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Youtube videos cannot be provided as citations..." I could be wrong, but I think this is incorrect. I don't think there is an all out ban on YouTube citations.--Rockfang (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos may not be used as citations — in most situations. Lots of YouTube videos are copyright violations, and very few YouTube videos fit our definition of "reliable source", so most YouTube videos may not be used as citations except in statements about themselves; even then it's normally a bad idea, since the opinion of some random video uploader normally isn't relevant to the subject of the article. However, when a video consists of documentation from a reliable source, and when the video was uploaded by the copyright holder or by someone authorized by the copyright holder, we may use it as a citation. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE for a clearer statement of this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Umm, guys... Can we set aside the technicalities for a second and maybe actually deal with the edit summary where a user calls someone a terrorist? Clearly needs immediate RevDel and "only warning" for user. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for using vandalism in edit summary .Clearly using Terrorist in eidt summary is vandalism

Blocking admin states n the copyvio, I see that you were unaware of the copyright problem at the time, and so it is not a legitimate reason for a block. Just to clarify I am not the Editor Copperchloride.I am from Bangalore .I used edit only in Tamil Wikipedia and only read English Wikipedia. பெங்களூர் நாகேஷ் — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand and 122.166.246.46 are right. Calling someone in the Edit Summary as Terrorist might have provoked him/her to call the whole edit as Vandalism. For me Great Emperor Ashoka is one of the Worst Terrorists with his Conquest of Kalinga where he was walking through the grounds of Kalinga after his conquest, rejoicing in his victory, he was moved by the number of bodies strewn there and the wails of the kith and kin of the dead. But I wonder how many others will agree with me calling him as a Terrorist. So it is better to avoid these branding and provoke others emotions on the first place. I too don't see any legitimate reason for the block.Shivaass (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ask the blocking admin. Oh, wait, that's me. I admit that I was wrong on the copyright violation, and have stated so on CuCl's talk page. I'll also publicly apologize here, since I do now realize that CuCl would not have known at the time of his/her revert that he was reinserting a copyvio, since that was discovered afterward.

Nonetheless, the other reasons for the block stand. Please understand that this is not even close to the first time CuCl has encountered this problem: that is, CuCl has regularly labelled editors that he is reverting as vandals, despite having been told a number of times that vandal has a very strict definition here and that using the term in appropriately is a personal attack. And for those that haven't looked clearly at it, please note that POV-pushing is explicitly listed as not vandalism. In this case, CuCl's revert may have been appropriate, but the regular NPAs have to stop. I don't know how to get the user to realize that they are unacceptable without this action. I'm hoping that CuCl will actually try to understand the relevant policy and change her/his tone. There are also borderline EW concerns here, but the NPA is the one that really prompted the block rather than just a warning from me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent contributions by User:Claritas

If you're unfamiliar with Claritas' history, this discussion will probably tell you everything you need to know. Please note that having been denied an account rename in that discussion, Claritas is now using a misleading signature. On reviewing the Claritas account's recent contributions, I'm concerned that contrary to everything said during their second chance negotiations and all the promises made to Arbcom during the discussion I already linked, the account is still only here to remove material on fictional characters. But in fairness, some time has elapsed and there are, strictly speaking, no formal editing restrictions on the account. What do we think?—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That diff is from the end of last year; I've read and reread your statement, but I'm not clear how it's relevant. Yes, he's filing AFDs lately, but we don't block people purely because they broke promises that they've made in the past — we block people when they violate conditions for unblocks, but unless I've overlooked something, the no-XFDs thing wasn't an unblock condition. Meanwhile, what's wrong with the signature that he's used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Soth? "Simone (Claritas)" isn't deceptive, and we've long permitted signatures that don't match the username; for example, User:Bkonrad signs everything as "older ≠ wiser", but there's nothing wrong with it, and I've never heard anyone complain at him about it. There's no User:Simone (Claritas), and as User:Simone's made exactly 53 edits in the last six years, pretty much nobody's going to know that such a user even exists, let alone think that Claritas is Simone. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• As some of you know I take a hard line on sock masters and I would not have unbanned this one. I agree with S Marshall that the edge is being played by this user in the area of name change and AfD participation. At best this is in remarkably poor taste, given the past ban, and at worst is actionable due to the editor's seeming continued fixation on removing material in an area already abused. And while it is true that the volume is not massive, S Marshall's concerns are well-founded. Jusdafax 00:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(In reply to Nyttend) You're right that strictly speaking, the no-XFD thing wasn't an unblock condition. However, I think that this diff is relevant. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the community relied on Claritas' promise to stay away from AfD when deciding to grant the unblock. As far as the misleading signature is concerned, I agree with you about the Lord Soth AfD, but my concern is about this one: isn't this an attempted end-run around the consensus not to allow an account rename?—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you've participated in this discussion, you have almost no chance of knowing that there's a User:Simone, so I don't think it's confusing or otherwise inappropriate. But then, you allege that he's broken a promise that was part of an unblock discussion. Could you provide a diff or other link? I would be likely to change my mind if given such a link. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, never mind; I missed the "this diff" link. I'd still like to see a link to the discussion, but this is suddenly substantially more serious and substantially more likely to result in a reblock. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I linked the relevant discussion in my first post. That's all there was; it was archived after that. I have not asked for a re-block and I think a re-block would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I'm looking for a consensus about whether Claritas should be participating in fictional character AfDs without writing any content, and for a consensus that Claritas should use a signature that clearly identifies the account, and for Claritas to be formally advised of these consensuses going forward.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 10 October 2013

I'm confused. Looks to me as if NewYorkBrad's referring to a community unblock discussion; did I misread something? Do we have community unblock discussions at the clarification and amendments page? Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting a topic ban from fictional character AfDs and an editing restriction to use a signature containing their name. I guess the question becomes: what evidence of recent problems is there? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is there anything wrong with the XfD nominations themselves? That is, if it was anyone else nominating these articles for deletion with the same rationales, would there be a problem? No. Since Claritas is not under any editing restrictions, and is not acting disruptively in any way, this is a frivolous complaint best summed up as WP:IDONTLIKECLARITAS. Reyk _YO! 00:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  If I understand rightly, the thing is that the nominations are somewhat disruptive and that Claritas essentially agreed to a self-ban from XFDs. Put those two together, and Claritas might be blockable for a combination of disruption and violating an unblock condition. More evidence is needed before I solidly say anything. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  It's not my position that Claritas should be blocked. The unban discussion is not very illuminating but here it is.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link — I simply didn't know where to find it; I wasn't trying to force you to prove something. I misunderstood and thought you meant that the XFDs thing was part of the unblock discussion, rather than being simply something that he said. I now agree that a block wouldn't help now. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was part of the unban discussion and I agree with Newyorkbrad that it clearly influenced the participants in that discussion. I think that Claritas is under a de facto topic ban from AfDs concerning fictional characters. But it's not the kind of crystal clear case that should lead to an immediate block because Claritas has never been notified of any editing restrictions.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I dunno. You can't just say to someone "You said X, and a year later you changed your mind. You haven't caused any trouble for anyone in that year, and X isn't actually an editing restriction, but I wish it was and so I will behave as though it is. Oh, and I don't like your sig." Reyk _YO! 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Reyk, what's true is that you like and support Claritas. You've said as much before. I don't; I'll freely admit to disliking accounts that behave like that. And I think that when people have been denied renames, it's because users need to be view their edits in the light of their history and reputation.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. But we both know you'd never have brought this here if Claritas was inclusionist-leaning, so I think that works both ways. You'll find my "support", as you call it, is not unqualified; I did not support all of Claritas's unblock requests and I have criticised much of their past behaviour. Go back and check if you don't believe me. The facts remain: Claritas has not disrupted anything for almost a year after being unblocked. There is no requirement that signatures match user names, so long as they link back to the user page- which this one does. There are no editing restrictions, so as far as I am concerned Claritas has all the same editing rights as everyone else, which includes participating in AfDs and, yes, even changing your mind about things. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Wait, what? I don't think that's fair. I don't have a record of seeking sanctions against anyone, deletionist or not. I have very few edits to this page or to any other of the drama boards.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
          • You're essentially accusing me of excusing Claritas's bad behaviour (for which you've shown no evidence) just because I like Claritas. Yet if I suggest the converse, that you are interpreting completely benign things Claritas does as disruptive based on your personal dislike, and that you wouldn't see the actions of someone you agree with in the same way, somehow that's unfair? Reyk _YO! 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Actually the sequence of events was:- First, you accused me of wanting Claritas blocked because, you allege, I don't like them. (This was your very first post in this thread.) I answered by saying I don't want Claritas blocked and you do like Claritas. Then you said if Claritas was an inclusionist then I wouldn't be here. I replied that that's not fair and there's no basis for saying it, because I've never started a thread on AN/I for this purpose before in all my years of editing Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, regardless, it looks like you're asking for a topic ban from fictional character AfDs and an editing restriction about their (non-standard but not problematic by itself) sig. We can talk about influences and guess at people's motivations, but it looks like there was no actual restriction from AfDs placed or agreed-to, and nobody in the unblock thread even mentions such a restriction, so IMO arguing that he violated some kind of unspoken unblock conditions is a non-starter, and we would need evidence of recent problems to contemplate those sanctions. If "a consensus about whether Claritas should be participating in fictional character AfDs without writing any content, and for a consensus that Claritas should use a signature that clearly identifies the account, and for Claritas to be formally advised of these consensuses going forward" somehow isn't a topic ban, well, that doesn't need to be on ANI. Start a RFC/U or something, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Look, here's the deal. If Claritas wants to challenge articles at AFD, that's his prerogative. If the challenged subjects pass GNG or a special guideline, they will survive. If not, they will go. That's the way AfD works. My experience is that these challenges are mostly with merit — they aren't off the wall. Are they annoying? Yes, if one is an affected content creator, sure. Are they necessary? Mostly probably not. But there are deletionist editors who hate "County X-Country Y Relations" articles and editors who hate articles about pop songs, or small bands, or small companies, or politicians, or highways, or whatever. They make their challenges and they either succeed or fail at AfD on their merits. Claritas is no different. As a self-described inclusionist, I defend his right to be a deletionist. The rule of law does prevail at AfD — it is probably the most consistent and "just" aspect of the entire Wikipedia project. Just leave Claritas the hell alone is my advice. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I defend anyone's rights to be a deletionist, but I think when >90% of someone's contributions are to AfD and basically arguing with others, then it could be argued that this is a battleground mentality, and that wikipedia isn't a punching bag-type therapy where one can make oneself feel better by taking it out on others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Question: What percentage of the nominations end up in deletions? There is a big difference between nominating lots of articles that most people agree should be deleted and nominating lots of articles that most people agree should be kept. --06:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Judging from this, the majority end up as delete or merge. Reyk _YO! 06:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While his general AfD percentage could appear not so catastrophic, you cannot put on the same plane delete and merge outcomes. Tecnically an AfD discussion which ends in a merge outcome should be considered for keeping, not for deleting the article's contens. And I also should note that this year (better, this week) he nominated 4 articles for deletion, and none of them is/is going to be deleted. If you call for stats, you need to analyze them more carefully. Cavarrone 08:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Claritas's AfD nominations are based on the claim that the articles would not be notable, and per WP:FAILN and WP:ATD-M, a merge is a valid alternative to deletion in case of non-notability. That some of the AfDs resulted in merge outcomes only means consensus essentially validated the AfD rationales (ie it's not "keep"), as Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion. I !voted "merge" in some of Claritas' AfDs, I fully support their rationale and reject any reinterpretation of my comments as meaning "keep" in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• (In reply to Carrite) It's not his prerogative. This is a user who was site-banned for serial sockpuppetry in fictional-character related AfDs. The user came back on the strength of a promise to stop socking and start writing content. The user then asked for a rename and clean start, and was denied it and told not to start any AfDs for six months. After making no contributions at all for more than six months, the user's come back and done nothing but participate in fictional-character-related deletion discussions. My position is that while in the normal course everyone's entitled to participate in AfD, Claritas has forfeited that entitlement by abusing it and repeating the behaviour they promised not to repeat as part of their unban negotiations.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Without taking sides, as it were, one could see being told "don't do xFDs for six months", making no edits at all for six months, and then returning to a primarily-xFD editing style, as WP:WIKILAWYERING with regards to the restriction, if one was of a mind to do so, seeing as the clear intent of the restriction was to allow non-xFD editing during that period to establish a pattern of reformed behavior (or not). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, in the general case, you're right. The problem with this specific case is that there was no such restriction. There was exactly one person, who opposed the unblock anyway, who even mentioned such a thing. Yes, Claritas mentioned on their talk page that they'd be willing to undergo such a restriction, but nobody ever said, "yes, that restriction is a good idea, let's do it." Certainly, the unblocking admin (ReaperEternal) made no mention at all of it. How can we possibly say that someone is guilty of violating a restriction nobody even spoke about? Frankly, I don't buy this "they were unblocked on the strength of their promise to avoid XfDs"--if they were, then you'd think that at least one person supporting the unblock would've, y'know, mentioned it or something, especially considering how much they did mention mentoring. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm User:Simone. Wikipedia notified me that someone named me in this discussion. I didnt read all (seems pretty long) but I can tell you that I never heard Claritas. I'm italian, I used to help the italian wikipedia (I did thousands of edits in the italian version). I hope that this post can be usefull. SγωΩηΣ ^tαlk 17:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Can we just close this? No action was sought, no action needs undertaking; in fact, it's obvious no action should be undertaken. I'm not interested in people's motives here, but this is just eating up time that would be better used on actual problems, not a mild matter such as this. No sockpuppetry has been found to have taken place, and it's clear that no actual topic ban existed, however much some people wish there was one. Going back on agreements one made a significant time in the past isn't exactly uncommon, or even objectionable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If there really is a consensus here that Claritas is once again welcome to participate in AfDs on fictional characters, then I will of course accept it. But your contention that "no action was sought" is inaccurate.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No, not accurate at all. Given the editor's major socking at Afd, ban, unban promises, defacto name change despite denial of name change permission, and current renewal of Afd editing, I'd say a one year topic ban at Afd is not at all unreasonable. Jusdafax 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this user is "right" at AFD or not, the problem we have here is that Claritas has a history of being deceptive and unable to keep to promises. As a condition for his unban, he offered a voluntary restriction from AFD participation, which gained him a fair amount of support at the unban discussion. However, he very quickly went back to heavy AFD participation until he was called out on this, and maintained that "OK, this time for real" he would stay away from AFD. He appears to have done so for several months, but here we are back again at AN/I for more of the same. I don't think an imposed topic ban is the least bit unreasonable at this point. BOZ (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The fake signature is a direct WP:SCRUTINY violation. Putting that together with broken promises, it's clear that that user is WP:NOTHERE to actually contribute to the discussion. Going back to the topic ban, indefinitely, would be a good thing. It's also not true that AfDs are kept or not solely based on their merits--often times, a plethora of similar, sequential AfDs drives down participation from the community at large, and amounts to a nose count among those with time to invest, which is far from a consensus-based model. Removing Claritas would not harm AfD at all, and in fact would almost certainly improve it. If there's one thing that I've seen about previously identified sockpuppetteers who've returned to Wikipedia editing, it is that they don't really care about anything except for getting their own way. Consensus-based dialogue is generally absent in discussions with Claritas and similar partisans. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY deals with the use of multiple accounts. Claritas has not been accused of using multiple accounts in the current period, so far as I am aware. There are no formal or informal sanctions against the filing of AfDs. A deletionist believes that enforcing GNG and Special Notability Guidelines is improving the encyclopedia, just like a gnome might feel that fixing spacing errors or standardizing spelling is improving the encyclopedia; WP:NOTHERE also would not seem to apply. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert war at Pakistani literature

Resolved

User:Ajmal alig has repeatedly added a large block of unreferenced, unencyclopedic content to Pakistani literature. These edits have been reverted 3 times now, and notes have been left on the user's talk page, including a note alerting the user to a possibility of a block, all without response or apparent effect.Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

while we are discussing this editor, is their user page acceptable? The parts of it that are ineligible intelligible appear to be overt promotion of one of their relatives.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been no further edits by this user since the most recent "final" warning, if there are any similar edits I would favor imposing at least a 24 block, perhaps longer. The contents of the user page User:Ajmal alig seem very similar, in parts identical to the long promotional wall of text this user added to Pakistani literature. This appears to promote certain individuals as great scholars and authors, if I am reading it correctly. I think it is at best marginal in a user page, but perhaps one issue at a a time? DES ^(talk) 14:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Indef blocked as a promotion only account. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:213.37.84.214

• 213.37.84.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:SPA, promo only editor, EXT spammer, suspected COI editor, repeatedly blocked for edit warring

has now been joined by

• 31.109.31.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a second (suspected sock - same language "you guys" "supporting", "COBBLER" (not "Cobbler"), claim of being "PXE user", style, and AGF/civility, timing and coming straight in with first edit supporting 1st IP) WP:SPA WP:ILLEGIT "Creating an illusion of support" [111]

• Preboot Execution Environment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (previous edit warring before multiple blocks)
• Talk:Preboot Execution Environment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disruptive editing continuing with WP:AGF / civility, accusations, and refusing to listen against the (limited) consensus on that page

Disruptive editor only interested in advocacy of one product, and removal of rival products. Widefox; talk 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:31.109.31.229 has made exactly one edit of any substance (the only other edit by this IP added two blank lines to the same talk page). This edit did support User:213.37.84.214 but perhaps it is a bit early to designate this as a sock? User:31.109.31.229 has no previous blocks, as your comment above seems to imply. DES ^(talk) 14:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No implication meant. 213.37.84.214 had three blocks. 31.109.31.229 had no blocks (1st IP is Spain, 2nd IP is UK, but both are US English - where developer is based). Widefox; talk 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Please note the report against Widefox abusive behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Widefox_Abusive_editor_with_banning_power.

2) Widefox can analyze all the IPs he wants; that does not change the facts:

a) Widefox is performing a personal crusade against a valuable editor that knows the topic that he doesn't.

b) Widefox is sponsoring unknown and unrelated projects while using his ban power for keeping other valuable projects out.

213.37.84.214 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Widefox Abusive editor with banning power.

• Preboot Execution Environment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (The editor systematically adds references to projects not related to the topic refusing to provide any supporting reason while not WP:LISTENing to technical facts. The editor systematically adds projects that are virtually unknown refusing to provide any independent source supporting his editing. The editor has systematically erased my editing when affecting his interests accusing me of all sort of things.)

• Talk:Preboot Execution Environment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disruptive editing, accusations, and refusing to listen again. The editor does not handle the topic (PXE) while making adventurous technical decisions. Disruptive editor only interested in advocacy of his supported products, and removal of rival competing project (SERVA). Editor has erased list of links with independent reviews, tutorials, and articles provided to support the inclusion of a project (SERVA) apparently competing with his supported products. Systematic abuse of power, if I edit I'm banned while he's erasing absolutely all my editing, research, etc.

213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the article, this ip editor has been consistently adding external link to SERVA, a program he is trying to push. KonveyorBelt 22:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

yes trying to "push" as you say presenting a list of 36 independent links supporting the "pushed" project. List that has just been ERASED from the talk page by the reported abusive editor. No one can "push" something that is well known, respected, and independently supported. The one that "pushes" non related projects and unknown projects is the reported editor. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note the discussion about this IP above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:213.37.84.214. QED237 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see IP disruption going back a month or so; semi-protected for a month. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

semi is good now the SPA editor is using two IPs. I'd asked a couple weeks ago. Widefox; talk 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies sees "IP disruption"; Is posting my knowledge in WP IP disruption?

What about this report; would you Drmies be able to say it is a false report? 213.37.84.214 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this ANI report by 213.37.84.214 is not-policy or fact based - which ref or EXT did I add? None AFAIK. Just a copycat ANI report. More disruption from this SPA EXT spammer, presumably COI editor. For the record, I don't think I've added any EXT or refs to the articles (without checking the article I don't think any EXT or refs are my edits) my involvement has been to return the article to WP:EXT guideline, and remove COI bot warned SPAM EXT/refs on other articles per other editors (eg User:Matthiaspaul) wishes and consensus on the articles. WP:LISTEN and WP:boomerang apply for this bad faith ANI report by an EXT spammer. Distraction from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:213.37.84.214. Widefox; talk 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:30 SW

30 SW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I randomly came across Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and noticed formatting issues in a section, attempted to fix them, and then found more throughout the article. They seem to have been introduced by this user (note that I've since reverted the article to a state prior to his involvement). Many of his contribs seem alright at a glance (although I'm honestly not sure, which is why I'm bringing this here) -- but then there are edits like this and this, which plaster some well-established and previously stable articles with red links, mess with formatting, and introduce odd uses of HTML comments, among other things. This user seems to be making a ton of sweeping changes across Wikipedia's US military articles, including their categories, moving pages, creating new ones, redirecting, etc, and has been doing so for some time.

I did leave a message for this user initially to try and get an explanation but I'm not confident I can handle this adequately myself, so I wanted to call attention to it in case someone more up on these matters thinks it's worth looking into (I tend to stick to scripting and templates and other such MediaWiki tech these days myself, rather than actual article and/or behavioral drama). If nobody thinks this is anything to worry about then feel free to disregard this. equazcion� 14:56, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

• Just a little additional note, the user doesn't appear to be big on talking. In a cursory search I can't find a single discussion comment from him (correction: there are however these CFD comments). His only edit to his own talk page appears to have been this, made by an IP that I'll assume was him logged out, where he removed several sections including a couple of communications from other editors about his edits. equazcion� 15:40, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Reversion war and editing practices

Resolved

 – Edit-warrior blocked

• Ben0kto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm stepping in to formally request further administrative intervention here. Long story short:

User:Ben0kto has been making some relatively controversial edits for a few months now, but it didn't start getting more controversial until recently. He's been engaging in a reversion war with User:STATicVerseatide over the article Acid Rap, which was initially a redirect to the artist Esham since it was a genre that he supposedly created. A completely separate artist created a mixtape by the same name. There was a slight edit war over the space but eventually the album was deemed notable by several reliable sources. From what I can see, acid rap has not received enough coverage to really merit an article outside of Esham's. I can find some sources, but ultimately almost all of them talk about the genre as a secondary feature in articles that are mostly about Esham as a performer. (Examples are [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], the last of which could is a blog source.) It exists, but I'm not sure of its individual notability.

Now the problem here is partially whether or not acid rap deserves an article separate of Esham, but it's predominantly that Ben0kto has been asked several times to stop creating reversion wars. He's been warned by several editors on several different articles. He's been informed of notability guidelines several times and has received several lectures on reliable sources. His current move has been to move the mixtape to Acid Rap (mixtape) and then create the genre article in the now empty Acid Rap entry. I've speedied two pages and at this point I feel that I'm now officially as of this moment too involved to really further delete any entries. I've warned Ben0kto that this editing, even if it's done in good intent, can be seen as disruptive since he's not really discussing anything on the talk pages before making big controversial moves or edits and that disruptive editing can lead to further blocks or even an outright ban. I don't see where he actually has paid attention to anything that anyone has told him and at this point I need other people to come in and give further feedback and direction on the matter. He's already been reported and blocked for revert warring, but at this point I'm just concerned that this is less about him trying to edit Wikipedia in a beneficial manner and more about him trying to get his way. I hate to sound WP:BITE-y, but this is just how it comes across. He's been asked to stop and go about things in the proper manner and he's ignored everyone in order to get articles he wants on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• On a side note, I'm going to propose that the genre article for Acid Rap be merged into the artist's page. I'm not against it existing in any format, I just greatly dislike that a semi-new editor has been trying to create an article in a certain way despite requests by other editors that he discuss this on the article's page before making any controversial edits. If it's ultimately decided that the mixtape gets the basic "acid rap" page without anything in parentheses, then that's fine. If we decide that the genre should have the basic "mix tape" title even if it's redirected, that's fine too. I just think that this has gone beyond good faith editing and at this time it's more about making a point than trying to benefit Wikipedia. On his talk page Ben0kto has stated that he wasn't fully warned of everything, but I don't know how much more explicit we can be in this instance. I feel that at this point he should have at least been aware that his edits were controversial and tried to talk to others about the edits before making big moves, especially since he says he's an inexperienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC):*On a side note, I'm going to propose that the genre article for Acid Rap be merged into the artist's page. I'm not against it existing in any format, I just greatly dislike that a semi-new editor has been trying to create an article in a certain way despite requests by other editors that he discuss this on the article's page before making any controversial edits. If it's ultimately decided that the mixtape gets the basic "acid rap" page without anything in parentheses, then that's fine. If we decide that the genre should have the basic "mix tape" title even if it's redirected, that's fine too. I just think that this has gone beyond good faith editing and at this time it's more about making a point than trying to benefit Wikipedia. On his talk page Ben0kto has stated that he wasn't fully warned of everything, but I don't know how much more explicit we can be in this instance. I feel that at this point he should have at least been aware that his edits were controversial and tried to talk to others about the edits before making big moves, especially since he says he's an inexperienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been asked to use the talk pages and also when blocked, told to use WP:BRD guidelines. That is the proper manner to go about when making large edits. I did not "ignore" the warnings but simply wasn't aware because I did not come across all of the other users' comments as I was focusing mainly on making my own edits within the article. Please try to follow some of these guidelines yourself, instead of just reverting. Thanks for understanding Ben0kto (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Behind the Paint is one notable third party text reference that explains that Esham and the style he created had an influence on wicked shit genres like horrorcore, most notably groups like Insane Clown Posse. More sources will be added. Ben0kto (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue to discuss content. It's a page for discussing editor behavior. DrKiernan 16:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is little about editor behavior, as Ben0kto is claiming that nobody has properly explained anything to him and that any and all of his edits are as a result of this. I'm concerned, as this is a common thing that many new and inexperienced editors claim. I don't see where he really shows that he's paying attention to anything when editors are doing the equivalent of mailbombing his talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User: Smsarmad

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked as part of Arbcom enforcement action.--v/r - TP 23:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This user is teverting atticles regarding Pakistan to preserve his countries interest. He is an working on the orders of the Secret Agency of Pakistan. This user needs an immediate block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruv2357 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone's behavior is questionable, its yours. What's the intent behind this? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC) (Also; have you notified the user of this discussion?)

And this... I don't want to accuse anyone because what I infer might be incorrect but what exactly does that mean? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Notified Smsarmad. --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute where the OP is inserting a WP:SYNTH statement into the article on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence that the ISI was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks based on a Reuters article where an American citizen involved in the attacks claims that ISI officials provided assistance. The OP then procedes to call Smsarmad an agent of ISI for reverting this, followed by threats to sock to disrupt. Take that as you will. 205.166.218.67 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit] appears to be a threat of physical violence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

COMPETENCE issues from 76.202.182.102

The person editing from 76.202.182.102 is going through multiple articles adding egregious overlinking and massive lists of barely relevant see-alsos---see e.g. [117], and the ones undone at [118]. There is also some edit-warring going on here (compare this diff to the previous diff, in which I undid the exact same series of edits; this diff restores all of them), although admittedly I have not given him/her a edit-warring warning.

The prose of the edits is kind of incomprehensible, and I am not really able to discuss things with the user because so far when I have attempted to make editorial suggestions to the user (User talk:76.202.182.102#Internal links and User talk:76.202.182.102#Some more friendly suggestions), s/he has ignored my feedback and has responded with tl;dr rants that to be perfectly honest I can't make any sense of. Based on other comments, the user seems to also have some political POV issues, although I can't understand enough of what little I've read to know what's going on. And his/her mainspace edits are full of weird offhand comments (e.g. "a great chef owning a restaurant business can make more money than any inept doctors", in an article about education).

Basically I think I am requesting that the user be blocked because s/he seems to lack the competence to edit appropriately or to engage in discussion with users. It looks like a pretty obvious case in here, but I am too involved to take admin action. I didn't take it to ANEW because I haven't issued an edit-warring warning and to be honest I don't know if it's even necessary to go through those motions for an editor who is obviously incapable of editing constructively (even if s/he is well-meaning). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of old talk page entries, leaving orphaned replies

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

---

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

---

At Talk:Dick Dale, I am having some trouble keeping the old discussions together as one person using a series of accounts is repeatedly removing his comments. I have quoted WP:REDACT to him in explanation of my restoration of the old comments, but he has determined that the wording of that guideline allows this sort of removal. The editor was working as IP 24.121.103.74 (and probably 24.119.19.162) but I asked for the talk page to be semi-protected to stop him. He is now editing as User:ReadTheGuidelines.

He is apparently upset that a couple of editors including myself have decided that Dick Dale was born in Boston, even though the Dale biographies are split between saying he was born in Beirut or Boston. For me, the deciding factor was one high quality source saying explicitly that Dale told interviewers for several decades that he had been born in Beirut, but in the 1990s he began to say he was born in South Boston, and he supplied supporting details.

Does REDACT allow this kind of removal of one's own talk page entries, even to the point of orphaning the replies? Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet is incorrect in some of his statements here. I have had one IP address used here and that is 24.121.103.74. I read the talk page guidelines before and after becoming involved in the Lebanon/Boston dispute. There are many more biographies that state Lebanon as Dale's place of birth than those that state Boston. The article on Dick Dale is now satisfactory as it mentions that other biographies state Lebanon as the place of birth.

The guidelines do not state that I am locked in to keeping all my talk page comments on any given talk page. If that is the case, it needs to be clearly stated up front. User:Binksternet wants to interpret the guidelines to mean that I am locked into leaving my talk page comments on the talk page forever or until he or someone with more edits wants to remove or edit them. This is abuse as far as I'm concerned and not appreciated. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of abuse, this may be a problem with the talk page guidelines more than the editors. At the same time I think that an experienced editor like User:Binksternet can fully realize this and know that there is nothing that specifically states that a user can't delete their own talk page posts on any given talk page. All you have to do is read the information. It would not be fair to reinterpret the information here either. The information is already stated on the talk page guidelines page. For these guidelines to be reinterpreted yet again here would also be an incorrect use of Wikipedia.

If there is a decision to not allow users from deleting their own talk page comments on other talk pages then it still would not apply to users that read the guidelines previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ReadTheGuidelines, it appears from your statement above that you're now OK with how the article handles Dale's birthplace information. Would you be OK with, instead of having your comments removed from the article Talk page, having them hidden from view in a collapsible box? It does make it more difficult for other editors to check out the history of a dispute if the comments are removed altogether. Your comments would be hidden, unless an editor needed to read them for historical purposes. Would that be OK? Zad68 21:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I would rather have my comments removed and if their is an updated guideline that states that talk page comments are permanent and can't be removed then I will abide by that from here on out. As for my previous comments on the talk page however, I would like them to be removed.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another solution is to archive the talk page, putting its contents into Talk:Dick Dale/Archive 1. This would place the discussions one step away from visibility. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For the comments I have already made I would still like to maintain my right to have them removed. If someone wants to go back and read through the revisions they can still do that right? This is a very important issue and involves the rules that are given to users when they enter a talk page. I think that if User:Binksternet or other editors want to join together and have the guidelines changed in the future then they can go that route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:REDACT, which is based on my experience editing here for a while, is that civil, on-topic comments that are part of a discussion thread relevant to content actively being discussed and worked on really should not be removed. Even if you can find loopholes or weasel words in WP:REDACT to justify removing your own comments, doing so will be seen as disruptive. You might be surprised to find out that you actually have no right to require that edits you make be removed. You release the edits you make on Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, see the little note at the bottom of any page you edit, it says 'By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.' Once you hit Save, what happens to it gets determined by community consensus. My point is that you can't require your edits stay removed.

How about Bink's suggestion of archiving the discussion? Anybody visiting the article Talk page wouldn't see them, they'd be pushed down into the Archive. Zad68 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The community consensus determination for talk page posts has already been spelled out in the talk page guidelines. This issue falls under the talk page guidelines unless there is some sort of extreme abuse with comments. That is not the case here, so the "Save Page" button terms would automatically refer to the "community consensus" that has been determined by Wikipedia for talk page comments. Furthermore, I am not finding loopholes or weasel words in any way whatsoever. If my own talk page posts can't be removed by myself it needs to be a clear and concise statement concerning this. This statement neither appears in the guidelines in any form whatsoever or in the "Save Button" terms. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

By removing my comments, it is still not a permanent removal. People can simply look through the revisions to find those comments. I would still like to maintain my right to have my comments removed. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• In my reading of WP:REDACT, and based on my experience editing article Talk pages, I don't see this as a case where WP:REDACT can be used to justify removal of the comments. I would find the removal of relevant Talk page comments that have received replies, and are part of an active content discussion, to be disruptive. If it continues I'd support editing sanctions. That's my view, we'll see if others agree. Zad68 21:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, based on your experience, but we can't just go making up our own rules and guidelines based on our own experience. The guidelines exist and need to be taken seriously.

And as far as "releasing the edits to Wikipedia", that is correct. Wikipedia has my edits forever or as long as they wish. But this does not refer to the visible part of the talk page. Even if my comments are removed from the visible part of the talk page, Wikipedia will always forever have my comments, so this is not an applicable phrase regarding the removal of my own comments from any given talk page. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Your comments were permanently licensed when you hit save. You have no "right" to demand that they be removed, although the community may decide to do so as a courtesy. More importantly, though, what was/were your previous account name(s) before you created this one? You're clearly not a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have such a problem with people going back through the edits to see my original comments? They can see where I mentioned I removed my comment. I shouldn't even have to do this under the talk page guidelines. And I even signed it as well. I shouldn't have to do this either. Anyone with an ip address is allowed to place comments on a talk page as long as they are not abusive and they are allowed the right to remove them as Wikipedia will keep the edits stored away forever. Why do you have a problem with this? --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ther are part of a permanent record of discussion. They can be hatted, they can be archived, you can strike them through, but there's no justification for deletion when other editors see them as valuable to keep. And, again, you do not have a "right" to delete your comments. Period. End of that discussion. Any removal would be as a courtesy, and you have not exactly been asking courteously, have you.

Again, what was your previous account name(s)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I am a newbie to Wikipedia, but not to the laws regarding internet contracts, terms and obligations. I have read through all the pertinent information here on Wikipedia and I am abiding by it and asking for fair treatment. So far I am meeting with resistance over factual terms that are spelled out clearly. Why?--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been treated fairly, since you are being treated exactly the same as everyone else. What you're asking for is to be given preferential treatment, but you've made no cogent argument as to why you should be granted that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so are you saying here that you and possibly other editors have been preventing others from removing their own talk page edits on other talk pages for some time now? Because that is a serious issue. So you can take the comments down if they are abusive because that adheres to the talk page guidelines. But if someone wishes to take their own comments down even when they are not abusive, you prevent them from doing that, is that what you are saying?--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, this is starting to move into classic trolling behavior. Note the hint of WP:NLT without actually stepping across the line, the refusal to give a clear argument for removal being necessaru, just the bogus repetition of a "right" to do so. I hear laughter in the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question of IPs, they are mostly from somebody in Arizona. Historically, the IPs that have taken part in discussion about Dale's place of birth are the following:

• 24.121.103.74 – Sedona, Arizona (October–November 2012, and October 2013)
• 198.7.58.96 – Manassas, Virginia, proxy IP (October 2013)
• 198.7.58.81 – Manassas, Virginia, proxy IP (September–October 2013)
• 24.119.19.162 – Cottonwood, Arizona (April 2013)
• 24.121.161.249 – Sedona, Arizona (September 2012)
• 24.156.82.243 – Sedona, Arizona (April 2012)
• 216.19.7.158 – Prescott Valley, Arizona (March 2009)

These addresses are suspiciously close together geographically, except for the proxy IPs which could be rerouting from anywhere. This evidence points to at least one anonymous editor living in Arizona who is persistent in his assertion that Dale was born in Beirut. None of these IPs argued for Boston.

I'm not saying that ReadTheGuidelines should be blocked or anything, I'm just saying he should own up to his past efforts. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? The underlying controversy appears to have been resolved in a way reasonably satisfactory to all. I find WP:REDACT (which is a guideline) less than clear. It seems to be making suggestions (not hard and fast rules) on when and how best to edit one's own comments. Reading the current state of the talk page [119], I do not find the responses to the deleted comments, which are now clearly marked as being self deleted, to be all that difficult to interpret. Anyone reading the talk page will gather that one editor who took a position in favor of one birthplace chose to remove his views. And, of course, the history is still there. This is not a licensing question, but whether we should extend a courtesy to an editor who made good-faith comments and now wishes to retract them. There is no real harm to the project in allowing him to remove his remarks. I suggest everyone move on and leave the talk page as is per above diff, archiving it if people wish.--agr (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I have used only my own IP address to post anything on Wikipedia. I have one computer. My first post would have been around the end of last year. One person in particular I do know that posted a comment, I can't say whether it is listed on your list or not, but just because there is a close proximity doesn't mean I agree with their comment.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:ArnoldReinhold thats all I was asking for. Much appreciated. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

agr, I started out looking at this thinking "Who cares? Let 'm remove the stupid comments" as well until I dug into it. The comments do have replies, the article content is contentious, and allowing the comments to remain removed makes it harder for future editors to figure out what sources were brought and what arguments were made in the past that led to the current consensus for the content. This is a collaborative editing environment, and editors should not make it harder for each other to work on articles by blanking relevant parts of past discussions, even if it's their own comments. The licensing point is that editors don't have control over what happens to edits once they're made, meaning the "They need to be removed because they're mine and I say so" argument holds no weight. Zad68 22:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you guys do what you want, I will continue to strive for fairness and to not let editors "play God" on Wikipedia. The rules are the rules and if you want to try to override them with your opinion, you can try all you want, but in the end its the terms, rules and obligations that will be the ultimate deciding factor in this. Thank you.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. What ultimately decides such questions is usually community consensus - and we can and do block people from editing for insisting that they have 'a right' to engage in behaviour that others see as tendentious and disruptive. The only 'rights' you have regarding Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to leave. Everything else is dependant on being a useful contributor, rather than a drain on everyone's time and patience. You appear to be going down that road already, and I suggest that you either reconsider, or find another forum to assert your 'rights', real or imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There are rights and there is courtesy. One of our goal is to encourage new editors. This editor apparently made constructive arguments he now wishes to retract. He may have good reasons. Future editors will still be able to figure it out. (If only editors really did go back and carefully review the details of past consensus formation.) It's all in the history if anyone really needs to see it. WP:REDACT explicitly allows editors to remove uncivil comments. Should editors make a point to include some incivility to retain the right to retract? Let it go. --agr (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My only real reason for deleting my comments was because, from the time of my first post, I read the talk page guidelines, and then I decided to post on the talk page. At that time I knew from everything I read on Wikipedia, the guidelines, terms, etc., that I would not be locked in to leaving my comments on the talk page. I know it is that way on some online forums and such. Furthermore, my original intention was to try to get the article as factual as possible and then remove my comments. I had no idea that I would be met with this kind of opposition, it seems absolutely and incredibly ridiculous. I would have never placed any comments on the talk page to begin with had I originally known that the guidelines were not intended to be taken seriously. This has been an eye opening experience to say the least. The talk page is not a free talking forum at all as described in the guidelines, it is controlled by editors that think they can do whatever they want and you are locked into every little comment and word you put on that talk page unless a "God" editor doesn't like it, then they can remove it at their desire. Incredible, totally incredible. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a 'free talking forum'. As the talk page guidelines make entirely clear, they are there for one purpose only - to discuss improvements to articles. As such, it is often necessary to look at past discussions - which is why deleting posts without good reason may be seen as disruptive. That is how Wikipedia works, and if you wish to contribute, you will have to do it our way. Or not at all. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy's point and the page The Bushranger linked to are clearly relevant. In some cases, when I might, for instance, start a thread saying, "Hey, how come the article (X) doesn't mention he was born in (Y)," then read the article, see that it does, and remove my own comment from the talk page before anyone else said, "Um, it does, didn't you see that?" or something similar where a comment or thread was started before a response, maybe, in some cases, I could see letting the person save face and remove the comment. But, once it gets a response, and becomes in effect a clear part of the history of the discussion, unless the comment itself contains wildly inappropriate aspersions on others or similar problematic content, it is a part of the history and there is no real reason to complicate reviewing the early discussions for someone else by removing potentially half of the conversation. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Removing Comments from others talk pages

It shows a "resolved" box for this issue under the discussion titled "Removal of old talk page entries, leaving orphaned replies.

This is not resolved at all. I have editors that agree with my stance and there are 2 editors that disagree, and one other editor who left inconsiderate and mindless remarks on the subject. Actually all editors made incorrect and inconsiderate remarks, calling my comments stupid and dismissing the importance of this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Despite Ent's closure of this discussion ReadTheGuidelines just reverted to delete his comments again, the 7th time he's tried to remove them in 3 days, so I don't think he's gotten the message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Another revert, and a report filed at WP:EWN. User also posted this comment on his talk page: "You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:CIVIL by user Trust Is All You Need

Recent post on my talk page by TIAYN contains highly improper language including "you don't know crap about what you're talking about" and the "F" word two times. His posts on user:JHunterJ's talk page also contain language abuses of similar manner - the "F" word [120]. In addition, TIYAN shows highly aggressive behavior in editing political-related and Syrian-related topics (like this and this). I don't think any explanation by myself would help him to improve his behavior.GreyShark (dibra) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop, but its because he is basing his arguments not on facts, but on his personal opinion.. For instance, there is no difference between "Corrective Revolution" and "Corrective Movement" but he seems to want to push his agenda onto the disputed article without logical reason. If he had based his arguments on actual, verifiable sources we would not have been in this mess. But ok, I will stop, but this attempt at nominating me is more an attempt to block me so that he can ensue his aims.. Why am I saying that? I haven't called him any of those words today, but now suddenly he's nominating me, that's a little bit suspicious.. Anyhow, sorry, I will stop. I am a constructive editor with a bad temper, especially when I meet an editor such as Greyshark09. Sorry. There is currently a move discussion at the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution article, please feel free to join, it would help to solve our conflict.

But regarding the issue on Single-party state, that is am article, not a list, so why have a huge list in it? its seems, well, wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• GreyShark, such "highly improper language" as you link to is no model of politeness, but I'm afraid it's pretty common on talkpages, and not a reason for admin action. Looking at the links you provide to show "highly aggressive behavior", they link to entire article histories, and nothing aggressive jumps out from merely looking at those histories. Please supply diffs for some putatively aggressive edits by Trust Is All You Need if you want us to look at their editing. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

TweetiePie1947/Garrejones44444777

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

---

Garrejones44444777] has been editing Person to Bunny to state that this animated short was "originally cancelled," but usually does not provide any references for this claim, and regularly changes or removes the one reference giving an actual release date. (In some edits the user used minutes-old forum posts as sources; presumably these were posted by the same user.)

Based on similar editing patterns, I believe that is a sockpuppet of User:TweetiePie1947, who has created several socks to make identical edits

Numerous attempts have been made to contact the user, with no result. Could someone look into this user's edits? Trivialist (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I think there's an SPI somewhere, isn't there? Perhaps you can add this and ask for a CU to have a look? Drmies (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Winston S Smith

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

---

Winston S Smith (talk · contribs) is a racist troll. I'd block him myself, but I've become involved in the situation. Can an uninvolved administrator please review Mr. Smith's contributions and take appropriate action? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some have called me racist but I just call it an alternative perspective. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to represent a neutral point of view and not one particular ideology? Is it acceptable to ban users for ideological reasons? As for being a troll, I have always tried my best to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to do so in the future. Winston S Smith (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what you call your perspective. Your behavior is disruptive. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I agree with Malik. This user has done nothing recently but complain about perceived slights and promote racism rhetoric on talk pages. They also insist Jews are a "dominant majority" and repeat typical antisemitic claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some specific examples would be good. I found this at a cursory glance, but I'm not sure if that's worthy of a block. equazcion� 04:31, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I did think this stuff worthy of an indefinite block, if only to "enforce Zionist ideological control over Wikipedia". Thanks Malik. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

198.189.184.243 violating topic ban

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

User has been banned from fringe science, yet continues posting. Probably these (among many) count as well: [121][122][123]. User replies to the same thread the user started, with the same style of voluminous posts that dump URLs and quotes. vzaak (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin not being helpful

Hello. Hopefully this is the correct forum to raise this concern.

Background

I raised this edit war issue at 3RR. During this issue I was requested to respond to the incident I'd logged. I posted on the admin's talkpage to notify them of this and got an unfriendly reply "Last chance, Lugnuts". The outcome of the 3RR was that I was told I was in breach of 3RR and not to edit the article in question for 7 days. I agreed to this, but had a follow-up question with the admin in question about the 7 days element.

From this thread on their talkpage, I asked in a civil manner if the admin could update the article in question with some sourced info, as I can not, believing this to be a reasonable request. This was met with a no (which I'm fine with), but I wanted further clarification of the 7 day element, which resulted in the unhelpful response of I have nothing more to say about this except that if you violate the agreement, I'll block you. I've continued to ask the admin to link me to the policy about imposing a random timespan on being able to edit an article, but I've been ignored.

WP:ADMINACCT states "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct" and there's a bullet point below this about failure to communicate.

All I'm asking is more info on the length of a random timespan that's imposed on an article following 3RR. Can anyone help? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sensible move by Bbb23. Your edit request to Bbb23 looks like trying to sucker them into being involved in the article so that they can't take any further admin action against you. If they'd aquiesced to your edit request, there would be no way for them to enforce the 7 day time frame on you. AFAIK, there is no policy stating that an admin can drop a time window to prevent an editor editing, except by mutual agreement. Voluntary topic bans are an example. It was a "something for something" exchange. You don't edit for 7 days, you don't get blocked. I'd say that was pretty clear. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius editing Ireland related artices against consensus

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#WP:IRE-IRL_and_piped_links where they are changing pipe links to the name of the linked article rather than the text that appears. Pipe links are used for a purpose, bots shouldn't change thee text without thought whatever about removing a link. That they then go on arguing that WP:IMOS is wrong is I think over the top. If they want to change that they should set up a section and debate it but until then they should accept it. I do not believe they are fit to run a bot with an attitude like that. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)